Bilingual Education in the United States Power, Pedagogy.docx

Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy,
and Possibility
Home resources
BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
POWER, PEDAGOGY, AND POSSIBILITY
Jim Cummins
University of Toronto
Bilingual education is usually characterized as a controversial
issue within U.S.
educational debate. Discourses of educational equity (often
pejoratively labeled
as “liberal” by neoconservatives) collide with discourses
ranging from overtly
xenophobic and racist to discourses that are not overtly
xenophobic but rather
portray themselves as concerned with “rationality,”
effectiveness, and cost.
Editorials in the New York Times over a period of 20 years or
so would fall into
this latter category (Cummins, 1996; Otheguy, 1991). Not
surprisingly, debates
over what the research data say about the effectiveness of
bilingual education in
promoting bilingual students’ academic achievement occupy a
central role in this

debate.
Advocates of bilingual education (e.g. Cummins, 1996;
Krashen & Biber, 1988;
Wong Fillmore, 1992) argue that some form of bilingual
education is implemented
in virtually every country around the world, research from
widely varied contexts
shows positive results from bilingual education with respect to
both first and
second language development for both “minority” and
“majority” students, and
there is compelling evidence that conceptual knowledge and
language skills
transfer across language such that less instructional time spent
through the
“majority” language exerts no adverse effect on achievement in
that language.
By contrast, opponents of bilingual education (e.g. Rossell &
Baker, 1996; Porter,
1992; Schlesinger, 1991) often characterize it not only as
educationally
ineffective but also as promoting social fragmentation and
divisiveness.
Arguments that bilingual education is ineffective focus on
interpretations of
research that suggest bilingual programs are no better than
“sink-or-swim”
(submersion) programs and inferior to “structured immersion”
programs. This
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and
Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
1 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM

latter approach supposedly is modeled after Canadian French
immersion
programs that attempt to promote bilingual proficiency among
predominantly
English-background dominant group students by means of
instruction through
both French and English. The fact that much of the so-called
research support for
“structured immersion” (an English-only program, taught by
monolingual
teachers, with the aim of producing monolingualism) comes
from a fully bilingual
program, taught by bilingual teachers with the aim of producing
bilingualism and
biliteracy, does not seem to bother its proponents. They focus
on the fact that in
French immersion programs, initial literacy instruction is
through French
(students’ second language [L2]) and thus minority and/or
bilingual students in
the U.S. should also be taught (totally or almost totally)
through their L2
(English) if they are to succeed academically. Their argument is
that strong
development of English academic skills requires maximum
exposure to English in
school.
The volumes by Marcia Moraes and Lourdes Diaz Soto each
address, in very
different ways, aspects of this issue. Moraes’ treatment of the
issue is largely
theoretical, an attempt to establish the foundations of a critical-

dialogic pedagogy
within bilingual education based on the theoretical contributions
of the Bakhtin
Circle, mainly the work of Voloshinov and Bakhtin. Soto’s
volume, by contrast,
details the struggle of a Puerto Rican community in “Steel
Town” Pennsylvania to
preserve a nationally-recognized bilingual education program,
with 20-years of
success to its credit, in the face of the opposition of the school
superintendent,
school board and majority community.
The ugly reality of racism jumps off the pages of Soto’s
volume, making it
gripping but also very painful reading. The legitimation for the
school board’s
eventual decision to eliminate the bilingual program, despite
strong and sustained
opposition from the bilingual community, is grounded by
attitudes in the broader
community that encouraged the following kinds of discourse:
Listeners heard about the “Blue E” on the local radio station.
The
“Blue E” referred to a proposed city ordinance encouraging
local
merchants to post a “Blue E” on their doorways to signify their
support for the English-only ordinance. The ordinance provided
store
owners with the ability to price goods based upon the English
language proficiency of their prospective buyer. For example,
if the
store clerk detected an accent or felt that the buyer’s English
was not

up to par, they were expected to pay an additional 10 percent to
20
percent on their purchase since this signified additional
paperwork
and expense for the merchant.
Supporters of this ordinance called the radio talk show,
expressing
views such as: “Send all the spics back to their country”; “This
is
2 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
America...for whites only”; “Our city was better off without all
this
trash”; “English is the language my grandparents had to learn”;
“One
state should be set aside for these people...but not
Pennsylvania.”
(Soto, 1996, p. 65)
The re-emergence of this racism was no doubt stimulated by the
growth of
bilingual communities in Steel Town (and elsewhere) and by the
fact that the
community decided to stop “swallowing hard” and remain silent
in the face of
discrimination as they historically had done; instead, they
mobilized to demand
their educational rights and became both audible and visible. In

the eyes of the
dominant majority, they no longer knew their place.
Soto details some extraordinary scenes that demonstrate the
commitment to
education and high aspirations parents held for their children.
She quotes
newspaper accounts of a crucial public hearing on January 28,
1993 in which
more than 100 people approached the table of board members
“who became
noticeably frightened when a congregation knelt and prayed on
behalf of the
bilingual children in Steel Town” (p. 77):
The pastor of the Church on Steel Town’s Southside took the
microphone off its stand and approached board members,
speaking
softly, “Bendito, please listen to the parents,” he said. “I’ve
seen too
many kids suffer and too many kids don’t make it. Let’s give
the kids
a chance.” Facing the audience, the pastor motioned Latino
members
to come to the front and began to pray as board members found
themselves looking up at a solid wall of standing people. “Bless
this
administration. Let us love.”
The two security guards tensed. (p. 78)
The vice-president of the board was reported to say later that he
appreciated the
blessing but that he had seen the light before the hearing: “I’ve

heard them all
before,” he said (p. 78).
In Soto’s account, the “bad guys” win: despite the
unprecedented mobilization of
the Puerto Rican community and a positive report on the
bilingual program from a
district-wide committee, the bilingual program is eliminated in
favor of an English
immersion program, a new school is commissioned in a white
middle-class district
rather than in the much more overcrowded South Side where the
Puerto Rican
community live, South Side students are bussed out of their
neighborhood
because of overcrowding and the refusal of the school board to
construct
additional facilities, the school superintendent gets generous
salary increases and
accolades from the board, an outspoken Puerto Rican advocate
for the bilingual
3 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
program loses his job in a community college, pastors and
priests from various
religious groups who supported the community are transferred
to other locations,
a complaint from the community to the Office of Civil Rights
remains in limbo,
and the Puerto Rican community emerges from the struggle with

emotions
ranging from frustration and anger to despondency and
resignation.
In her chronicle of these events, Soto makes no pretense to be
an outside neutral
observer. She participates with the community as an advocate
for the bilingual
program and equal educational opportunities. Her own voice is
strong and
articulate as she askes questions such as:
Is the American Dream for monolinguals only? What will it take
to
have children’s voices heard?...
To the high school principal who shared how blatant and
acceptable
racism has become by stating, “This is America!” I will say that
many
of us will resist being a part of such an oppressive America. Our
schoolchildren are taught about a different America, an America
that
promises democracy, freedom, and equal educational
opportunities.
Where is our democratic America? (pp. 94-96)
Unfortunately, as the histories of the United States, Canada, and
many other
countries show, democracy (understood as the rule of the
majority) provides only
very limited safeguards for subordinated minorities. The brutal
physical and
sexual abuse suffered by generations of Canadian First Nations

children in
residential schools run by religious orders under the
“supervision” of government
illustrates just how much protection of rights subordinated
minorities can expect
when the democratic majority considers them to be inherently
inferior. As Soto’s
account illustrates, coercive relations of power persist under the
rhetorical veneer
of democracy, respect for human rights, and equality of
opportunity. What has
changed during the past 30 years in many (but by no means all)
countries is the
perceived need to rationalize and legitimate the hegemony of
dominant groups in
terms of these latter constructs. Within a democracy, the
continued dominance of
dominant groups requires the consent of the majority of those
who vote. Only a
relatively small proportion of members of a society will readily
admit (to others or
to themselves) that they are racist or bigoted; the majority see
themselves, and
their nation, as fair, reasonable, and committed to freedom and
human rights
(within “reason”). The fact that large doses of historical
amnesia are required to
preserve and reinforce this individual and collective social
identity is not at all
problematic for dominant groups. Discourse can readily be
mobilized through
institutions such as the media and schools (largely controlled by
dominant
groups) to legitimate coercive relations of power as being
reasonable, fair, and in
the best interests of both the subordinated minority and the

society as a whole. It
is desirable, albeit not essential, that members of the
subordinated minority also
accept this legitimation; it makes for a smoother democratic
process.
4 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
It is in this light that we can understand the school district
superintendent’s
argument in favor of the new proposal he recommended to the
school board:
Its main premise is early English acquisition, which would
ensure
success equipping students with the ability to communicate in
the
language of this country--English! The fact is that English
immersion
programs are legal and have been implemented successfully all
over
the United States for many years...As superintendent, please
know
that my single motivation for changing the current bilingual
education
program is my deep and sincere belief that the earlier children
master
the English language, the better their chances for success.
(newspaper column, January 27 1993; quoted in Soto pp. 76-77)

There is no reason to suspect the superintendent of hypocrisy;
he no doubt had
(and probably still has) a “deep and sincere belief” that English
immersion is in
bilingual children’s best interests. Those who hold power also
usually hold “deep
and sincere beliefs” that they act in the best interests of the
society as a whole
and that they have more insight than subordinated communities
into what is in
the best interests of these communities. Apartheid in South
Africa was
rationalized in these terms.
The questions left hanging at the end of Soto’s volume are
“How can racist
educational structures and provision be changed?” “How can
coercive relations of
power in schools be transformed into collaborative relations of
power?” “How can
marginalized children and communities make their voices heard
by those who
occupy the centers of power?”
Not surprisingly, she provides no definitive answers to these
questions. She
invokes the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and
International
Studies (1980) to point out that the society as a whole can
benefit from the
linguistic and cultural resources of ethnic minority groups.
Freire’s approach to
transformative educational change through grassroots
organization and action is
also suggested as an appropriate direction for communities.

However, the reader
is left with the distinct impression of a community at least
temporarily spent and
dispirited. Community organization and action was tried but to
no avail. Those
who held power used it to reinforce the barriers between the
center and the
margins. Largely unresolved in Soto’s volume is the issue of
why dominant
groups should do otherwise and how can marginalized
communities generate the
power to persuade or force them to abandon coercive models of
power relations
in favor of more collaborative models.
Interestingly, this is the central issue that Brazilian educator
Marcia Moraes
attempts to address in her treatment of bilingual education in
the United States.
She uses the work of the Bakhtin Circle to argue both for a
dialogic-critical
5 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
pedagogy within bilingual education (and other) programs and
for an approach to
educational and societal change that goes beyond the Freirean
model of the
oppressed struggling for liberation from the oppressor. She
suggests that whereas
the Freirean social movement towards awareness and struggle is

from the
margins to the center, a Bakhtinian movement would be from
the margins and
also from the center. We need a pedagogy of the oppressor as
much as a
pedagogy of the oppressed, she asserts. Dominant/oppressive
groups have been
educated “toward a tacit understanding that they are superior.
Therefore the
oppressed can be best empowered if we also turn our attention
to the oppressor”
(p. 115). Moraes elaborates on this point as follows:
We need to create conditions for oppressors to critically analyze
their
own situation; to critically analyze the levels in which they are
also
oppressed because they live under various forms of social
control and
are discursively positioned in contradictory ways that blind
them to
their own situatedness in relations of power and privilege. Then
students from the oppressive groups will be able to understand
the
oppression of the oppressed, since they are also part of the
oppressed group that is ideologically controlled. (p. 115)
... if we do not reinforce the relevance of a dialogic interaction
between the oppressed and oppressor, it will be more difficult
for the
oppressed to overcome social constraints and, therefore, to be
empowered. From this perspective, the awareness of the
oppressed is
fundamental, but the awareness of the oppressor is crucial in the
sense that the oppressor can understand that he or she must

collaborate for a better society, for his or her own emancipation
as
part of the social arena...Then we can take a truly liberatory
step
toward emancipation and social freedom and a step toward
democracy because the oppressive groups will be able to
understand
that oppression toward the other becomes their own
imprisonment.
(p. 112)
How does the work of a group of Soviet intellectuals in the
1920s and 1930s, who
were more directly focused on the nature of language and
communication than on
social change, lead us to these conclusions? Bakhtinian
constructs such as
dialogue and heteroglossia are analyzed as follows by Moraes to
make the
connection between the nature of language and social
interaction, on the one
hand, and social transformation on the other:
According to Bakhtinian theory, an individual does not exist
outside of
dialogue (emphasis original)--a dialogue in which the
consciousness
of the speaker encounters the consciousness of another speaker;
a
6 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM

dialogue that reveals conflicts; a dialogue that embodies history
and
culture;... In the Bakhtinian sense of dialogue...the existence of
the
self and the other is a simultaneous existence; a dialogical
existence.
The Bakhtinian notion of language embraces the idea that the
other
cannot be silenced or excluded...language never exists outside
historical forces and...the dialogic essence of language implies
that a
unique group can never dominate all other languages
completely. (pp.
94-95)
The notion of heteroglossia refers to the multiple ideologically-
infused discourses
that intersect in all utterances and forms of language use. Thus,
“language must
be understood as a site of political struggle in which meanings
collide and have to
be negotiated” (p. 95). Moraes quotes Quantz and O’Connor
(1988, p. 99) to the
effect that the heteroglossic essence of social life can be better
understood
through the concept of multivoicedness:
Multivoicedness seems to be the term that best captures the idea
that
any particular, concrete, historical dialogue is best described in
tems

of the multiple voices participating... The concept of dialogue
as a
multivoiced social activity explains how the ideas of the
powerful gain
and maintain legitimacy as well as how the disempowered can
attempt to legitimate their ideas and beliefs to others. (Soto, p.
100-101)
The foundations of a dialogic-critical pedagogy are rooted in
the fact that “both
oppressed and oppressor must understand that our dialogic
existence is
something that cannot be denied” (p. 112). Thus, we must
construct a pedagogy
that initiates and maintains a living dialogue between oppressed
and oppressors
whereby both groups can understand the social constraints that
inhibit progress
toward an emancipatory democracy and become more aware of
the different
forms of oppression each group experiences.
Moraes asks the obvious question “How can we make the
oppressor aware that
society cannot function fairly while people just think in
egocentric and binaristic
terms of domination and subordination?” (p. 113) She replies to
this question as
follows:
The fact is the oppressor must also understand and be aware of
social
inequalities... [We have to construct] a dialogic-critical
pedagogy in

which students who occupy the position of oppressors
understand
that the oppositional relationship between oppressor and
oppressed is
not a relationship that will guarantee social freedom or social
hope. It
7 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
is important that the oppressor recognizes that both social
freedom
and social hope can be reached through dialogic interaction. (p.
113)
While these sentiments are difficult to contest, we are still left
with the same
question that faced us on the final pages of Soto’s volume. Why
should dominant
groups give up or share their (coercive) power? How can
subordinated/oppressed
groups convince their oppressors that it is also in their best
interests to move
towards more collaborative models of social progress? I know
of no opponent of
bilingual or multicultural education who is likely to be
convinced by the argument
that “our dialogic existence is something that cannot be denied”
(Moraes, p.
112). In response to the argument that “the oppressor must
understand and be

aware of social inequalities” (Moraes, p. 113), those positioned
as oppressors are
likely to respond that they are very much aware of social
inequalities and that’s
why they are adamant that bilingual children must learn English
as early and as
quickly as possible.
It is tempting to dismiss the Bakhtinian-inspired perspective of
reciprocal
two-way dialogue between oppressed/oppressors advanced by
Moraes as naive
and impractical. It is much more straightforward to work from a
Freirean
perspective where the oppressed identify their oppression and
its source in
coercive power structures and take steps to transform their
world through
language and concrete action. The open racism and
unwillingness to engage in
any form of serious dialogue that the Puerto Rican community
encountered in
Soto’s account reinforces the view that rights will only be
achieved by means of
active community-based struggle against oppression.
It is possible to speculate on further measures that the
community might take to
assert their children’s right to a culturally-sensitive and
equitable education. In
addition to pursuing the Civil Rights complaint, they might
consider the action
taken by a Finnish community in Sweden who withdrew their
children from school
for an 8-week period in protest against the school’s termination
of a successful

Finnish-Swedish bilingual program (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988).
The community
demands were eventually met by the school who found it
difficult to defend its
arbitrary decision in the face of national attention and
community mobilization in
support of the strike. The accounts of this strike demonstrate
how coercive power
relationships break down when the subordinated group refuses
to play their
(essential) part in being the recipients of this form of power.
However, I believe it would be highly unfortunate to dismiss
Moraes’ Bakhtinian
perspective as impractical. On the contrary, I believe her work
embodies
important insights into the nature of progressive social change
and how it can be
furthered. Moraes is quite explicit in fully supporting the
struggle of oppressed
groups against the forces that oppress them. In addition to
challenging coercive
power structures directly, however, she appears to be suggesting
that
marginalized communities can also engage in other strategies
aimed at promoting
an identity change among dominant groups through engaging
them in dialogue.
8 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM

Her discussion of this process remains largely at a theoretical
level and thus,
without elaboration, is not particularly helpful to communities
whose struggles
for educational rights and attempts at dialogue are rebuffed. In
what follows I
attempt to elaborate in a concrete way what a “Bakhtinian-
inspired” two-way
dialogical process involving dominant and subordinated
communities might look
like and how pressure and persuasion can be exerted on
dominant groups to
engage in this type of dialogue.
I would see four components to this process:
· Recognition that dominant groups are no more
homogenous than subordinated
groups and to dismiss all of those who enjoy privileged status in
our society as
“oppressors” amounts to essentialization that will curtail rather
than promote
the dialogic process; there is a need to identify and reach out to
those within
dominant groups who are prepared to engage in meaningful
dialogue.
· Identification of shared goals and common vested
interests that transcend
more superficial “us versus them” divisions between dominant
and
subordinated communities.
· Demystification of research findings related to the issues

under dispute (e.g.
bilingual education) and exposure of contradictions and
inconsistencies
inherent both in academic attempts to distort these research
findings and in
the media discourse related to diversity.
· Promotion of programs that explicitly challenge “us
versus them” divisions and
demonstrate in a concrete way the advantages for all in
establishing
collaborative relations of power.
Each of these components can be illustrated briefly.
Identification of the Possibilities for Dialogue. If we consider
the fact that
approximately 70 percent of those who voted in California’s
Proposition 187
plebiscite in 1994 were in favor of severe restrictions on the use
of languages
other than English, we might well be apprehensive about the
impact of further
“democratic” action on minority rights in general and bilingual
education in
particular. Proposition 187 expresses the fear of diversity, the
fear of the Other,
the fear of strangers - xenophobia. It is about power, who has it
and who intends
to keep it. It is also racist and is intended to intimidate those
who advocate for
human rights. These realities must be recognized if we are to
fight this type of
initiative.

9 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
However, we should also recognize that a large proportion of
those who
supported Proposition 187 do not see themselves as racist and
are not in any
sense overtly or actively racist. They would see themselves as
supportive of “the
common good” despite the fact that they have bought into (or
been indoctrinated
into) the discourse of xenophobia. If we dismiss all those who
support
anti-immigrant initiatives as “racist” or “oppressors” then the
possibilities of
change through democratic action are remote indeed. If we are
to challenge the
discourse of xenophobia and work toward a saner and more
tolerant society we
must communicate and dialogue with many of those who
currently see diversity
as a threat. In fact, we must join forces with them to articulate a
vision of our
society where there is cooperation rather than competition
across cultural
boundaries and where cultural and linguistic differences enrich
rather than
fragment the whole.
Recognition of Common Goals and Shared Vested Interests.

Among the
common goals in which all members of society have a vested
interest are the
following:
· Promote Academic Achievement for All. At a time when
both corporations and
nations acknowledge that intellectual resources are paramount
to their future
progress, it should not be difficult to agree on the desirability of
maximizing
the academic and intellectual potential of all students. Every
dropout carries a
huge price tag for the society: these students’ potential to
contribute to the
economic and social well-being of their society is not realized,
there are
increased costs for social services ranging from welfare to
incarceration, and
tax revenues that they might have generated are lost.
Subordinated group
students are massively over-represented among statistics of
school failure and
thus any means of reversing school failure among these students
will pay
dividends to the society in both short and long term. Initiatives
such as
bilingual and multicultural education should thus be examined
not only
through an ideological lens but as dispassionately as possible
for their
potential to reverse underachievement and realize the
intellectual and
academic resources of the nation.

· Develop Society’s Cultural and Linguistic Resources. At
a time of dramatically
increased global interdependence (e.g. economic, ecological,
conflict avoidance
and resolution, etc.), the cultural and linguistic resources of any
nation assume
particular significance. Ability to work together to solve
problems across
cultural, linguistic, racial, and national boundaries is not only
part of the “job
description” coming down from Corporate America, it is
essential for social
cohesion both in domestic and international arenas. As Robert
Hughes (1993)
succinctly put it: “In the world that is coming, if you can’t
navigate difference,
you’ve had it” (p. 100). From this perspective, it makes no
economic or other
10 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
form of sense for a society to squander its cultural and
linguistic resources
when for a minimal investment they could be so easily
developed.
Demystification of Research Findings. The suspicion that
bilingual education
is some form of “Hispanic Plot” to destabilize the nation is
fuelled by the apparent

counter-intuitive nature of its rationale. This rationale suggests
that English
proficiency will be better developed if children are taught in
Spanish (or some
other language) rather than in English. It makes more sense to
many skeptics to
argue that success in learning English is more likely to be
assured if instructional
time through English is maximized. This “maximum exposure”
hypothesis is
totally at variance with all the research findings from bilingual
programs around
the world that involve either minority or majority language
students (see
Cummins 1996, Cummins & Corson, 1997 for reviews). Despite
the empirical
support for bilingual programs and the fact that some form of
bilingual education
is implemented in almost every country around the world, there
has been a
sustained attempt since the early 1980s to discredit both the
rationale and
empirical foundation of bilingual programs (e.g. Rossell &
Baker, 1996).
It is not difficult to expose the superficial logic and
sociopolitical functions of the
attempt to undermine the empirical basis of bilingual education.
For example,
most of the “methodologically acceptable” studies related to
bilingual education
identified by Rossell and Baker (1996) are studies of French
immersion programs
in Canada. They label these studies “structured immersion” and
suggest that they
constitute evidence against bilingual education and for

immersing bilingual
students in English-only programs. They are reluctant to point
out that French
immersion programs are fully bilingual programs that provide
strong L1 (English)
instructional support after the initial grades; teachers in these
programs are also
fluently bilingual in French and English, and the goal of the
program is to promote
high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy. To argue for a
monolingual program,
taught by monolingual teachers, aimed at promoting
monolingualism, on the
basis of the success of a fully bilingual program, taught by
bilingual teachers,
whose goal is bilingualism is either naive or cynical in the
extreme.
Similarly, Rossell and Baker together with other opponents of
bilingual education
(e.g. Porter, 1991) consistently invoke the “time-on-task” or
“maximum
exposure” notion to argue for monolingual instruction in
English for bilingual
students. However, they refuse to examine the predictions that
derive from this
principle in relation to the research. If this principle were
valid, then there should
be a direct relationship between the amount of instructional
time in English and
English achievement in all bilingual programs for both minority
and majority
students. This prediction is disconfirmed by all the evaluation
results they cite in
their review, whether these results derive from French
immersion programs for

majority language students or bilingual programs for minority
students. In both
types of programs students taught for a significant amount of
time through a
language other than English (the majority language) fare at least
as well in
11 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
English as comparison groups taught entirely through English.
These are data that require explanation but rather than search
for theoretical
constructs that might account for the data, Rossell and Baker
erect a facade of
“methodological acceptability” that determines which studies
they will accept as
“scientific”. Their discourse becomes interpretable when seen
as the discourse of
the courtroom lawyer whose goal is to present the most
persuasive case for
her/his client with little regard for the truth. The goal is
frequently to obscure the
facts so that “reasonable doubt” is created in the jury. In a
climate of
xenophobia, all that is needed to confirm the paranoia in
relation to “Hispanic
activists” is to create soundbites to the effect that “In reading,
83% of the studies
showed TBE [transitional bilingual education] to be worse than
structured

immersion” (1996, p. 21). As illustrated in Soto’s volume, these
soundbites then
get recycled through the media and into the discourse of policy-
makers providing
“scientific proof” for what was obvious anyway to reasonable
observers that
bilingual education doesn’t work and simply constitutes at best
a make-work
program for Hispanics and at worst a plot to undermine
American values.
The fact that the bulk of the “scientific” evidence for this
position comes from
bilingual programs for dominant group students carried out in
Canada (7 out of
10) or South Africa (1 out of 10) all of which clearly refute the
“maximum
exposure/time-on-task” notion is a detail that conveniently
resides outside the
soundbite’s regime of truth. The bottom line is that “the experts
disagree” so
policy-makers must rely on other criteria, such as “common
sense” or “American
values” to support their decision-making.
Promotion of Programs that Challenge “Us versus Them”
Discourse. The
“Achilles heel” of bilingual education opponents is the success
of two-way
bilingual immersion programs. More than 200 such programs
are currently
implemented across the United States and evaluation data
suggest that they
work exremely well for both minority and majority students
(Thomas & Collier,

1996; Dolson & Lindholm, 1995). These programs involve
either an initial 90:10
ratio of L1 to English, moving to a 50:50 ratio by about grade 4,
or a 50:50 ratio
throughout elementary school. For majority students the
program is an L2
immersion program (modeled on the success of French
immersion programs in
Canada); for minority students it constitutes a language
maintenance program
that aims at full bilingualism and biliteracy.
According to the “maximum exposure/time-on-task” argument,
these programs
should be a disaster for language minority students since they
involve much less
English instruction than the vast majority of transitional
bilingual education or
all-English (structured immersion) programs. In fact, minority
students in these
programs consistently attain or come very close to grade norms
in English
academic skills by grade 6 or 7 (Cummins, 1996). The reason
Rossell and Baker
pay scant attention to these programs is that both majority and
minority students
clearly benefit from the program (thereby dismantling the
effectiveness of “us
12 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM

versus them” rhetoric) and the results show an inverse relation
between exposure
to English and achievement in English when compared to all-
English immersion
programs (Thomas & Collier, 1996).
Conclusion
Soto’s account of the community struggle for effective bilingual
programs in Steel
Town shows the ugly face of racism and xenophobia that peers
through the
transparent veneer of “deep and sincere beliefs that the earlier
children master
the English language, the better their chances for success.”
Addressing the same
issues from the perspective of semiotic theory, Moraes
concludes that dialogic
interaction between oppressed and oppressor is crucial to the
possibility of social
change. She combines Freirean and Bakhtinian analyses in
arguing for a critical
dialogic pedagogy that would equip students (and communities)
with the tools
both to struggle directly against oppression and to work for
dialogue with the the
oppressor.
In exploring the implications of these volumes for the current
debate over
bilingual education in the United States, I have attempted to
elaborate some of
the forms that a critical dialogue might take. However
disdainful some academics

might be of the media’s soundbite discourse through which
coercive power
relations are perpetuated, the reality is that this is a primary
discursive arena for
the political process. A major implication of Moraes’ theoretical
analysis is that it
is irresponsible to abandon this arena to the forces of racism
and xenophobia. In
the absence of dialogue, the “democratic” voice of the dominant
majority, infused
with pre-recorded soundbite formulas, will ensure that the
coercive status quo
will remain intact. Dialogue, by contrast, has at least the
potential to identify
common concerns and priorities shared by various sectors of the
society, expose
the superficial logic and sociopolitical manipulation underlying
opposition to
programs such as bilingual education, and finally work towards
concrete social
and educational changes that overturn xenophobic “us versus
them” perspectives
and implement programs that are self-evidently for the
“common good”. Critical
dialogue of this type has the potential to cause soundbites to
implode because
their apparent logic can be sustained only in the absence of
dialogue. However,
for this process to begin, the “real” world that Soto describes
must be engaged
by the “theoretical” world that Moraes explores in more
concrete ways than just
subjecting the real world to further theoretical analyses.
References

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating Identities: Education for
Empowrment in a
13 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
Diverse Society. Los Angeles: California Association for
Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. & Corson, D. (1997). Bilingual Education.
Volume 5, Encyclopedia of
Language and Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Dolson, D. & Lindholm, K. (1995). World class education for
children in
California: A comparison of the two-way bilingual immersion
and European
Schools model. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.) Multilingualism
for all. (pp. 69-102).
Lisse: Swets &Zeitlinger.
Hughes, R. (1993). Culture of Complaint: A Passionate Look
into the Ailing Heart
of America. New York: Warner Books.
Krashen, S. & Biber, D. (1987). Bilingual Education in
California. Sacramento:
California Association for Bilingual Education.

Otheguay, R. (1991). Thinking about bilingual education: A
critical appraisal. In
M. Minami & B. Kennedy (Eds.) Language Issues in Literacy
and
Bilingual/Multicultural Education. Cambridge: Harvard
Educational Review, Reprint
series no. 22.
Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual
Education. New
York: Basic Books.
President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and
International Studies (1980).
Strength through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability.
Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Quantz, R. & O’Connor, T. (1988). Writing critical
ethnography: Dialogue,
multivoicedness, and carnival in cultural texts. Educational
Theory, 38:1, 95-109.
Rossell, C.H. & Baker, K. (1996). The educational
effectiveness of bilingual
education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30:1, 1-74.
Schlesinger, A. Jr. (1991). The Disuniting of America. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Resource power and autonomy
through discourse
in conflict - a Finnish migrant school strike in Sweden. In T.
Skutnabb-Kangas & J.
Cummins (Eds.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle.
(pp. 251-277).

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
The Case for Bilingual
Education
Why Bilingual Education? by
Stephen Krashen
ERIC® Clearinghouse on Assessment
and Evaluation ... read more.
Highlighted ESL Sites and
Tools
Instant Multi-Language Translator
Great tool for the ESL writing workshop
classroom.
SETTING EXPECTED GAINS
14 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
How effective is bilingual
education?
Elizabeth Howard, Center for Applied
Linguistics... read more.
Visit James Crawford's Language
Policy Web
Possibly the most in-depth bilingual

education site on the web.
for Non and Limited English
Proficient Students
Edward De Avila, Ph.D.
Mathematics For Students with
Learning Disabilities from
Language-Minority Backgrounds:
Recommendations for Teaching Diane
Torres Raborn
Rethinking Schools: Online Urban
Educational Journal.
Dr. James Cummins is a leader in second language learning and
literacy
development research. This website is an expanding resource
for educators the
world over.
Top of Page
i teach i learn.com © 1999-2003
Educators. Technology. Connected.
15 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM

Bilingual Children's Mother Tongue: Why Is
It Important for Education?
2001, February. Sprogforum, 7(19), 15-20.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htm
Jim Cummins
Linguamón – House of Languages. Reading Room. 2009,
September
Bilingual Children's Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important for
Education?
Jim Cummins
The term globalization is never far from the front pages of

newspapers these days. It
evokes strong positive or negative feelings depending upon
whether it is being praised
by the business community for opening up world markets to
more extensive trade or
condemned by those who associate the term with the
dramatically widening gap
between rich and poor nations and people.
One aspect of globalization that has important implications for
educators is the
increasing movement of people from one country to another.
Population mobility is
caused by many factors: desire for better economic conditions,
the need for labour in
many countries that are experiencing low birthrates, a constant
flow of refugees
resulting from conflicts between groups, oppression of one
group by another, or
ecological disasters. Economic integration within the EU also
encourages the free
movement of workers and their families among EU member
countries. The fact that
travel between countries is now fast and efficient (most of the
time) obviously facilitates
population mobility.
A consequence of population mobility is linguistic, cultural,
"racial", and religious
diversity within schools. To illustrate, in the city of Toronto in
Canada, 58% of
kindergarten students come from homes where standard English
is not the usual
language of communication. Schools in Europe and North
America have experienced
this diversity for many years but it remains controversial, and

educational policies and
practices vary widely between countries and even within
countries. Neo-fascist groups
in a number of countries promote overtly racist policies in
relation to immigrant and
culturally diverse communities. Other political parties and
groups adopt a somewhat
more enlightened orientation and search for ways to "solve the
problem" of diverse
communities and their integration in schools and society.
However, they still define the
presence of diverse communities as a "problem" and see few
positive consequences
for the host society. They worry that linguistic, cultural,
"racial" and religious diversity
threaten the identity of the host society. Consequently, they
promote educational
policies that will make the "problem" disappear.
Whereas neo-fascist groups advocate expulsion of immigrants
or at least exclusion
from the mainstream of society (e.g. in largely segregated
schools and housing areas),
more liberal groups advocate assimilation into the mainstream
of society. However,
"assimilation" is similar in many ways to "exclusion" insofar as
both orientations are
designed to make the "problem" disappear. Under both policies,
culturally diverse
groups will no longer be visible or audible. Assimilationist
policies in education
discourage students from maintaining their mother tongues. If
students retain their
culture and language, then they are viewed as less capable of
identifying with the
mainstream culture and learning the mainstream language of the

society.
While students may not be physically punished for speaking
their mother tongue in the
school (as they previously were in many countries), a strong
message is
communicated to them that if they want to be accepted by the
teacher and the society,
they have to renounce any allegiance to their home language
and culture.
This "solve the problem" orientation to diversity in education is
still dominant in most
European and North American countries. Unfortunately, it can
have disastrous
consequences for children and their families. It violates
children's right to an
appropriate education and undermines communication between
children and their
parents. Any credible educator will agree that schools should
build on the experience
and knowledge that children bring to the classroom, and
instruction should also
promote children's abilities and talents. Whether we do it
intentionally or inadvertently,
when we destroy children's language and rupture their
relationship with parents and
grandparents, we are contradicting the very essence of
education.
The destruction of language and culture in schools is also
highly counter-productive for
the host society itself. In an era of globalization, a society that

has access to
multilingual and multicultural resources is advantaged in its
ability to play an important
social and economic role on the world stage. At a time when
cross-cultural contact is at
an all time high in human history, the identities of all societies
are evolving. The
identities of societies and ethnic groups have never been static
and it is a naive illusion
to believe that they can become static-fixed as monochrome and
monocultural
museum exhibits for posterity--when the pace of global change
is as rapid as it is
today.
The challenge for educators and policy-makers is to shape the
evolution of national
identity in such a way that the rights of all citizens (including
school children) are
respected, and the cultural, linguistic, and economic resources
of the nation are
maximized. To squander the linguistic resources of the nation
by discouraging children
from developing their mother tongues is quite simply
unintelligent from the point of view
of national self-interest and also represents a violation of the
rights of the child (see
Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, for a comprehensive review of
international policies and
practices relating to linguistic human rights).
How can schools provide an appropriate education for culturally
and linguistically
diverse children? A fist step is to learn what the research says
about the role of
language, and specifically children's mother tongues, in their

educational development.
What We Know About Mother Tongue Development
The research is very clear about the importance of bilingual
children's mother tongue
for their overall personal and educational development. More
detail on the research
findings summarized below can be found in Baker (2000),
Cummins (2000), and
Skutnabb-Kangas (2000).
Bilingualism has positive effects on children's linguistic and
educational
development. When children continue to develop their abilities
in two or more
languages throughout their primary school years, they gain a
deeper understanding of
language and how to use it effectively. They have more practice
in processing
language, especially when they develop literacy in both, and
they are able to compare
and contrast the ways in which their two languages organize
reality. More than 150
research studies conducted during the past 35 years strongly
support what Goethe, the
German philosopher, once said: The person who knows only one
language does not
truly know that language. The research suggests that bilingual
children may also
develop more flexibility in their thinking as a result of
processing information through
two different languages.
The level of development of children's mother tongue is a
strong predictor of

their second language development. Children who come to
school with a solid
foundation in their mother tongue develop stronger literacy
abilities in the school
language. When parents and other caregivers (e.g. grandparents)
are able to spend
time with their children and tell stories or discuss issues with
them in a way that
develops their mother tongue vocabulary and concepts, children
come to school well-
prepared to learn the school language and succeed
educationally. Children's
knowledge and skills transfer across languages from the mother
tongue they have
learned in the home to the school language. From the point of
view of children's
development of concepts and thinking skills, the two languages
are interdependent.
Transfer across languages can be two-way: when the mother
tongue is promoted in
school (e.g. in a bilingual education program), the concepts,
language, and literacy
skills that children are learning in the majority language can
transfer to the home
language. In short, both languages nurture each other when the
educational
environment permits children access to both languages.
Mother tongue promotion in the school helps develop not only
the mother
tongue but also children's abilities in the majority school
language. This finding is
not surprising in view of the previous findings that (a)

bilingualism confers linguistic
advantages on children and (b) abilities in the two languages are
significantly related or
interdependent. Bilingual children perform better in school
when the school effectively
teaches the mother tongue and, where appropriate, develops
literacy in that language.
By contrast, when children are encouraged to reject their mother
tongue and,
consequently, its development stagnates, their personal and
conceptual foundation for
learning is undermined.
Spending instructional time through a minority language in the
school does not
hurt children's academic development in the majority school
language. Some
educators and parents are suspicious of bilingual education or
mother tongue teaching
programs because they worry that these programs take time
away from the majority
school language. For example, in a bilingual program where
50% of the time is spent
teaching through children's home language and 50% through the
majority school
language, surely children's learning of the majority school
language must suffer? One
of the most strongly established findings of educational
research, conducted in many
countries around the world, is that well-implemented bilingual
programs can promote
literacy and subject matter knowledge in a minority language
without any negative
effects on children's development in the majority language.
Within Europe, the Foyer
program in Belgium which develops children's speaking and

literacy abilities in three
languages (their mother tongue, Dutch and French) in the
primary school most clearly
illustrates the benefits of bilingual and trilingual education (see
Cummins, 2000, pp.
218-219).
We can understand how this happens from the research findings
summarized above.
When children are learning through a minority language (e.g.
their home language),
they are not only learning this language in a narrow sense. They
are learning concepts
and intellectual skills that are equally relevant to their ability to
function in the majority
language. Pupils who know how to tell the time in their mother
tongue understand the
concept of telling time. In order to tell time in the second
language (e.g. the majority
language), they do not need to re-learn the concept of telling
time; they simply need to
acquire new labels or "surface structures" for an intellectual
skill they have already
learned. Similarly, at more advanced stages, there is transfer
across languages in
academic and literacy skills such as knowing how to distinguish
the main idea from the
supporting details of a written passage or story, identifying
cause and effect,
distinguishing fact from opinion, and mapping out the sequence
of events in a story or
historical account.
Children's mother tongues are fragile and easily lost in the early
years of school.
Many people marvel at how quickly bilingual children seem to

"pick up" conversational
skills in the majority language in the early years at school
(although it takes much
longer for them to catch up to native speakers in academic
language skills). However,
educators are often much less aware about how quickly children
can lose their ability to
use their mother tongues, even in the home context. The extent
and rapidity of
language loss will vary according to the concentration of
families from a particular
linguistic group in the school and neighborhood. Where the
mother tongue is used
extensively in the community outside the school, then language
loss among young
children will be less. However, where language communities are
not concentrated or
"ghettoized" in particular neighborhoods, children can lose their
ability to communicate
in their mother tongue within 2-3 years of starting school. They
may retain receptive
(understanding) skills in the language but they will use the
majority language in
speaking with their peers and siblings and in responding to their
parents. By the time
children become adolescents, the linguistic gap between parents
and children has
become an emotional chasm. Pupils frequently become alienated
from the cultures of
both home and school with predictable results.
To reduce the extent of language loss, parents should establish a
strong home

language policy and provide ample opportunities for children to
expand the functions
for which they use the mother tongue (e.g. reading and writing)
and the contexts in
which they can use it (e.g. community mother tongue day care
or play groups, visits to
the country of origin, etc.).
Teachers can also help children retain and develop their mother
tongues by
communicating to them strong affirmative messages about the
value of knowing
additional languages and the fact that bilingualism is an
important linguistic and
intellectual accomplishment. For example, they can initiate
classroom projects focused
on (a) developing children's language awareness (e.g. surveying
and celebrating the
multilingualism of students in the class) and (b) the sharing of
languages in the class
(e.g. every day a child brings one significant word from the
home language into class
and the entire class, including the teacher, learns and discusses
this word.
To reject a child's language in the school is to reject the child.
When the message,
implicit or explicit, communicated to children in the school is
"Leave your language and
culture at the schoolhouse door", children also leave a central
part of who they are-
their identities-at the schoolhouse door. When they feel this
rejection, they are much
less likely to participate actively and confidently in classroom
instruction. It is not
enough for teachers to passively accept children's linguistic and

cultural diversity in the
school. They must be proactive and take the initiative to affirm
children's linguistic
identity by having posters in the various languages of the
community around the
school, encouraging children to write in their mother tongues in
addition to the majority
school language (e.g. write and publish pupil-authored bilingual
books), and generally
create an instructional climate where the linguistic and cultural
experience of the whole
child is actively accepted and validated.
Shaping a Dynamic Identity for the Future
When educators within a school develop language policies and
organize their
curriculum and instruction in such a way that the linguistic and
cultural capital of
children and communities is strongly affirmed in all the
interactions of the school, then
the school is rejecting the negative attitudes and ignorance
about diversity that exist in
the wider society. In challenging coercive relations of power,
the school is holding up to
bilingual children a positive and affirming mirror of who they
are and who they can
become within this society. Multilingual children have an
enormous contribution to
make to their societies, and to the international global
community, if only we as
educators put into practice what we believe is true for all
children:
- Children's cultural and linguistic experience in the home is the
foundation of their

future learning and we must build on that foundation rather than
undermine it;
- Every child has the right to have their talents recognized and
promoted within the
school.
In short, the cultural, linguistic and intellectual capital of our
societies will increase
dramatically when we stop seeing culturally and linguistically
diverse children as "a
problem to be solved" and instead open our eyes to the
linguistic, cultural, and
intellectual resources they bring from their homes to our
schools and societies.
2001, February. Sprogforum, 7(19), 15-20.
References
Baker, C. (2000). A parents' and teachers' guide to bilingualism.
2nd Edition. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy. Bilingual
children in the
crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education-
or worldwide diversity
and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htmportades_EN.
docCBUT_09_0110_articleCummins_salaLectura_Butlleti3_EN.
doc

Bilingual Education in the United States Power, Pedagogy.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bilingual Education in the United States Power, Pedagogy.docx

Similar to Bilingual Education in the United States Power, Pedagogy.docx (6)

More from joyjonna282

More from joyjonna282 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bilingual Education in the United States Power, Pedagogy.docx