The Debate over Bilingual Education

What is this about:
In the articles "Aria" by Richard Rodriguez and "Teaching Multilingual Children" by Virginia Collier we see two very different viewpoints. When I initially read Rodriguez's essay, I felt a little uncertain of his argument. At first it sounded like he was against bilingual education, On page 34 he says: "What I needed to learn in school was that I had the right--and the obligation--to speak the public language of los gringos." On page 35 Rodriguez speaks positively of the nuns who talked with his parents: "With great tact the visitors continued, 'Is it possible for you and your husband to encourage your children to practice their English when they are at home?' of course my parents complied."

Then I read how he described the painful process of developing a "new quiet at home." He writes of "not knowing what words to use in addressing his parents, and of he and his siblings gradually sharing fewer and fewer words with his parents." (p.37) Then on page 38 he writes: "I would have been happier about my public success had I not sometimes recalled what it had been like earlier, when my family had conveyed its intimacy through a set of conveniently private sounds." After reading this I began to wonder if he was using irony but then at the end of the article he restates his argument.

He says, "Today I hear bilingual educators say that children lose a degree of 'individuality' by becoming assimilated into public society....But the bilingualists simplistically scorn the value and necessity of assimilation. They do not seem to realize that there are two ways a person is individualized...while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated...such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality.

Rodriguez is arguing that if bilingual children learn the public language of the culture of power they can become assimilated into society and achieve success in the "public" society. He is arguing that is better to gain public individuality then retain private individuality. In some ways this is similar to Delpit's position on page 25 of the Silenced Dialogue that "If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier." However, Rodriguez appears to be advocating assimilation into the culture of power rather then just teaching students the codes and rules of that culture.

So What:
I think Rodriguez has lived through a painful dilemma that many immigrants experience. They may feel a need to choose between "public" and "private" individuality (Rodriguez p.38). Some students may experience peer pressure or family pressures if they or their families seek to assimilate into the "American melting pot." This discussion is significant because of the pain that many immigrants feel when they attempt to assimilate into American culture and the oppression they often experience whether or not they seek to assimilate into the culture of power.

Now What: Rodriguez is advocating for the assimilation of immigrants into public society. He implies that assimilation is a necessity: "But the bilingualists simplistically scorn the value and necessity of assimilation. They do not seem to realize that there are two ways a person is individualized...becoming assimilated into public society,such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality." It appears that he is an advocate of immersion in English similar to his personal experience as a young boy.

I know two brothers who are students at UMass Dartmouth that moved here from the Azores when they were young. At a campus ministry event we hosted in April my wife discussed with them their own language dilemma. Their parents want them to speak English at home so they can improve their English and the brothers want to speak Portugese at home to continue to identify with their culture.

I don't really know how I feel about bilingual education. I do think that bilingual students need to learn English and the "codes and rules" of the culture of power to have a good opportunity for success in American society. However, I agree with Delpit that we need to value and respect the diverse cultures and backgrounds of the students in American schools. Delpit said on page 30 of The Silenced Dialogue "And I do not advocate that it is the school's job to attempt to change the homes of poor and nonwhite children to match the homes of those in the culture of power. That may indeed be a form of cultural genocide."

I don't know if the nuns who spoke with Rodriguez's parents overstepped their bounds by encouraging the use of English in the home or not. What do you think? Maybe this would make a good classroom discussion or possibly sidetrack us from one.

What:
In the article Teaching Multilingual Children Virginia Collier is arguing for teaching skills in the primary language of students rather then in English. On page 233 she cites research showing that "most successful long-term academic achievement occurs where the students' primary language is the initial language of literacy...Once a child becomes literate in the home language, literacy skills swiftly transfer to second language settings."

So What:
Students who are immigrants are put at a serious disadvantage when they are placed in an English speaking class to learn literacy skills and other principles useful for their education. On page 233 Ms. Collier mentions that
"Sadly, the worst option is too often the only one offered to immigrant students. This occurs in spite of the research literature, which speaks with one voice: To dismiss the home language in literacy development instantly places immigrant children at risk. This risk does not recede over time but accumulates."

It does seem intuitive that it would be easier for students to learn literacy and other learning skills in their primary language rather then trying to focus on both learning how to learn and learning a new language at the same time. However, with the variety of languages that immigrant students know, and the budget challenges of inner city schools where these students are most likely to attend it is no wonder that the worst option is often the only one offered. I am sure there are other factors that could contribute to the tendency to teach in English. For example, there is probably a lack of teachers who are able to teach these skills in the varied languages of immigrant students. I think there is also a tendency for many privileged Americans of the culture of power to disapprove of teaching basic learning skills in any language other than English.

Now What:
On page 233 Ms. Collier states that:
"The 'most successful long-term academic achievement occurs where the students primary language is the initial language of literacy'. First at the early stages of instruction, using the home language for literacy builds the self-worth of language minority students. Further, literacy research states that first language literacy favorably influences subsequent second language literacy. Once a child becomes literate in the home language, literacy skills swiftly transfer to second language settings."

It appears that Ms. Collier is recommending some significant changes in our education system that would help immigrant students get the benefits of literacy instruction in their primary language. I think this would be very beneficial for immigrant children and could probably be done without significant complication for spanish speaking students in most urban areas. However, I think it will be very difficult for municipalities to make this type of bilingual education available to most other language groups represented in our schools.