Native Language Instruction cont. from pg. 4

must rank a close second. In a recent newspaper article critical of bilingual education almost every other sentence had erroneous information in it. Though it is tempting to conclude that advocates of bilingual education have not done a good job of defining and describing this educational methodology, the fault goes much deeper. The public media has consistently failed to give extensive coverage to what they perceive as educational material and therefore not very newsworthy. As a result, articles dealing with bilingual education tend to be short, uninformative, and downgraded. On the other hand, criticisms of bilingual education are considered controversial, interesting, and given top coverage. An article on the shortcomings of bilingual education received converage in the media, including front page headlines in several prominent newspapers. Subsequent articles on the scandalous methodology used in the study which produced the original article received little or no coverage. If reported in the printed media, it was usually found in the back close to the classified ads.

pages

Additionally, much of the misinformation which surfaces about bilingual education is the creation of emotionally responsive critics. It is not unusual for an article criticizing bilingual education to state or imply that native language is being used in lieu of English language acquisition. This is simply not so. An emotional writer in the San Antonio Light states, "In many instances, according to reliable published reports, their teachers (of limited English proficient children) are more dedicated to teaching them the correct and literary form of their native language than teaching them English." Again, this is not so. I have observed bilingual classrooms in at least twenty different states, and I have never seen teachers neglect the teaching of English language in bilingual programs. Furthermore, I have reviewed hundreds of reports on bilingual programs from school districts, state education gencies, federal agencies, the Department of Education, etc. and have never seen a report, let alone a reliable report of the practice described in the article. I challenge the author to show me one (just one) report which shows one case (just one case) in which a bilingual education teacher was found dedicating more time to the correct and literary form of the native language than to the instruction of English as a second language.

The emotional responses to bilingual education ometimes get so intense that they defy all reason. For xample, on two occasions I have read articles in which he writers object to the use of the phrase "English as a econd language." The argument presented in both cases s that English is the greatest language on earth and herefore second to none. How does one argue with such in individual that the word "second" refers to a chronological order, and that in the case of a native speaker of a

language other than English, English will always follow the native language chronologically.

The third area of criticism of bilingual education is a difficult subject to deal with. As our country has already entered and exited the era of civil rights and equal educational opportunity and the word "racist" has been abandoned as no longer an "in word," one is limited in what can be said about certain attitudes toward language minority children. However, it seems obvious that when one argues about the pedagogical rationale of bilingual education and the need for native language instruction to prevent educational retardation, to enhance self-concept as a prerequisite of learning, and the need for existing language utilization to continue cognitive development, there are some hard-core opponents whose opposition is neither emotional nor pedagogical. This opposition is based on past discriminatory attitudes about the place of racial and ethnic minorities and the belief held by some that equal educational opportunity is not desirable.

It appears that some people are saying that a basic command of the English language is sufficient and should be the desired educational outcome for language minority children. They agree that it is well and good to afford these children an English as a second language program which allows them to develop sufficient language and intellectual skills to understand and follow basic instructions, allows them to earn a decent living, and prevents them from becoming a social liability. But do not go so far as to develop language and intellectual skills to the point that it disrupts the social order. First thing you know their children will be competing with our children for admission to medical schools, they will be wanting political offices, and they will be wanting managerial and supervisory positions. This attitude was manifested by the reaction of some community leaders to the introduction of Title I Migrant Education programs in the 1960s. Their viewpoint was expressed as, "If you give them so much education, they won't want to pick crops for a living."

Educators frequently express parallel negative attitudes about language minority children. For the past five years, the strongest controversy about bilingual education has been the determination of what constitutes acceptable performance for removal from a native language support program.

A recent newspaper item critical of bilingual education also exemplified this attitude. The writer had visited a high school class made up of Asian immigrant children and observed that without native language instruction the students appeared to be doing fine. She stated that they had a basic understanding of the English language and could communicate with each other in simple English. It seems to me that high school students are not supposed to be communicating with each other in simple English. They are supposed to be communicating about algebra, geometry, physics, and social studies. They are supposed to be reaching near adult levels of cognition, affective development, and aesthetic appreciation.

Educators frequently express parallel negative

cont. pg. 6

Native Language Instruction cont. from pg. 5

attitudes about language minority children. For the past five years, the strongest controversy about bilingual education has been the determination of what constitutes acceptable performance for removal from a native language support program. Though the 50th percentile on standardized tests is considered average performance for English speaking children, the state education agency was adamant on lowering the acceptable level of performance for language minority children from the 40th percentile to the 23rd percentile. The 23rd percentile is close to the score a person can make on a standardized test by guessing at the answers without even looking at the questions. With such low racist levels of expectancy, it is amazing that minority children perform as well as they do.

So much of the criticism of bilingual education comes from emotional responses, misinformation, and racist attitudes, that one must make a conscious effort to look at criticism objectively.

So much of the criticism of bilingual education comes from emotional responses, misinformation, and racist attitudes, that one must make a conscious effort to look at criticism objectively. It is dangerous to formulate an immediate reaction without a constraining question, "Is the critic emotional, ignorant, or racist?" Yet the vast majority of criticism does fall into one or more of these basic classifications.

I see bilingual education as the best approach for teaching the English language without academic retardation, with the minimum development of negative concepts of self, and with the maximum development of the intellectual potential of the individual.

The Efficacy of Bilingual Education

In spite of all the criticism being heard about bilingual education programs and the use of native language instruction for language minority children, I ontinue to be a strong advocate of this methodology. I see ilingual education as the best approach for teaching the English language without academic retardation, with the ninimum development of negative concepts of self, and with the maximum development of the intellectual potential of the individual. In my 34 years as a professional ducator working with language minority children, I ave not found a better alternative. I will look into Iternative approaches, although I see the current push for xperimental alternative programs as more of an attempt establish loopholes for complying with current law and regulations rather than serious educational experimentation. Certainly current efforts to provide an alternative which consists of the traumatic and disastrous programs of the pre-bilingual era have not been, can not be, and will not be acceptable to me. Bilingual education with native language instruction still appears the best option for children with limited English proficiency.

Hispanic Field Service Program Evaluated as a Success

by David G. Ramirez, Ph.D.

In 1980, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a request for proposals for a national project designed to increase the number of Hispanics in local government. The University of Colorado (UCD) submitted a proposal and was awarded the contract. The UCD proposal outlined a national program that would transcend the primary goal of increasing the numbers of Hispanics in government positions. It was envisioned that the funded project would serve as a catalyst in the establishment of a stronger partnership between universities, local governments, and Hispanic communities. Indeed, it was this latter goal which set the National Hispanic Field Service Program (NHFS P) apart from simply being a fellowship program that disbursed available finds to students. The establishment of this triangular partnership between universities, local government, and the Hispanic community was seen as the mechanism for ensuring the project's life and impact after funding terminated. Orignial federal funding for the project was set at 2.5 million dollars, but national budget cutbacks reduced this figure to $1,975,000.

In order to establish the project, UCD solicited proposals for participation from 340 colleges and universities. Thirty-four proposals were considered by a national review panel, and ten, including the University of Colorado at Denver, were selected for participation. Three of the universities selected (Trinity University, St. Mary's University, and the University of Texas at San Antonio) formed the San Antonio-South Texas Cooperative, while three others (University of Southern California, University of California at Riverside, and California State University at Los Angeles) formed the Greater Los Angeles Consortium. Other participating universities included Florida International, Hunter College in New York City, the University of New Mexico, and Arizona State Universtiy. During a second request for proposals, Golden State University at San Francisco and California State at Hayward (which formed the Northern California Consortium), and the Univesity of Hartford were also selected as participants.

As noted earlier, the project was designed to establish a strong relationship between universities, local government, and the Hispanic community. The linkage between the universities and local government was to be established: 1) through the internship program designed to place university fellows in local government positions, and 2) through the participation of local government representatives on the NHFSP Local Advisory Committees. In this manner a cross-fertilization of talent could occur between the university fellows and their mentors in the field (i.e., local government public administrators that served as either field placement supervisors or Local Advisory Council members). The linkage between the university and the Hispanic community would be formed cont. pg. 8 IDRA Newsletter

PAGE 4

WASHINGTON ALERT

MARCH 1984

Continued from Page 1

to our neighbor in the north, Canada, to see the turmoil created by the lack of a common language and culture. The isolation of French Quebec from the rest of English Canada has fueled an ongoing political crisis with Quebec nearly seceding from the rest of Canada. Could the United States afford to lose California or Texas or Florida?

Learning a new language is a difficult task. In years past, new arrivals in our country were forced to learn English in order to survive. These people had to learn. They had no time to waste. The success of many of these immigrants is legend today. In this year 1984, immigrants can shop, work and vote without having to learn English. Also, the availability of foreign language newspapers and foreign language programs on radio and television, covering a full range of news and entertainment, discourages the learning of English.

As incredible as it may seem, our own government is involved in weakening the role of English in our society. The Federal government no longer requires immigrants to learn English in order to become a voting citizen.

"We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding hours."

Theodore Roosevelt

The decline of English as the common language of the United States poses both a short-term and long-term problem for our country. Today we have people driving on our highways who

can't read the signs. More importantly, how can a citizen vote responsibly in an election when he doesn't comprehend the pros and cons of the issues or candidates' statements because he can't read English?

Over the long term, the decline of English threatens to unravel the social fabric of our country. The English language is a crucial part of our American culture and heritage. A common language is part of what makes the United States united. By allowing distinct ethnic subgroups with their own language and culture to develop within the United States, we undermine our national unity and strength.

If you are concerned about this problem, write your Congressman and Senators and ask them to support SJ Res. 167 in the Senate and HJ Res. 169 in the House. This amendment to the Constitution would make English the official language of the United States.