language minorities developing multiple literacies
Post on 09-Jan-2022
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteraciesAdditiveBilingualEducationandTransformativePedagogy
MargaritaAcosta
2
Abstract
ThisthesisexploresissuesofacademicachievementinSpanishspeaking
linguisticminoritiesintheUnitedStates.Itarguesfortheimplementationof
pedagogythatdevelopsnotonlyEnglishlanguageandliteracyskillsbutalsostrives
todeveloplanguageandliteracyskillsinSpanish.Thisargumentisinlightofthe
vastamountofresearchthathasfoundthathomelanguageliteracyisanecessary
prerequisiteforeffectivesecondlanguageandliteracyacquisition(Beykont1994,
Collier1987,Cummins200,Ovando&Collier1998,Stong&Prinz2000).Currently,
schoolsystemsdonothaveeducationalresourcesinplace,manytimesbecauseof
legislationthatprohibitsit,thatwouldallowforthelargeandgrowingpercentageof
ourstudentpopulationoflinguisticminoritiestodeveloptheirhomelanguage.This
failuretoimplementtheoreticallysoundeducationalprogramsforlinguistic
minoritieshashadhorrificimplicationsfortheacademicachievementandschool
retentionratesforstudentsofLatinAmericandescent.AlmostoneinthreeLatino
studentsdropsoutofhighschool(USDepartmentofEducation2003)comparedto
13%ofAfricanAmericansand7%ofwhitestudents.Thispaperprovidesan
overviewofthehistoryofoppressionofculturalandlinguisticminorities,shedding
lightonsomeoftheunderlyingraciallyprejudicedbeliefsthathavecontributedto
systematicoppression.Italsoproblematizessomecommonideasofwhatitmeans
tobeliterateandbiliterateinoursocietyandsuggestabetterworkingdefinitionof
theterms.Includedisadiscussionofsomeofthemodelsofbilingualeducationand
whysomearelesseffectiveaswellaslesssociallyjustthanothers.Mostimportant
istheargumentthateducationshouldnotaimtosimplyreproducethesocietal
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 3
3
structuresofpower,butthatitshouldworktocooperativelyengagestudentsand
teachersinadialogueforsocietalchange.Byexploringanddevelopingmultiple
literaciesinschools,notonlyarestudents’languageslegitimatedbutsoaretheir
ownpersonalidentities.Bydoingthis,theeducationaloutcomesoflanguage
minoritystudentscanbeimprovedandinturnthefutureofthisnationandthe
worldcanexpectamuchbrighterfuture.
4
Privilege
Ihavebeenprivileged.IhavebeenprivilegedbecausesincethedayIwasborn,
Ihavebeenbilingual.Idon’tmeantosaythatIenteredtheworldalreadyableholda
conversationintwolanguages.Everyoneknowsthatnewbornbabiescan’tproduceor
understandlanguage;youdon’thavetobealinguisttoknowthat.WhatImeanisthat
onthatautumndayinahospitalnearthenation’scapital,Ienterednotjustoneworld
fullofopportunitiesforexpression,buttwo.Iwasprivilegedbecausemyparentswere
linguisticallyenlightenedenoughtoknowthatspeakingtomeinbothoftheirnative
languageswouldopenupdoorsofopportunityforme.Fromthestart,myfather,a
noble,charismaticmanfromElSalvador,spokewithmeprimarilyinSpanishandmy
mother,astrong,intelligentwomanfromaEuropeanAmericanbackgroundspoke
withmeprimarilyinEnglish.Theirchoicetoraisemeintwolanguageswasnotjust
becausetheyknewthatbilingualismhadcognitiveanddevelopmentalbenefits,itwas
alsobecausetheyknewIwouldneedthembothforsurvival.Iwas,afterall,apartof
twodifferentworlds;twoculturalbackgrounds(ormaybeevenmore),eachwithits
ownsetofvaluablelinguistictools.
WhenIwasfour,wemovedtoElSalvador.Childrentendtolearnwhatis
meaningfultothemandduringthetimewespentinElSalvador,Englishwasnotas
meaningfultomeasSpanishwas,becausenowIwaslivinginaSpanishspeaking
world.IwasmuchmorewillingtospeakinSpanishandsomymotherhadtocreate
incentivesformetousemyEnglish.IfIwantedacookieorhelpgettingsomething
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 5
5
downfromahighplace,IhadtoaskforitinEnglish.Shewouldpretendnotto
understandmeotherwise.ForhermakingmeaningformeIwasprivileged.
AttheInternationalSchool,wherestudentscamefromallovertheworld,we
learnedhowtoreadinSpanishfirst.TheyfiguredSpanishwouldbeabetterstarting
blockforliteracyskillstobedevelopedbecauseitisphoneticallylesscomplex.My
parentscontinuedtoreadtomeinEnglishathome,andeventually,Iappliedthe
decipheringskillsIhadpickedupinschooltotheEnglishwordswrittenonthepages
ofthebooks,evenbeforetheyintroducedreadinginEnglishatmyschool.For
developingliteraciesinmultiplecontexts,Iwasprivileged.
Still,Spanishwasgenerallymoreimportantsociallyduringthistimeinmylife.
IspokeSpanishwithmostofthekidsinmyclassbecauseitwasthefirstlanguageof
themajority.IspokeSpanishwiththewomenwhotookcareofme,withmylittle
sister,mydad,myaunts,unclesandcousinsandwiththepeopleIinteractedwithon
thestreet.Idon’tthinkIlikedspeakingEnglishinpublicplacesbecauseitlabeledme
asanoutsider.IalreadyfeltfartoodifferentbecauseIhavethesamefairskinasmy
motherinsteadofmyfather’schocolatecomplexionthatismoretypicalof
Salvadorans.Still,Iwasprivileged.IwasprivilegedbecauseIwaslearningboth
languagesinschoolaswellasathome.
MymotherrecallsthataftermovingbacktotheUnitedStates,ittooknomore
thanaweekformysisterandmetoswitchfromplayingtogetherinSpanishtoplaying
inEnglish.Wecaughtonquicklytothesocialnormsofthecontextinwhichwewere
living,andwehadthelinguisticskillstoeasilytransitionfromonelanguagetothe
6
other.Wewereprivilegedbecausewehadverylittletroubleadjustingtoanewschool.
Ithinktheotherstudentsinmynewfourthgradeclasswereinitiallybaffledbyideaof
anewstudentwhojustarrivedfromaLatinAmericancountrybeingabletospeak
Englishperfectlywellandwithouttheexpectedaccent.
Someoftheotherstudentsinmynewclasswerealsoeitherfirstorsecond
generationimmigrantsfromLatinAmerica.Andtheywereprivilegedtoo,becauseour
classwasaTwoWaySpanishImmersionclassandtheywerelearningbothEnglish
andSpanishlanguageandliteracyskills.Theywereprivilegedbecausethelanguage
theyspokeathomewasbeingvaluedinschool.Theywereprivilegedbecausetheyhad
accesstounderstandingthroughtwolanguages.EvenifwewerestudyingtheCivil
WarduringourEnglishSocialStudiesperiod,itwasnotdiscouragedtouseSpanishto
askquestions.TheywerealsoprivilegedbecausetheyprobablylearnedEnglishmuch
fasterthaniftheyhadn’talsobeenlearningSpanishinschool.Theyweredefinitely
privilegedthattheyatleasthadthatbecausemostchildrenwhospeakSpanishat
homeinthiscountrydonothavethesameopportunitytodeveloptheirhome
languageinschool.
Lookingbackthough,Iwasstillmoreprivilegedthantheywere.Iwasmore
privilegedbecausemostofthemonlyhadonelanguageathomeandnotonlywasit
thelanguagethatwaslessvaluedinoursocietyatlarge,itwasalsooftennotthesame
Spanishthatwasvaluedatthisparticularschool.MostofthekidsfromLatin
Americanfamiliestendedtobefromlowerincomefamiliesthanthewhitekids.My
fatherwasanimmigrant,onewhohadbeenbornintopoverty,justlikemostoftheirs,
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 7
7
butthedifferenceisthathehadbeenabletogetacollegeeducation.Hewastheonly
oneofhistwelvebrothersandsisters;alltheoddswereagainsthim.Buthedidit,and
hebecameprivilegedoncehegainedaccesstothedominantstructuresoflanguage.
AndIwasprivilegedbecauseIhadaccesstosomeofthedominantstructuresof
languageathome,becauseofmymotherandmyfather.
LinguisticallyIwasdefinitelyprivileged,andontopofthat,Iwasalso
privilegedbecausenoonemadenegativeassumptionsaboutmyfamilyormefrom
lookingatthecolorofmyskin.Thefairskin,thatIhadoriginallyresentedbecauseit
markedmeasanoutsiderinElSalvador,nowhelpsmetoblendintothedominant
cultureintheU.S.whetherornotIwantto.
8
Introduction
Mythesisinthispaperisthatthedevelopmentoftwoormorelanguagesand
literaciesinaschoolsettinginwhichcriticalthinkingskillsarepromotedcan
supportthedevelopmentofamoresociallyjust,awareandbetter‐educated
citizenry.Inlightofalonghistoryofrepressionoflanguageandculturalminorities
andofthebreadthofresearchadvocatingschoolstobecomemoreculturallyand
linguisticallyresponsive,Iwritethispapertoadvocateformoreschoolsto
implementenrichmentbilingualprogramsthataredesignedbasedontheoretically
soundfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.Istartbysummarizingsome
ofthehistoryofoppressionofculturalandlinguisticminorities,sheddinglighton
someoftheunderlyingraciallyprejudicedbeliefsthathavecontributedto
systematicoppression.Icontinuebyproblmematizingcommonideasofwhatit
meanstobeliterateandbiliterateinoursocietyandsuggestabetterworking
definitionoftheterms.Next,Idiscusswhatsomeofthemodelsofbilingual
educationareandwhysomearelesseffectiveandsociallyjustthanothers.Isuggest
thatthemostadvantageouswaytoeducatelanguageminoritystudentsisthrougha
programthatdevelopsandlegitimatesbothoftheirlanguagesaswellasengages
theminaconversationaboutpowerstructuresinsociety.
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 9
9
SocioPoliticalContext
Alargeandgrowingnumberofstudentsinourpublicschoolscomefrom
homeswhereEnglishisnottheprimarylanguage.A2007reportreleasedby
Congressfoundthat10%ofthetotalstudentpopulationisdeemedLimitedEnglish
proficient(LEP)intheUnitedStates.Ofthat10%,75%comefromhomeswhere
Spanishistheprimarylanguageofinteraction(USCongress,2007).Sofar,our
schoolsarefailingmiserablyateducatingourLanguageMinorityStudent(LMS)
populationsandtherepercussionsforallofusareenormous.In2000,28%of
Latinosdroppedoutofhighschool,comparedto13%ofAfricanAmericansand7%
ofwhitestudents(USDepartmentofEducation2003).“Everydropoutcarriesa
hugepricetagforthesociety:thesestudents’potentialtocontributetothe
economicandsocialwell‐beingoftheirsocietyisnotrealized,thereareincreased
costsforsocialservicesrangingfromwelfaretoincarceration,andtaxrevenuesthat
theymighthavegeneratedarelost.”(Cummins2000:240)Inrecentyears,
researchersinthefieldofBilingualEducationhavestronglyrecommendedthat
moreprogramsfocusingonmulticulturalandbilingualeducationhavethepotential
toreversetheunfavorableeducationaloutcomesofLanguageMinorities.
Unfortunately,bilingualeducationcontinuestofaceagreatdealofresistance
becauseofacombinationofmisinformationandtheviewthatmaintainingone’s
nativelanguageisinherently“un‐American”.
Onesuchbarriertoeffectiveimplementationofappropriatebilingual
programsisthe1998passingofProposition227inCalifornia.Thelaweliminated
10
theuse,withveryfewexceptions,ofstudent’shomelanguageforinstructional
purposes(Ovando&Collier1998).Asaconsequenceofsuchlegislation,only42
percentoftheEnglishLanguageLearners(ELLs)inCaliforniawhowerenot
proficientin1998weredeemedproficientinEnglishfiveyearslater(Bartolome&
Leistyna,2006).EvenbeforethepassingofProposition227,70%ofELLsinthe
statewerenotreceivinganylinguisticsupportatallandthemajorityoftheother
30%werereceivingsupportmostlythroughtransitionalbilingualeducation
programsthatmadeuseofstudentshomelanguagesonlyaslongastheydeemed
necessary(usuallybetweenonetothreeyears)beforemovingthemintothe
mainstreamEnglish‐onlyclassrooms(Cummins2000).
LawssuchasProposition227inCaliforniathatbannedbilingualeducation
werepasseddemocratically,withamajorityofvotersfavoringadelegitimationof
the“other”inoursociety.Includedinthatmajoritywerelinguisticminorities
themselves.Interestingly,immigrantfamiliesarefrequentlythefirstonestostand
upinoppositiontobilingualeducation.Itispossiblethatthisphenomenoncanbe
attributedtothefactthatimmigrantfamiliesdonotwishtomaintainastigmatized
socialstatus.Theysharethemainstreamsociety’sdesirefortheirgroup’s
assimilationbecausetheyseeitastheonlywayoutoftheircontinuedsystematic
oppression.Attainingthe“AmericanDream,”forthemoftenmeansrejectingtheir
nativelanguageandcultureinfavorofthedominantone.Forthisreason,theywant
theirchildrentodevoteasmuchtimeandenergyaspossiblesolelytolearning
English,sothattheymighthavelifeopportunitiesthattheparentsweredenied.Itis
understandableforfamiliestowanttheirchildrentolearnEnglishsinceitisthe
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 11
11
languagethatopensdoorsofopportunityinthiscountry.Havingaccesstothe
discoursesofpowerofsocietyiswhatfacilitatestheacquisitionofeconomic
stabilitythroughsocialandprofessionalnetworks.Itisnotsurprisingthen,thata
greatdealofLatinAmericanimmigrantfamilies,donotseeitasimperativetospend
timeinschooldevelopingSpanishlanguageandliteracyskills.
Thephenomenonofbuyingintotherejectionoftheirownlanguageand
cultureimpliesthattherearetwoequallyproblematicforcesactingatthesametime
onthoseinoppositionofbilingualeducation.Thefirstisaninternalizationofthe
coerciverelationsofpowerbetweenthedominantsocialgroupsandtheoppressed
ones.Amajorityofthemembersofsocietycontinuetobuyintotheideathatsome
groupsshouldholdmorepowerinsocietythanothers,ratherthanquestioningthe
unequaldistributionofpoweritself.Thedominantpopulationimposesitscultural
beliefsontherestofsocietyandsendsthemessagethatthosewhodonotadoptthe
samesocial,culturalandlinguisticnormsasthoseinpoweraresomehowless
valuable.Thesecondpowerfulforceisthespreadofinaccurateinformationabout
effectiveeducationalpracticesforlanguageminorities.Manyeducatorsandpolicy
makerscontinuetomaintainthesemisguidedbeliefsaboutbilingualeducation.
Insteadofquestioningtheirunderlyingbeliefs,manyhavecometoexpectfailure
fromlanguageandculturalminorities,blamingtheirlackofsuccessonlackof
motivation,lackofparentalinvolvementorlackofintelligence(Gillanders&
Jimenez2004).
12
Cumminsarguesthatsimplylabelingpeopleas“racist”or“oppressive”is
workingagainstthepossibilityunderstandinganddialogue(Cummins2000).
Aimingtogainabetterunderstandingofwhypeoplefeelthreatenedbythe
prospectsofbilingualeducationismuchmoreconstructive.Cumminsidentifies
threekeymisguidedbeliefsamongopponentsofbilingualeducationthatare
contributingtothecontinuingmiseducationofELLs.Thefirstoneisthemaximum
exposureortimeontaskhypothesis.Manyparentsandeducatorsbelievethatthe
mosteffectivewayfortheirchildrentolearnEnglishisbyimmersingtheminthe
languageforthemostamountoftimepossible.Thishypothesisimpliesthattime
spentdevelopingtheirnativelanguageisactuallycounteractingthedesired
outcomeofEnglishacquisition.ThesecondcommonassumptionisthatELLscan
learnsufficientacademicEnglishwithinonetothreeyearsofESLsupportbefore
beingtransitionedintoamainstreamclassroomwithoutlinguisticsupport.This
assumesthatjustbecausetheyhaveenoughEnglishforbasicsurvival,thattheywill
alsohaveenoughEnglishtosucceedacademicallyinschool.Thethirdbeliefisthat
theyoungerstudentsareexposedtototalEnglishimmersion,thebetter,because
youngerstudentsarebetterlanguagelearnersthanolderstudents.Yetanother
objectiontotheimplementationofbilingualeducationprogramsisthattheyhave
thepotentialtofurthersegregatelanguageminoritiesfromtherestofthestudent
population.Thesemisguidedbeliefswillbefurtherdeconstructedintheremainder
ofthispaper.
Socialstigmasandexpectationshavehadanenormouseffectonthe
educationaloutcomesofcertainsocialgroups.Ogbucallsstigmatizedsocialgroups
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 13
13
Castelikeorinvoluntaryminorities(Ogbu1987).Thesearegroupsthathavebeen
broughtherebyforcesuchasthedescendantsofenslavedAfricans,takenoverby
forcesuchastheNativeAmericansorforcedherebypoliticaloreconomicstrifein
theirhomecountrieslikemanymorerecentLatinAmericanimmigrants.Although
Ogbu’sdistinctionbetweensubordinatedanddominantgroupsmaybeover
simplified,itisusefulformakingsenseofhowsomeimmigrantgroupshavebeen
moresuccessfulthanothers.Henotesthatthegroupsthathavehadtheopportunity
tomakeamoreconsciousdecisiontocometotheUnitedStatearemoreable
succeedinmainstreamsociety,whereasinvoluntaryminoritiesaresystematically
excludedfrombecomingfullyfunctional.Voluntaryminoritiesoftenlookracially
morelikethedominantsocietyandareabletoassimilatemoreeasilywithina
coupleofgenerationsand/orcomeintosocietyalreadywithsomeofthecultural,
socialandlinguisticskillsnecessaryforactiveparticipationinadesirablesectionof
theworkforce.Involuntaryminoritygroupshavebeenhistoricallyexploitedand
strippedoftheirnativelanguagesandculturesbyonlybeingofferedsegregated,
second‐rateschooling.Theyaretoldthattheskillsandknowledgethattheybring
aresomehowlessvaluablethatthoseofthedominantgroupsandtherefore
unworthyofbeingtaughtinschools.Whatourschoolingsystemiseffectivelydoing
isstripingthemoftheskillsthattheycameinwithandthenofferingtheman
educationthatdoesnottrulyofteachthemtheskillsnecessarytosucceedinthe
dominantculture.“Suchadeskillingprocessinwhichpeoplearerenderedsemi‐
literateinbothlanguageseffectivelyworkstodenythemaccesstothemainstream
whilesimultaneouslytakingawayessentialtoolsthatcanbeusedtobuildthe
14
culturalsolidaritynecessarytoresistexploitationanddemocratizeandtransform
society(Bartolome&Leistyna,2006:3)”OfferingLanguageMinoritystudentsan
unsatisfactoryeducationisnotonlyholdingthemback,butalsoholdingbackthe
possibilityofatrulydemocraticnationofcitizens.Toachieveatrulydemocratic
nation,weneedtoeducateoutcitizenstobeactiveparticipantsandresponsible
thinkers.Failingtodevelopnativelanguagesinlinguisticminoritieshasnegative
implicationsforcognitiveabilities(Cummins2000),andthereforelinguistic
minoritiesfromtheirpotentialtoparticipatefullyinourdemocraticsociety.
Thiscountryisanationofimmigrants.AsidefromtheNativeAmericans,who
wererobbedoftheirvoicewiththearrivalofthefirstEuropeans,everyoneisthe
descendantofanimmigrantwithinrecentgenealogicalhistory.Sincetheendofthe
nineteenthcentury,thestatueoflibertyhasstoodasasymbolofwelcometonew
Americans:“criesshewithsilentlips.‘Givemeyourtired,yourpoor,yourhuddled
massesyearningtobreathefree…’”(Lazarus1883)Thepoemfailstocommunicate
theexpectationoftotalassimilationthatwasandremainsthecommonrealityfor
immigrantswhowishtosucceedinthiscountry.Formostimmigrantsaroundthe
turnofthenineteenthcentury,homelanguageswereeverythingbutforgottenby
thesecondgenerationofAmericans(Freeman1998).
Onesuchargumentamongthoseinoppositiontobilingualeducationisthat
theirgrandparentsorgreatgrandparentswereabletomakeitinthiscountry
withoutbilingualeducation,andsothemorerecentimmigrantsshouldbeabletoo
aswell.Notonlydoesthisnottakeintoaccountthecomplexitiesofthedifferences
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 15
15
betweentheearlierimmigrantpopulationsandthemorerecentones,buttheyare
alsoforgettingthatformanyearlyimmigrantsbilingualeducationwasinfact
available.Bilingualschoolswereverymuchapresenceintheearlyhistoryofthis
country,withsmallpocketsoflinguisticgroupsalloverthenation.Bilingualpublic
andprivateschoolsexistedinGerman,Swedish,Norwegian,Danish,Dutch,Polish,
Italian,Czech,FrenchandSpanishacrossagreatnumberofstates(Ovando&
Collier,1998).Itwasn’tuntiltheearly1900s,whentherewasasuddeninfluxof
newimmigrantstotheUnitedStatesthatbilingualeducationbegantofalloutof
favor.Atthatpoint,thefocusofpublicschoolingbecamethe“Americanization”of
thenewimmigrantsbystrippingthemoftheirhomelanguagesandculturesas
quicklyaspossibleintoanewassimilated,monolingualwayoflife.Prejudice was a
major factor in the desire to keep citizens who were different from having access to
bilingual education. At the turn of the 20th century, the most common bilingual schools in
the US were German-English. This particular language was so widespread, in fact, that
4% of all elementary aged students at the time attended a bilingual German English
school (Rethinking Schools Spring 1998). Unfortunately, after the beginning of WWI,
anti-German feelings were so prevalent in the country that all bilingual schools were
completely wiped out (Wiley 1998, Wittkey 1936). InstructionforEnglishLanguage
LearnersafterWWIconsistedofa“sinkorswim”approachtermedSubmersion.
Until1968,allELLswereplacedinmainstreamclassroomswithoutanylinguistic
supportandexpectedtokeepupacademicallywiththeirnativeEnglishspeaking
peers.(BikleBillings&Hakuta2004).The results of adopting a “sink or swim” method
16
for educating ELLs were disastrous in terms of academic achievement (Ovando &
Collier, 1998).
In response to the failing outcomes of the “sink or swim” approach and in the
wave of the civil rights movement, Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-TX) sponsored the
Bilingual Education Act in 1968 (Ovando & Collier 1998). The Bilingual Act of 1968
became Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a centerpiece on the
War on Poverty. The intent by the authors of the Act was to “emphasize the advantages
to the nation of developing students’ bilingualism/ biculturalism, resulting in increased
academic achievement and bilingual resources for the United States (Ovando & Collier
1998: 40)”, the ultimate policy result of the act however, was to merely fund programs
that focused on compensatory and remedial education for ELLs such as transitional
programs that exited them out of a linguistically supportive environment as soon as
possible. There are other program types for ELLs that are non-bilingual in nature such as
pull-out ESL and Sheltered English Instruction (Freeman 1998) that are beyond the scope
of this paper but also important for the appropriate implementation of educational
programs for ELLs because even without the explicit presence of a bilingual program,
transformative pedagogy, which will be discussed later on in this paper, can be utilized
within a classroom setting to have positive effects on academic achievement.
In 1974 Kenny Lau filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School
District because of they were still providing ELLs with an inferior education (Ovando &
Collier 1998). Although The supreme court ruled in favor of Lau, concluding that “there
is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities,
textbooks, teachers, and curriculum,” (Lau v. Nichols, 1974: 26) the supreme court still
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 17
17
did not specify how exactly schools were to modify their instruction in order to meet the
needs of English Language Learners. Bilingual education since then has not mandated by
the federal government, but the Bilingual Education Act does require that LEP students
be given an equal opportunity of education. The office for Civil Rights use three criteria
to determine whether the goal is actually being met. An equal opportunity education must
have “Research‐basedprogramsthatareviewedastheoreticallysoundbyexpertsin
thefield;adequateresources‐‐suchasstaff,training,andmaterials‐‐toimplement
theprogram;andStandardsandprocedurestoevaluatetheprogramanda
continuingobligationtomodifyaprogramthatfailstoproduceresults.”(Rethinking
Schools Spring 1998). The Federal law clearly states that an equal opportunity education
must be based on theoretically sound evidence. California Proposition 227, as well as
other similar laws, are in violation of the Federal Law because denying access to
bilingual education programs to Language Minorities, as will be spelled out in the
remained of this paper, is by no means “theoretically sound”. An understanding of what it
means for a program to be “theoretically sound” is a complex endeavor, but a good
starting point is to look at the research that has been done on the cognitive and academic
benefits for students who are bilingual and biliterate.
WhatisBiliteracy?
Evenbeforewecancometoanunderstandingofwhatbiliteracymeans,we
havetounderstandwhatitmeanstobeliterate.Geemakesausefulpointinsaying
thatliteracyismuchmorethanjustreadingandwriting.Hearguesthatliteracyis
embeddedinamuchlargerpoliticalentity(Gee1989asseeninDelpit1993).
18
Namely,thatindividualsacquire“identitytoolkits”,orsetsofwaystoconduct
themselvesthatcorrespondtovarioussociallyconstructedenvironments.Hecalls
each“identitytoolkit”adiscourse.Moreprecisely,hedefinesdiscourseas“asocially
acceptedassociationamongwaysofusinglanguage,ofthinking,andactingthatcan
beusedtoidentifyoneselfasamemberofasociallymeaningfulgroupor‘social
network.’”(Gee1987:51)Hefurtherdistinguishesthatprimarydiscoursesare
thoseutilizedinthehome,whilesecondarydiscoursesarethoseutilizedinsocial
institutionsbeyondthefamilysuchasinschoolorspecificworkplaces.Resnick
(1990)arguesthattheroleofeducationtherefore,istointroducestudentsintoa
communityof“literacypracticers”.
Inanethnographicstudyofthreeneighboringbutseparatecommunities‐‐
Roadville(working‐classblack),Trackton(working‐classwhite)andthetowns
people(middleclassbothblackandwhite),Heathfoundthatthereasonwhymiddle
classchildrenweremoresuccessfulthanchildrenfromworkingclasscommunities
wasbecauseaspectsofmiddleclassstudents’primarydiscourseweremorereadily
alignedwiththesecondarydiscourseofschool.Ineachdiscoursecommunity,
differentlinguisticaspectswerevaluedanddevelopeddifferently.Totakean
exampleofthisbeingarticulatedfromthetext:“ForRoadville,thewrittenword
limitsalternativesofexpression;inTrackton,itopensalternatives.[But]neither
community’swayswiththewrittenwordpreparesitfortheschool’sways”(Heath
1983:235)Heathconcludesthatraisingawarenessofthedifferencesbetween
primarydiscoursesamongeducatorsisthekeytoallowingworkingclassand
minoritycommunitiestoaccessthepowerfuldiscourses.Teachersmustbecome
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 19
19
learnersoftheirstudents’linguisticandculturalbackgroundsinordertohelpthem
understandandvaluethediscoursesthattheybringtotheclassroom.Onlyby
validatingstudents’alreadyacquired“identitytoolkits”canteacherseffectively
introducestudentstothemorepowerfulcommunitiesof“literacypracticers.”
Failingtodosocanraiseasignificantaffectivefilterthatkeepsstudentsfrom
engagingwiththeclassroomcommunityandwiththeacademiccontent.
Hornbergerdefinesbiliteracyas“anyandallinstancesinwhich
communicationoccursintwo(ormore)languagesinoraroundwriting”(1990:35).
WithGee’sdistinctionbetweenprimaryandsecondarydiscoursesinmind,andfora
moreusefulworkingdefinitionforthepurposesofthispaper,Isuggesta
modificationtoHornberger’sdefinitionofbeingbiliteratetothefollowing:Anyand
allinstancesinwhichanindividualhasthecapacitytooperatethroughtwo(ormore)
secondarydiscoursesandalsounderstandtherelationshipbetweenone’sprimaryand
secondarydiscoursesenoughtobeabletotakeresponsibilityfortheirsocial
repercussions.Forexample,manyLatinAmericanfamiliesoftenusesomedegreeof
“Spanglish”asaprimarydiscourse,whereEnglishandSpanisharemixedtocreatea
newhybridizedlanguage.IncommunitieswhereEnglishandSpanishspeaking
worldsareoverlapped,thereareunwrittenconventionsabouthowtoappropriately
communicateinSpanglish,anddivergingfromtheperceivablymoreinformal
mannerofspeakingmightactuallydistancethespeakerfromthelinguistic
communitytowhichheorshebelongs.Inatraditionalacademicsetting,however,
Spanglishisnotconsideredanappropriatediscoursethroughwhichto
communicate.ASpanglishutterancesuchas“Mecomíelsanwich”[English:“Iatethe
20
sandwich”]isconsideredincorrectintheSpanishlanguagediscoursebecauseitis
unconventionaltoinsertAnglicizedwordssuchas“sanwich”intoanutterance.
MoreacceptablewouldbeeitheroftheSpanishwords“pan”or“bocadillo.”Instead
ofsimplycorrectingthestudent,andimplyingthattheirprimarydiscourseis
somehowinferior,ateachercouldbringattentiontohowlanguagecanbealteredto
makeitmorecontextappropriate.
Aimingtodevelopnotonebuttwosecondarydiscoursesinlanguage
minoritystudentsneedsthatmuchmoreofanacuteunderstandingofthe
complexitiesoflanguageandpower.Teachersneedtomoveawayfromtheviewof
non‐dominantdiscoursesassomethingthatmustbeeradicated,andinsteadbring
explicitattentiontothedifferencesbetweentheirprimaryandsecondary
discoursesandtheircurrentacceptableusesinvarioussocialcontexts.Teacherscan
alsobringawarenesstothefactthatstudentshavechoicestomakeastowhat
languageortypeoflanguagetouseinspecificcontexts,butthatthosechoicescome
withconsequences(positive,negativeorneutral)relatedtothestructuresof
societalpower.Oneoftheresponsibilitiesoftheteacher,therefore,shouldbeto
raiseasenseofresponsibilityforstudentuseofprimaryandsecondarydiscourses.
Hornbergeroffersaninterestingframeworkforunderstandingthe
relationshipbetweenpowerrelationsamongvariousdiscourses.Sheplaces
languagepracticesalongcontinuaoftraditionallymorepowerfulversus
traditionallylesspowerful(2003).Hornbergerarguesthatitjustsohappensthatin
thistimeinhistorycertainpointsonthecontinuaaredeemedmorevaluablethan
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 21
21
theothers,andthat“powervariesbetweensitesandcontextsandisexercised
throughforce,throughdiscourse,andthroughacquisitionofculturalandsymbolic
capital(Hornberger2003:39).”Forhistoricallysubjugatedlanguageminorities,for
example,homelanguagessitatthetraditionallylesspowerfulendofthecontinuum
andthedominantvarietyofEnglishsitsatthetraditionallymorepowerfulend.
Thesepoints,therefore,canbecalledtoquestionthrougheducationalpractice.
Literacydevelopmentforallstudentsmeansnotjustintroducingthemtothe
traditionallymorepowerfullanguagepractices,butalsopushingthemtocritically
examinethepowerstructuresoflanguageatlarge.InStreet’swords“for
educationalistsconcernedwith…power,thequestionisnot‘howcanafewgain
accesstoexistingpower,’nor‘howcanexistingpowerstructuresberesisted’,but
ratherhowcanpowerbetransformed.”(Street1996asquotedinHornberger2003:
39)
NotallBilingualEducationModelsareCreatedEqual
Oneofthethingsthatmostofthoseinoppositionandthoseadvocating
bilingualeducationcanagreeisthatallchildrenintheUnitedStatesshouldhavethe
opportunitytolearnEnglish.GainingaccesstothedominantdiscoursesinEnglishis
importantbecauseitiscurrentlythedominantlanguageintheUnitedStatesand
thereforethemeansthroughwhichtoaccessthedominantstructuresofpower.
However,acquisitionofdominantdiscoursesdoesnothavetobeandabsolutely
shouldnotbeattheexpenseofanyone’sculturalandlinguisticidentity.Thereis
alsonothinginherently“better”aboutEnglishasaculturaldiscourseotherthanthe
22
factthatitistheonethatiscurrentlypowerfulinoursociety.Whatisproblematic
aboutmanymodelsofeducationutilizedtoeducatelanguageminoritiesisthe
assumptionthatEnglish,asamediumfordiscourseissomehowsuperiortoany
otherlanguage.
WhereverasignificantpopulationofELLsfromalinguisticbackgroundis
presentinaschoolorschooldistrict,anadditivebilingualprogramshouldbe
createdtomeettheeducationalneedsofthosestudentsthatfocusesnotonlyon
rigorousacademiccontentbutalsoonachievingfullbilingualismandbiliteracy.
Onlybydoingthiscanlanguageminoritiesovercomethesystematicoppressionthat
hasbeenforcedonthemthroughoutthehistoryofourcountry.Furthermore,the
implementationoftransformativepedagogyinenrichmentbilingualprogramscan
alsobeoneofthemajorstepstowardssocialreformbyengagingbothminorityand
majoritylanguagespeakersinacriticaldialoguethatcanbringaboutgreater
understanding.
Prescribingaspecificprogramtypeisirrelevantbecauseprogramscanonly
becreatedwhiletakingintoaccountthespecificcontextinwhichitisbeingcreated.
Itisimpossibletoprescribeaspecificprogramtypebecauseschoolscanvarybythe
needsofthestudentpopulationinquestion,thetypesofteachersavailableandthe
relationshipoftheprogramtotherestoftheschool.Theycanalsovaryinwhether
nativeEnglishspeakerswillbeincorporatedintoaTwo‐Wayprogram(where
nativeSpanishspeakersandnativeEnglishspeakersaretaughttogetherand
throughbothlanguages),howlanguageswillbeallocatedamongspecificsubject
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 23
23
areas,andothers.Anappropriateprogramtypecan,however,onlybeeffectiveifit
aimsforadditivebilingualismratherthansubtractivebilingualism(Freeman1998).
Furthermore,adoptingtransformativepedagogicalmethodologiesalongwithan
additivebilingualmethodologycanbetransformationaloftheeducationaloutcomes
oflinguisticminorities.
Hornberger(1991)identifiesthreemaineducationalmodelsofbilingual
education.Itisimportanttodefineanddifferentiateenrichmentmodelsofbilingual
educationfromothermodelsbecauseallarenotcreatedequal;theirfoundational
language‐planninggoalsandideologicalorientationstowardlinguisticandcultural
diversityinsocietyvarygreatly,andthusalsogiverisetoverydifferentresults.
TransitionalModel MaintenanceModel EnrichmentModel
LanguageShift LanguageMaintenance LanguageDevelopmentCulturalAssimilation Strengthenedculturalidentity CulturalPluralismSocialIncorporation Civilrightsaffirmation SocialautonomyFigure1Bilingualeducationmodeltypes(Hornberger,1991:223)
SubtractiveBilingualism:TransitionalModels
TransitionalModelsarecurrentlythemostcommontypeofbilingual
programmodelmadeavailableforELLstolearnEnglish(Freeman1998).Most
commonly,programsaresetupinsuchawaythatstudentsaretaughtseparately
fromtherestoftheschoolforonetothreeyearstoreceivecontentinstructionin
theirnativelanguageaswellasEnglishasaSecondLanguage(ESL)beforebeing
requiredtoexittheprogramandjointheirnativeEnglishspeakingpeersinthe
mainstreamclassroom(Freeman1998).Althoughtheideaisthatstudentscanstay
24
caughtuponacademiccontentwhiletheyarelearning,transitionalmodelsassume
thatonetothreeyearsofESLsupportissufficientforstudentstobeabletoachieve
academicallyinthemainstreamEnglish‐onlyclassroom.Inastudyconductedby
Collier(1987)itwasfoundthatitactuallytakesfivetotenyearsforstudentswho
aretaughtexclusivelythroughEnglishtocatchupwiththeirEnglishspeakingpeers.
ConversationalEnglishmaybeacquiredatamuchfasterrate,butthelanguage
requiredtosucceedinanacademiccontexttakesmuchlongertoacquire(Collier
1987).Anotherunderlyingassumptionofthismodeltypeisthatthemore
classroomtimespentinEnglish,thebetterstudentswillbeabletoacquirethe
language(calledthemaximumexposureortimeontaskhypothesis).Anotherstudy
byBeykont(1994asseeninCummins2000)foundthatthemoredeveloped
students’readingabilitywasinSpanish,thegreaterprogressmadeinEnglish
readingabilitylateron.StudentswhohadtheirSpanishliteracyskillsdeveloped
ultimatelyperformedbetteronbothacademicsubjectmattersandinEnglish.A
greatdealofotherstudieshavebeendoneonotherlanguageswhosefindingswere
essentiallythesame.Asecondexample,consistentwithotherresearch,founda
strongcorrelationbetweenEnglishliteracyskillsandsigningskillsinAmericanSign
Language(ASL)(Strong & Prinz, 2000). The more a deaf student had been exposed to
development in sign language, the more likely they were to become successful readers of
the English language. Cummins(2000)suggeststhatthesestrongcorrelationsmay
beexplainedbythepresenceofalinguisticproficiencythreshold,meaningthat
studentsneedcontinueddevelopmentintwolanguagesandliteraciesinorderto
experiencethecognitive,linguisticandacademicbenefitsoffullbilingualismand
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 25
25
biliteracy.“Ifbeginning[secondlanguage]learnersdonotcontinuetodevelopboth
theirlanguages,anyinitialpositiveeffectsarelikelytobecounteractedbythe
negativeconsequencesofsubtractivebilingualism.”(Cummins2000:37)
Transitionalprogramstendtoviewnativelanguagesasaproblemthatmust
beovercomethroughremedialandoftenstigmatizedsegregatedclassrooms.This
programmodelisoftenreferredtoas“subtractivebilingualism”becausestudents
areexpectedtoforgettheirnativelanguageandcultureoncetheyhavewhatittakes
toassimilateintothedominantcommunity.Inmanyeducationalsettings,Language
Minoritiesarediscouragedandsometimesevenpunishedforusingtheirnative
languageintheclassroomorevenontheplayground.Transitionalbilingual
educationmodelsmighthavethegoodintentionofhelpingLanguageMinorities
succeedinsocietybyhelpingthemassimilate,butitisimportanttonotethatthis
subtractiveeducationalmodelhasbeenfoundtocontributeandnoteradicatethe
highdropoutrateofLatinostudents(Cummins2000).
LinguistBenjaminLeeWhorfbelievedthatthelanguagethatweuseis
directlylinkedtothewayweperceivetheworldandthatthehigherlevelthoughts
thatwearecapableofthinkingarepreconditionedbythelanguagethatwehaveat
ourdisposal(Whorf1956).Researchhastoldusthattheneglectofhomelanguage
developmentstumpsnotonlythatlanguagebutalsothepotentialfordevelopment
ofsuccessivelanguages(Beykont1994,Collier1987,Cummins200,Ovando&
Collier1998,Stong&Prinz2000,).Denyingstudentsoftheabilitytodeveloptheir
nativelanguageisthereforenotonlycuttingtieswitharichalternatesystemfor
26
lookingatandunderstandingtheworld,butitisalsolimitingthepossibilityof
higherorderthinkinginstudentswhosehomelanguageisnottheoneusedin
mainstreamsociety.
Thesystematicrepressionofhomelanguagesiscomparabletotheterrifying
dystopiansocietyfoundinOrwell’sNineteenEightyFour.Inthenovel,the
governmentgraduallycondensesthelanguageofthesocietyinordertoprevent
citizensfromhavingeventheslightestpossibilityofthinkingdisobedientor
rebelliousthoughts.Theyarepreventedfromhavingtheirownthoughtsbecause
theysimplydonothavethelanguagenecessaryforthinkingthem.Inthenovel,the
citizensaremaintainedinaconstantstateofconfusion,stuporandfearbyconstant
controlandmanipulationfromthegovernment.Ourpublicschoolsystemsare
exertingasimilarcontrolandmanipulationofhistoricallyoppressedsocialgroups
byforcingnewlyarrivedAmericanstobeashamedoftheirhomelanguagesand
culturesandatthesametimegenerallyonlyofferingthemandtheirdescendantsa
secondrateopportunityatadescenteducation.
ThecontinuationofineffectiveeducationalopportunitiesforourELLs
thereforeactstoeffectivelyreproducesocietalstructuresofoppressionand
impoverishment.ForELLstobeabletobreakoutofthepattern,wemustensure
thattheyareabletoeffectivelyacquireboththeirhomelanguagesandEnglishas
wellaskeepupwithacademiccontentneededtoopendoorstoabrighterfuture.In
ordertodothis,wemustceasetoperceiveELLs’languageandcultureasaproblem,
andopenoureyestotheplethoraofdiverseknowledge,experience,languageand
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 27
27
culturetheyarebringingtoourschools,andtooursocietyatlarge.Mostgreat
innovationshavecomefromindividualsthatwerewillingtothinkoutsidethebox.If
differentlanguagesarewhatWhorfcalled“differentpicturesoftheuniverse,”then
itwouldbebackwardsandhypocriticaltodevalueanyotherperspectivesofthe
worldthatcouldcontributetothecollectiveadvancementofthehumanrace.
AdditiveBilingualism:MaintenanceModels
Asecondmodelofbilingualeducationisthemaintenancemodel.
Maintenancemodelsencouragenativelanguagemaintenanceinordertostrengthen
culturalidentityandaffirmthecivilrightsoftheminoritylanguagespeakers
(Freeman1998).Liketransitionalprograms,maintenanceprogramsusually
segregatelanguageminoritystudentswithinaschool,butunliketransitional
programsstudentsareallottedmoretimetodeveloptheirhomelanguageand
literacyskills,grantingstudentsthecognitivebenefitsofhavingbothoftheir
languagesdeveloped.
MaintenanceprogramsaswellasEnrichmentprogramsareconsidered
“additivebilingualism”becausetheysupporttheadditionofasecondlanguageto
students’’linguisticrepertoire.Additivebilingualprogramshavebeenproventobe
morebeneficialthansubtractiveonesintheirabilitytoincreaseacademic
achievement.Thismightbepartiallyduetothefactthatacademicknowledgeand
cognitiveskillscantransferfromonelanguagetoanother(alsoknownasthe
interdependencehypothesis)(Thomas&Collier1997).Sinceskills,conceptsand
knowledgearebestacquiredthroughthelanguageastudentunderstandsbest,itis
28
mostbeneficialtoteachacademiccontentareasthroughthestudent’snative
languageatleastuntiltheyareproficientenoughinacademicEnglish.Ithasalso
beenfoundtobepossibletoteachacademiccontentthroughShelteredEnglish
Instruction(SEI)withoutthesupportofthenativelanguage,butthisdoesnot
contributetothedevelopmentofthehomelanguage,itispurelyforkeepingupwith
theacademiccontent.
Itisimportanttonotethatithasnot,beendeterminedwhetherlanguageand
literacyskillsneedtobetaughtinanysortoforder(Cummins2000).Ithasbeen
foundthatbilingualmodelswhereliteracyskillsareintroducedinstudents’L1have
beenhighlysuccessful,ashavemodelswhereliteracyskillsinbothL1andL2have
beenintroducedinquicksuccession.Cumminsmaintainsthatthemostimportant
thingisthatschoolsaredevelopinghomelanguageliteraciesingeneral,notthatit
necessarilyhastobeacertainlevelofL1literacybeforeL2literacycanbe
introduced.
Cumminsalsostatesthatitisimportantthatacademicknowledgeand
cognitiveskillsdonotalwaystransferautomaticallyfromonelanguagetothenext.
Thisisespeciallytrueinlanguagesthatarelinguisticallydivergentfromone
another,butstilltrueinlanguagesassimilarasEnglishandSpanish.Hearguesthat
althoughitdoeshappen,itismoreproductiveforteacherstoassumethatthey
shouldformallyandexplicitlybringattentiontothesimilaritiesanddifferences
betweenthetwolanguages.“Whenteachersdrawstudents’attentiontosimilarities
andcontrastsbetweentheirtwolanguagesandprovidethemwithopportunitiesto
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 29
29
carryoutcreativeprojectsonlanguageanditssocialconsequences,studentswillbe
enabledtotransformtheirspontaneoususeandexperienceoftwolanguagesintoa
moreconsciousand‘scientific’awarenessoftheirlinguisticoperations.”(Cummins
2000:195)Thiselementofeffectivelanguageinstructionresearchisinteresting
becausemanybilingualprogramstendtostrictlyseparatethetwolanguagesfrom
eachotherbycontentareaorteacher.WhatCumminsisbringingtolightisthat
thereisagreatdealofvaluetotheactofinteractingwiththetwolanguagesinone
settingbecauseitincreasescross‐linguisticawareness.
Additivebilingualismisbeneficialbecausestudentswhohavedeveloped
theirhomelanguage(L1)literacytendtobemoresuccessfulatacquiringasecond
language(L2).Asearlyasthenineteenthcentury,educatorsinScotlandwere
noticingthatGaelicstudentsweremoresuccessfulinlearningEnglishiftheyhadat
leastbasicliteracyskillsinGaelic(Cummins2000).Bialystoksuggeststhatitisa
metalinguisticawarenessthatcomeswithdualliteraciesthatpromotesanenhanced
abilityintheanalysisandcontrolcomponentsoflinguisticprocessing.Inother
words,thegreaterthedevelopmentoftwoormorelanguages,thegreatertheability
ofthestudenttoprocessandanalyzeinformation(Bialystok1991).
ThebenefitsofL1developmentextendbeyondjustassistinginL2language
andliteracyacquisition.Studentsgiventheopportunitytodevelopbothoftheir
literacieshavebeenfoundtobemoresuccessfulinacquiringthird,fourthand
successivelanguages(Bild&Swain1989;Swain&Lapkin1991;asseeninCummins
2000).Theyhavealsobeenfoundtoscorehigheronmathematicalstandardized
30
tests(Clarkson1992;Clarkson&Galbraith1992;Dawe1983;Li,Nuttal&Zhao
1999;asseeninCummins2000).
Itisclearfromtheresearchthatmetalinguistic,academicandcognitive
benefitsresultfromthedevelopmentoftwoacademiclanguages,butwhathasyet
tobedetermined,andwhichmaynotbeofgreatimportanceiswhetherthereisa
specific“threshold”atwhichthesebenefitssuddenlyappear.Alsonoteworthyisthe
findingbyGenesee(1979asseeninCummins2000)thatevenwhenastudent’stwo
languagesarelinguisticallydissimilarthecognitiveandacademicbenefits(although
lessso)arestillpresent.
FromHornberger’sworkingdefinitionitcanbeassumedthatmaintenance
programsremaindifferentfromEnrichmentprogramsbecausetheymaintainthe
ideathatlanguageminoritypopulationsare“other”inoursociety.Ruizsuggests
thatviewinglanguagemaintenanceasaproblemorarightremainsproblematic
becauseitcanmaintainfeelingsofhostilitybetweenculturalandlinguisticgroups
(Ruiz1997).
WhatistheroleofEducation?
Whatisdifferentabouteachmodelofbilingualeducationistheunderlying
understandingofwhattheroleofeducationshouldbe.Transitionalmodelsaimto
movestudentsfromastateofmonolingualismintheirfirstlanguagetoastateof
monolingualismandliteracyinEnglishinordertohelpthembetterassimilateinto
traditionalAmericansociety.Maintenancemodelsaimtodevelopstudents’native
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 31
31
languagebecauseitistheirrighttostayconnectedtotheirhomelanguageand
culture,butitpreservestheseparatiststructuresofsocietyanddoesnotnecessarily
engagestudentsinanongoingconversationaboutissuesofpowerinlanguage,in
theclassroom,orinsociety.ThegoalofEnrichmentbilingualprograms,forwhich
thispaperadvocates,istoallowlinguisticminoritiestobecomeempoweredthrough
thecontinualdevelopmentoftheirnativelanguageandtolegitimizetheiridentities
throughtransformativepedagogy.
Figure3:ThehierarchyofBilingualEducationModels
Figure3aboveismeanttoillustratethehierarchyofbilingualeducation
models.Transitionalmodelsaresituatedatthebottomofthepyramidbecausethey
aretheleasteffectiveinbringingaboutpositiveeducationalachievementoutcomes
forELLs.Maintenancemodelsaremuchmoreeffectivebecausetheyaimtoaddthe
32
EnglishlanguagetoELLs“identitytoolkit”ratherthansimplyswitchonelanguage
foranother.Finallyenrichmentmodelsofbilingualeducationnotonlyaimtoaddto
thelinguisticrepertoireofELLsratherthansubtract,buttheyalsoquestionthe
relationsofpowerbetweenlanguagesandsocialgroupsatthemicrolevelwiththe
potentialforalteringgroupdynamicsatthemacrolevel.
AdditiveBilingualism:Enrichment
Enrichmentmodelsarethosethat“encouragethedevelopmentofminority
languagesontheindividualandcollectivelevels,culturalpluralismatschoolandin
thecommunity,andanintegratednationalsocietybasedontheautonomyof
culturalgroups(Hornberger1991:222).”Incontrasttotheothertwomodeltypes
thatseelanguageasaproblemandrightrespectively,enrichmentprogramstendto
viewlanguageasaresourcetobeutilizedfortheadvancementofboththe
individualstudentandofsociety.Morethanjustmaintenanceofnativelanguages,
enrichmentprogramshaveembeddedintheirmissionthegoaloflegitimatingand
empoweringlanguageminoritypopulationsintheeyesofbothnon‐dominantand
dominantdiscoursespeakersalike.Enrichmentprogramsoftendothisbynotonly
legitimizingtheminoritylanguagebydevelopingitinELLs,butalsobygivingthe
languagemajorityaccesstothediscourse.Onewaythatthisisdoneexplicitlyisin
Two‐Waybilingualimmersionprograms,wherethereisabalancebetween
languagemajoritiesandlanguageminoritiesinoneclassroomandabalance
betweenthetimesallottedtoeachlanguage.WithinTwo‐Wayimmersion
classrooms,allstudents’primarylanguageisvaluedasisthestudentforbeinga
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 33
33
linguisticrolemodelforhisorherpeers.Indoingthis,manyhaveargued,the
educationalstructureisbreakingthroughlinguisticprejudicesthatmaybedeeply
embeddedinsociety(Freeman1998).EnrichmentBilingualprogramscanbe
conceptualizedbyviewingthemattheintersectionofAdditiveBilingualEducation
andTransformativePedagogy.Implementationofbilingualeducationcanpositively
affecttheacademicachievementofLanguageMinorities,butitisthetransformative
pedagogypiecethatcallstoquestionthecontinuationoppressivesocialstructures
thatallowsocialgroupsofalltypestobeoppressed.
EnrichmentModel
Figure2:TheEnrichmentModelattheIntersection
TransformativePedagogy
CumminsdefinesTransformativepedagogyasthe“interactionsbetween
educatorsandstudentsthatattempttofostercollaborativerelationsofpowerinthe
classroom(Cummins2000:253).”Microandmacrorelationsofcoercivepower
havebeenresponsibleforthecontinuedfailureofculturalandlinguisticminorities,
andtoooftenthefailureisblamedonthestudentsthemselves.Ifinsteadwebegin
AdditiveBilingualism
TransformativePedagogy
34
toquestionthesociopoliticalconditionsunderwhichschoolingoperates,then
changeintheacademicachievementoutcomesoflinguisticandculturalminorities
canbeameliorated.
Moraesarguesthattherearetworelatedbutessentiallydifferentwaysto
lookattransformativepedagogy.Transformativepedagogyisaboutengaginginan
activedialoguewiththeintentionofbringingaboutsocialchange.Moraescompares
themodelforchangethatrevolutionaryeducatorPauloFreire(1970,1985asseen
inCummins2000)callsforwithaBakhtonianCirclemodel(1996asseenin
Cummins2000).Freirearguedthateducationalreformneedstohappenfromthe
groundup,withthosewhohavebeenhistoricallyoppressedtakingpoweramong
themselvesandrisingabovetheoppression.TheBakhtonianmodelofsocialchange,
incontrast,callsforamoredialogueorientedmethodbetweenthosewhohave
historicallyheldpowerandthosewhohavenot.“Thefoundationsofadialogic‐
pedagogyarerootedinthefactthat‘boththeoppressedandoppressormust
understandthatourdialogicexistenceissomethingthatcannotbedenied.’”
(Moraes1996:112asseeninCummins2000:237)Byengagingallplayersina
collaborativeconversation,anunderstandingofthesocietaldistributionofpower
canbeunderstood.Thosewhohavehistoricallyheldpowercanthenbeginto
understandthatitisinthebestinterestoftheallmembersofsocietytowork
towardsamoreequaldistributionofpower.
Cumminsarguesthatdeterminingwhateffectiveschoolsshouldconcentrate
oncriticalthinkingandthisaspectoftransformativepedagogy.Healso
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 35
35
acknowledgesthattherealityisthatwearecurrentlylivingduringaperiod
obsessedwithstandardizedtesting(Cummins2000).Hestatesthat,actually,the
twowaysofmeasuringacademicachievementarecompatible,becauseeffective
criticalpedagogywillbringabouthigherstandardizedtestsscores.Infact,
traditionalmeasuresofenrichmentbilingualprogramshaveshowedthis.ELLs
enrolledinenrichmentbilingualeducationprogramsdemonstratehigher
standardizedtestscoresinsubjectssuchasmathematicsandlanguagearts(Bikle,
Billings,Hakuta2004).Thisfurthersthefindingthatspendingclasstimeonexplicit
teachingofbothlanguageshaspositiveeffectsonacademicachievementinboth
languagesaswellasincontentareas.Cumminsemphasizesthatbybringingameta‐
awarenessofstudentsmultiplediscoursestotheclassroomandengaginginan
ongoingdialoguebetweenteachersandstudents,wherestudentperspectivesare
legitimated,wecanturnaroundtheeducationaloutcomesofourculturaland
linguisticminoritypopulation(Cummins2000).
Evenifaclassroomteacherdoesnothaveaccesstoastudent’shome
language,shecanstillactivelyincorporatetransformativepedagogyintoher
curriculumthataimstoaffirmstudentidentitiesandtodemystifymisunderstood
assumptions.Cummins(2000)arguesthat“students’identitiesareaffirmedand
academicachievementpromotedwhenteachersexpressrespectforhomelanguage
andculturalknowledgethatstudentsbringtotheclassroomandwheninstructionis
focusedonhelpingstudentsgeneratenewknowledge,createliteratureandart,and
actonsocialrealitiesthataffecttheirlives.”(Cummins2000:34)Eveninnon‐
bilingualclassroomsmulticultural,transformativepedagogyisimperativeinorder
36
toinstillinbothlanguageminorityandlanguagemajoritystudentsarespectfor
culturesdifferentfromtheirownandasenseofvalueofthecontributionsofdiverse
groupstooursociety.
Implementingenrichmentbilingualeducationprogramswhereverpossible
canhavesubstantialeffectsontheeducationaloutcomesofaconsiderable
proportionofoursociety.Developingmultiplelanguagesandvaluingmultiple
discoursetypesinaclassroomsettingcanhaverevolutionaryeffectsforoursociety
atlarge.
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 37
37
Bibliography
(Eds),August&Shanahan.2006.Developingliteracyinsecond‐languagelearners:ReportoftheNationalLiteracyPanelonLanguageMinorityChildrenandYouth.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Bartolome,L.I.&Leistyna,P.Spring2006.NamingandInterrogatingOurEnglish‐onlyLegacy.RadicalTeacher,75,(2‐9).Bialystok,Ellen.1991.LanguageprocessinginbilingualchildrenCambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bikle,K.,Billings,E.S.&Hakuta,K.2004.TrendsinTwo‐WayImmersionResearch.Banks,J.A.&McGeeBanks,C.A.(Eds.),InHandbookofResearchonMulticulturalEducation2ndEd.(589‐606).SanFrancisco:Jossey‐Bass.Cahnmann,Melisa.2003.Tocorrectofnottocorrectbilingualstudents’errorsisaquestionofcontinua‐ingreimagination.InN.H.Hornberger(ed.)Continuaofbiliteracyanecologicalframeworkforeducationalpolicy,research,andpractiveinmultilingualsettings(pp.187‐204).Clevedon,England;Buffalo:MultilingualMatters.Collier,VirginiaP.1987.Ageandrateofacquisitionofsecondlanguageforacademicpurposes.TESOLQuarterly21,617‐641Cummins,Jim.2000.Language,power,andpedagogy:bilingualchildreninthecrossfireClevedon[England];Buffalo[N.Y.]:MultilingualMatters.Delpit,LisaD.1993.ThePoliticsofTeachingLiterateDiscourse.In(eds.)Zamel,Vivian&RuthSpack.1998.Negotiatingacademicliteracies:teachingandlearningacrosslanguagesandculturesMahwah,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Dozier,Cheryl,PeterH.Johnston&RebeccaRogers.2006.Criticalliteracy/criticalteaching:toolsforpreparingresponsiveteachersNewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Freeman,RebeccaD.1998.BilingualeducationandsocialchangeClevedon[England];Philadelphia:MultilingualMatters.
Gee,James.1987.Whatisliteracy?In(eds.)Zamel,Vivian&RuthSpack.1998.Negotiatingacademicliteracies:teachingandlearningacrosslanguagesandculturesMahwah,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Gillanders,Cristina&RobertT.Jimenez.2004.Reachingforsuccess:Aclose‐upofMexicanimmigrantparentsintheUSAwhofosterliteracysuccessfortheirkindergartenchildren.JournalofEarlyChildhoodLiteracyVol.4.243‐69.
38
Heath,ShirleyBrice.1983.Wayswithwords:language,life,andworkincommunitiesandclassroomsCambridge[Cambridgeshire];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hornberger,NancyH.1990.Creatingsuccessfullearningcontextsforbilingualliteracy.TeachersCollegeRecord92(2),212‐29.
Hornberger,NancyH.1991.Extendingenrichmentbilingualeducation:Revisitingtypologiesandredirectingpolicy.InO.Garcia(ed.)BilingualEducation:FocusschriftinHonorofJoshuaA.FishmanontheOccasionofhis65thBirthday(pp,215‐34).Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishers.
Hornberger,NancyH.2003.Continuaofbiliteracyanecologicalframeworkforeducationalpolicy,research,andpracticeinmultilingualsettings.Clevedon,England;Buffalo:MultilingualMatters.
Lauv.Nichols,414U.S.563(1974).
Lazarus,Emma.1883.Thenewcolossus.
Ogbu,JohnU.1987.VariabilityinMinoritySchoolPerformance:AProbleminSearchofanExplanation.AnthropologyandEducationQuarterly18(pp312‐334).Orwell,George.1949.Nineteeneighty‐four:anovelNewYork:Harcourt,Brace&Co.Ovando,C.J.Collier,V.P.1998.BilingualandESLClassrooms:teachinginmulticulturalcontexts.Boston:McGraw‐Hill,2ndEd.Resnick, L. 1990 Literacy in school and out. Daedalus, 19(2), 169-185. RethinkingSchools1998.HistoryofBilingualEducationVolume12,No.3‐Spring1998RetriedvedDecember1,2008fromhttp://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_03/langhst.shtmlRuiz,R.1997.Theempowermentoflanguage‐minoritystudents.InA.Darder,R.RorresandH.Gutierrez(eds.)LatinosandEducation:ACriticalReader.319‐28.NewYork:Routledge.Strong,M.,Prinz,P.2000IsAmericanSignLanguageSkillRelatedtoEnglishLiteracy?InLanguageacquisitionbyeyeMahwah,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates131‐142
UnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation.NationalCenterforEducationStastistics.StatusandTrendsintheEducationofHispanics.Washington,D.C.:April2003.UnitedStates.Congress.House.CommitteeonEducationandLabor.2007.
LanguageMinoritiesDevelopingMultipleLiteracies 39
39
SubcommitteeonEarlyChildhood,Elementary,andSecondaryEducation.2007.ImpactofNoChildLeftBehindonEnglishlanguagelearners:hearingbeforetheSubcommitteeonEarlyChildhood,ElementaryandSecondaryEducation,CommitteeonEducationandLabor,U.S.HouseofRepresentatives,OneHundredTenthCongress,firstsession,hearingheldinWashington,D.C.,March23,2007Washington:U.S.G.P.O.RetrievedMarch1,2008,fromhttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.htmlWhorf,BenjaminLee.1956.Language,thought,andreality:selectedwritingsofBenjaminLeeWhorfCambridge,Mass.:TechnologyPressofMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology(nowMITPress).Wiley,T.G.1998.TheimpositionofWorldWarIeraEnglish‐onlypoliciesandthefateofGermaninNorthAmerica.InT.RicentoandB.Burnaby(eds)LanguageandPoliticsintheU.S.andCanada:MythsandRealities(pp.211–241).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Wittke,C.1936.German‐AmericansandtheWorldWar:WithSpecialEmphasisonOhio’sGerman‐LanguagePress.Columbus:OhioStateArchaeologicalandHistoricalSociety.
top related