Language Minorities Developing Multiple Literacies

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


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.

Documents

Language Minorities Developing Multiple Literacies