“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Emma Lazarus’ “The New Colossus” is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, and it represents what the United States means to immigrants. Immigrants still come to this country with the same hopes and dreams for a brighter future that immigrants before them had. Today, society seems to consider what to do with immigrants a hot topic. Some immigrants come to this country legally with little understanding of the English language. In these cases, bilingual education, when done properly, can prepare language deficient immigrants for success in their new homes. When we welcome immigrants into this country it becomes our duty to help the children, and future children, to prepare for the future, just like we would for American-born children and their families.
The National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) defines bilingual education as the “use of two languages in school…for a variety of social and pedagogical purposes” (1). Berta Rosa Berriz explains that bilingual education allows “students to use their native language in order to learn content–such as mathematics, reading comprehension, writing skills, social studies, and science–while learning English as a second language” (2). The main purpose of bilingual education and English as a second language (ESL) classes is to make students fluent in English in order to prepare them for success in the future. Ultimately, English language learners (ELLs) will be fluent in English and be able to continue their studies in a traditional classroom setting. Stephen Krahser believes bilingual education gives students “knowledge and literacy.” He explains that a good bilingual education combines “ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language” (1). In order to meet the main goal of bilingual education, Krasher feels it is important to teach not only in English, but in the student’s native language as well.
Not all people agree that a student’s native language should be spoken in schools. Some activists against teaching using a student’s native language and teaching English as a second language in our schools believe that the best solution for teaching English is to immerse language-deficient children in an all English setting. Margaret Adams, who supervises a bilingual education program in several Massachusetts public schools, describes this immersion as “sink or swim.” She explains that students will either “swim” and rapidly learn the English language, or they will “sink” and essentially fail (1-2). After attending a conference on bilingual education, J. Manuel Urrutia expressed his agreement that some children will succeed in an English immersion setting; however, many more will not be successful. He uses 9th Street Elementary School, where students were placed in English-only classrooms, as an example. When the test scores of these students were compared to the test scores of children in bilingual classrooms, the students in the English-only classroom appeared to have fallen behind (2). These test results show that bilingual education, not English only education, is helpful to students learning English as a second language, and the English-only initiative is not the successful answer to finding success for ELLs.
Other people against using bilingual education in public schools quote low test scores to show how these programs are ineffective. Ron K. Unz, a political activist and strong arguer against bilingual education, uses statistics from schools in California that transferred their English Language Learners into an English immersion program. Unz reports that after two years in this immersion program, test scores went up forty percent. He says that the Oceanside Unified School District “saw its second-grade immigrant scores go from the 21st to the 47th percentile,” while school districts that still used bilingual methods saw a decline in test scores (1). J. Manuel Urrutia refutes these statistics presented by Unz. Urrutia says that there are 1.38 million students in California schools that are considered to be Limited English Proficient. Of these students, thirty percent receive instruction in their native languages, thirty percent were in an English immersion setting, and the rest of the students were taught mostly in English with “informal support in their native language” (2). Urrutia uses these statistics to show that bilingual programs can not be considered failures. Urrutia points out that an English immersion program headed by Mrs. Gloria Matta-Tuchman, an educational leader in English immersion programs, appears to have only had a seventeen percent success rate with her English immersion program when using these statistical methods (2). It seems as though Unz’s statistical reporting methods used to show a forty percent increase in test scores may not be accurate, thus his claim that English immersion programs are a success and bilingual education programs are a failure is not adequately supported.
Still others against bilingual education believe that it should not be the responsibility of America’s public school system to educate immigrant children. Vote Utah, a website aimed at encouraging people to vote and informing voters about issues, says that “it should be the responsibility of immigrants to learn English, not the responsibility of the government to learn immigrants’ languages” (1). Peter Zamora, Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Co-Chair of the Hispanics Education Coalition, recently testified before the House Education and Labor Committee on issues related to English language learners. In his testimony, Zamora detailed the demographics of ELLs, pointing out that in American public schools, there are roughly five or six million ELLs, which amounts to about 10% of the children in public schools (1). Zamora also points out that many ELLs are U.S. citizens. “76% of elementary schools and 56% of secondary school ELLs are citizens, and over one-half of the ELLs in public secondary schools are second- or third-generation citizens” (2). These statistics show that teaching English as a second language is not just for immigrant children. Not all ELLs are new immigrants; many were born in the U.S. and deserve the same rights as all of the other American children.
Part of the disagreement with bilingual education comes from the belief that English is the only language that should be spoken in the United States, with no exceptions. Senator James Inhofe (R – Oklahoma), a supporter of having English as our national language in the United States, believes that if we only allow English, the country will save billions of dollars every year because federal documents will not have to be printed in other languages (“Make English” 1). He also says that he agrees with a recent comment President George Bush made, saying “English allows newcomers to go from cleaning offices to running offices” (“Immigration Statement” 1). Inhofe has also said, “By not requiring immigrants to assimilate and learn English, we are also undermining our unity and importing dangerous, deadly philosophies that go against our American ideals.” He uses the attacks on September 11, 2001 as an example of this. He also supports English as the only language in the United States because he believes that the non-English speaking immigrants have become segregated from mainstream America, resulting in only being able to obtain low paying jobs, increasing the dependence on government assistance (“Immigration Statement” 2). With views like this, it is no wonder bilingual education is so heavily debated. These beliefs represent political motives and do not take into consideration what is best for English language learners.
It seems as though fully immersing students in English in order to get them proficient in the English language is not the answer to educating immigrant children. What is truly best for the non-English speaking children of this country is bilingual education. The future success or failure of this country rests in the hands of our children, all of them. Whether we like it or not, many of these immigrants are here to stay. The future of this country rests on our ability to properly educate every child in order to give them the knowledge necessary to be our future leaders. If the future of this country is important, the education of every child in this country needs to be more important.
Works Cited
Adams, Margaret. “Unmasking the Myths of Structured English Immersion: Why we still need
Bilingual Educators, Native Language Instruction, and Incorporation of Home Culture.”
Radical Teacher. Winter 2005: 1-7.
Berriz, Berta Rosa. “Unz got your tongue: what have we lost with the English-only
mandates?.” Radical Teacher 75 (Winter 2005): 10(6). Academic OneFile. Thomson Gale. Christian Brothers University. 23 July 2007
.
Inhofe, Senator James M. “Make English Our National Language.” Addressing the Senate. 8
May 2007.
—. Press Release. “Inhofe Immigration Statement.” 15 May 2006. 19 June 2007.
.
—. Press Release. “Inhofe Statement upon the Introduction an Amendment Designating English
as the National Language of the United States.” 16 May 2006. 18 June 2007.
.
Krashen, Stephen. “Why Bilingual Education?”. ERIC Digest .
NABE.org. 2004. National Association for Bilingual Education. 13 July 2007
Unz, Ron K. Lingua Franca: It’s Past Time for New York to Scrap Bilingual Ed.” City Journal
Autumn 2000. .
Urrutia, J. Manuel. “Conference on Bilingual Education, a Non-Specialist Report.” Debunking
the Myths of the Unz Initiative. 1998
VoteUtah.org. 2006. Vote Utah. 23 July 2007 .
Zamora, Peter. “Impact of NCLB on English Language Learners.” Testimony before House
Education and Labor Committee. 23 March 2007.
