Domenico Palombo

Minorities and Public Policy

Dr. Schneirov

English Only Education: A Pretext for the Sociopolitical Control of Immigrants

 In the last two decades there has been an increase in immigration from Asia and Latin

America, a backlash against the civil-right’s gains of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and an organized

movement to limit the new bilingualism by promoting English-only laws in the name of national

unity. The heated controversy surrounding bilingual education issues has drawn strong

supporters on both sides of the issue --. proponents of bilingual education armed with countless

studies containing supporting evidence on the positive effects of bilingual education, and

opponents citing values of Americanism and cultural assimilation.

The question remains: Is bilingual education such a bad thing, and, why has there been

so much political fervor surrounding the issue? The irony of the bilingual education debate is

that the quality of bilingual education and academic performance of limited English proficient

(LEP) students are not the true concerns behind the controversy. The discourse on bilingual

education is, and will continue to be, a proxy for a battle of sociopolitical dominance. Evidence on

academic performance is not as significant to public opinion as is the struggle for social control

and economic self interest.

The issue of bilingual education is not a new one, in fact it dates back to the days of

English colonialism, and has popped its head into most of the US states with non-English roots.

Bilingual and vernacular schools were often the product of practical necessity or local choice.

Before the 20th century, English proficient teachers were unavailable in the large expanses of

New Mexico, California, Louisiana and northern New England. Despite their necessity,

Anglophone resistance prevailed and early programs of official bilingualism or bilingual education

were terminated. In most cases involving education, language minority students were subjected

to severe punishment whenever they resorted to a language other than English. (Cassanova, 13)

The Earliest English only campaign was sponsored by Benjamin Franklin against

Pennsylvania Germans. In circulated pamphlets, Franklin warned:

“Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant stupid sort of their own

nation, and as ignorance is often attended with credulity when knavery would mislead

it, and with suspicion when honesty would set it right; and as few of the English
 understand the German language, and so cannot address them either from the press or

pulpit, tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. Why should

Pennsylvania, a colony founded by English, become a colony of Aliens?” (Franklin, 1753)

Although early German immigrants faced harsh anti-immigrant sentiments, they were relatively

un-persecuted in American politics and policy until the United States entered into World War I.

(Crawford, 15)

After the Louisiana purchase, Louisiana entered the Union in 1812 as the first state with a

non-Anglophone majority -- 85% of the residents were non English speakers. Congress required

the state to adopt a constitution specifying that all laws and official records be published in

English, however the state continued to operate bilingually. In 1847, a law authorized French-

English bilingual instruction in public schools, which allowed for bilingual education to continue

until after the Civil War, when all bilingual programs were halted in the name of reconstruction

efforts. Despite post Civil-War English-only legislation, linguistic tolerance tended to prevail, and

after some initial friction, ethnic elites came to an accommodation with each other. (Crawford, 21)

The United States annexed the independent nation of Hawaii in 1898, five years after US

Marines were used in a coup to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy. In the same year, English

instruction became the sole medium of public schooling. Hawaiian Pidgin and Hawaiian Creole

English (HCE) developed as a method to graft Hawaiian and English words into a speaker’s

grammar, and HCE became a standard used in Hawaiian schools. Responding to protests from

Anglo minorities, the Federal Bureau of Education required that schools for HCE speakers be

separated from schools for English speakers, and later cut all funding to schools which had

instruction in HCE. (Crawford, 27-29)

When the Untied States was first settled it was estimated that there were over 250

different languages spoken by native American tribes, however this linguistic diversity soon

became a crime in United States language policy. In 1868, the Indian Peace Commission

concluded that English-only schooling would be a method to pacify the “warlike” tribes. Beginning

in the 1880’s, the US government hired bounty hunters to round up native American children and

pack them off to boarding schools far from home – in effect, holding many of them hostage to
ensure their tribe’s “good behavior” while starting the process of anglocization. The Bureau of

Indian Affairs continued to enforce this regime of coercive assimilation, officially until the 1960’s.

(Crawford 110-112)

After the territory of California was conquered in the Mexican-American war, the treaty of

Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed by the United States Government guaranteeing the rights of

native Spanish speakers. The 1849 state constitution officially recognized Spanish language

rights as a bilingual state, and included a guarantee for the bilingual publication of state laws. By

1855, due to animosity from the influx of non Spanish speaking gold miners, the state officially

discontinued the use of the Spanish language in schooling and in legislation. The California Land

Act of 1861 required all land holders to prove their holdings in English language courts, leading to

14 million acres of haciendas being lost due Spanish speaking landowner’s inability to represent

themselves in English courts. Although the native population of California consisted of Spanish

speakers, they became officially known as foreigners due to changes in language laws. (Crawford

35-39)

In Puerto Rico, US officials sponsored a fifty-year long attempt to anglicize Puerto Ricans

through it’s educational system. Immediately after the Spanish-American War, English was

declared the ‘official language’ of the island. After implementing classroom programs that

required Spanish speaking students to learn in English by rote repetition, 84% of the students

were dropping out by the third grade. Few Puerto Ricans felt any need to learn English, except

when forced to migrate north in search of work. In 1948, Spanish was finally restored as the

basic language of instruction – over the objections of President Truman. (Crawford, 44-46)

Some argue that an official tolerance and recognition of language diversity in US policy

began with numerous international treaties to which the United States is a signatory. These

treaties include the United Nations Charter and the International Declaration of Human Rights,

which recognize the right of freedom from discrimination on the basis of language, and the right to

use languages in activities of communal right. Unfortunately, as proven by our history of English-

only policies, these international treaties are often considered non-binding unless suiting to policy
maker’s particular agenda. The true progress in bilingual legislation was made during the 1960’s

and 1970’s along with most other significant US civil rights progress. (Crawford 7)

After nearly 3 centuries of linguistic struggles, minorities began to view the official assault

on language diversity as an assault on one’s cultural identity and social position. The intimate

relationship between individuals and their vernacular languages can be discerned in allusions to

language as the “mother tongue” or perhaps better explained by the Spanish philosopher

Unamuno “my language is the blood of my soul.” By the late 1960’s, bilingual education began to

emerge as a civil-rights issue.

For militant Chicanos in particular, bilingual education emerged as a key demand, in no

small part because of the suppression of Spanish in schools throughout the Southwest, a symbol

of racial oppression. For La Raza Unida Party, which won control of the Crystal City Texas

school board in 1970, bilingual education became a matter of self-determination, an assertion of

ethnic pride, and a pedagogical approach to which high hopes were attached. Bilingual

education became seen as the only guarantee that children who do not speak English are

provided education in a language they understand, and that their cultural identity is preserved.

(Nieto, 91)

As one of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society, The Bilingual Education Act of 1968

passed in Congress without a single voice of raised dissent. This act opened the doorways to

multilingual education in the United States. Unfortunately, the implementation of this program did

not truly benefit LEP students, as the act was largely perceived as a “poverty program” targeted

at students who were poor and “educationally disadvantaged” because of their inability to speak

English. (Cassanova, 51)

Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education act was passed the same year,

which included three progressive goals. The first goal was as an anti-poverty initiative to

overcome the educational disadvantages of language-minority students – that is, to remedy the

problem of limited English proficiency. The second goal was as an anti discrimination measure to

open up the curriculum to LEP students, and to guarantee their right to equal education

opportunity. The third goal was as an experiment in multicultural education, to foster bilingualism,
and to develop linguistic and cultural resources other than those of the dominant society.

(Crawford, 165)

In 1974, The Equal Educational Opportunities Act was created to expand the Bilingual

Education Act. It was noted that the Title VII program had funded projects in twenty-six

languages and only 6 percent of eligible students had participated. The 1974 law dropped the

requirement for poverty status of children and required schools receiving grants to include

instruction in the student’s native language and culture “to the extent necessary to allow a child to

progress effectively through the educational system.” It was noted that the failure of any

educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal

participation by its students in its instruction program as a denial of equal education opportunity.

Also included in the legislation was a provision allowing up to 40 percent enrollment of English-

speaking students in bilingual programs. (Casanova, 59)

In perhaps the most decisive case involving bilingual education, Lau Vs. Nichols (1974)

set a legal precedent was set guaranteeing the right to bilingual education as a means to equal

education in schools. In his decision that Chinese school children in California were entitled to

be educated in their native language until they obtain English proficiency, justice Douglas

reasoned that:

“There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same

facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand

English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.” (Crawford, 192)

With a Supreme court ruling in favor of education to minorities in their native language, and

numerous education, and the passing of key legislation mandating equal educational

opportunities for non English speakers, America was finally beginning to achieve official linguistic

diversity.

Much of the gains for language minorities that were achieved the 60’s and 70’s existed

with relatively little opposition. Federal policy set a standard of advocacy and tolerance towards

bilingual education, and most states followed suit pursuing the same standard. In 1990, eleven

states had legislation requiring bilingual instructional services, twelve states permitted bilingual
education, and twenty-six states had no relevant legislation. West Virginia was the only state

which still prohibited special instructional services in a non-English language. (Cassanova, 75)

Along with the tide of new civil rights legislation in the 1960’s came a tide of immigrants

into the United States of America. In 1965, Johnson’s administration enacted immigration reform

programs which removed quotas based on national origin, effectively opening our doorways to

the world. Unfortunately, as the number of immigrants increase in our society, anti-immigrant

sentiment and public opinion against bilingual education increases as well.

Conservative estimates indicate that in 1990, there were almost 32 million people in the

entire United States aged five and over who spoke a language other than English in their homes.

In California, the home of numerous English Only movements, the number was 31.5%. In New

Mexico the rate was 35.5%, in Texas it was 25.4%, in New York it was 23.3%, in Hawaii it was

24.8% and in Arizona it was 20.8%. (Cassanova, 12)

According to the California Department of Education statistics, the enrollment of limited

English (LEP) proficient children is now 1.4 million in California. Between 1990 and 1996, as the

state’s population increased by 2.6 million, nine out of ten of the new Californians were Latinos

and Asian. Latinos expanded to 29 percent, Asians 11 percent, African Americans held steady at

7 percent, and non Hispanic whites slipped to 53 percent. Approaching minority status for the

first time since the Gold Rush, white Californians felt threatened by the impending shift in political

power, and resentful about paying taxes to benefit ‘other’ people’s children. (Crawford, 189)

In response to the growing dominance of non-white immigrant populations, new English

only movements began to re-emerge. Early pressure to speak English featured a campaign to

“Americanize the Immigrant” in the early 1900’s, but such national episodes were the exception.

The modern English only movement dates from 1983 when former Senator Hayakwawa of

California teamed up with Dr. John Tanton to found US English. The English Only activism took

a snowball effect, growing in the 1980’s with 48 states considering US English proposals. By

1994, 23 states had passed “English Only” laws to restrict the public use of minority languages.

The new movement primarily gained its support from the white middle class, with voters having
annual household incomes over $60,000 being twice as likely to oppose bilingual education as

those with incomes below $20,000. (Crawford, 5)

The official claim of bilingual advocates has been that in order to promote effective

nationwide communications, the United States is compelled to use a linguistic standard involving

a mandatory English approach. Most English Only proponents extend the argument to

assertions that today’s immigrants refuse to learn English, unlike the good old European

immigrants of yesteryear, and that these new immigrants are discouraged from doing so by

government-sponsored bilingual programs. Advocates also claim that ethnic leaders are

promoting bilingualism for selfish ends to provide jobs for their constituents, and that language

diversity inevitably leads to language conflict.

As much as English Only activists have attempted to portray themselves as having

positive intentions, their true motivation remains based on anti-immigrant fears which seek to

keep the emerging lower class immigrants from maintaining their cultural identities while obtaining

upward mobility. Alarm about the new immigration has been closely associated with English-only

fervor. In a study of California voting patterns, county level support for Proposition 63, the

Official English measure passed in 198, was a ‘very strong’ (r=0.82) predictor of support for

Proposition 187, the ‘border control’ measure passed in 1994. (Crawford, 175)

Little or no attention was given to academic results of bilingual programs by English Only

advocates; instead the concentration consisted of anti-immigrant stereotypes labeling non English

speakers as seeking to “take over the country,” and to “change the country’s language.” The

words of Ronald Regan in a response to a reporter’s question about support for bilingual

education best portray the new popular position: “It is absolutely wrong and against the American

concept to have a bilingual education program that is now openly, admittedly dedicating to

preserving their native language and never gearing them in adequate English so they can go out

into the job market.” (Neito, 194)

Dr. Tanton, director of US English, expressed his true sentiments when he warned of a

Hispanic political takeover of the United States through immigration and high birth rates. In other

numerous speeches, Tanton attempted to highlight the “Latin onslaught” and it’s cultural impact,
thereby advancing the cause of immigration restrictions. Linda Chavez, another conservative

pundit and one-time president of US English, accused bilingual educators of seeking the

retrocession of the south-western United States to Mexico. (Leistyna, 4)

Another assertion made by English Only advocates is that the expanding use of non

English-languages is threatening the existence of English in the United States. Arguments have

been presented that if allowed, language minorities will continue to refuse to use English in most

settings. How do we know when a language is really threatened? Recent demographic data

analyzed by Veltman indicates that the rates of Anglicization – the shift to English as the usual

language – are steadily increasing. They now approach or surpass a two-generation pattern

among all immigrant groups, including Spanish-speakers, who are most often stigmatized as

resistant to English. (Crawford, 6)

Usually languages die through language shifts, the sociolinguistic phenomenon when an

ethnic group moves its preference and use of language from its original ethnic language to the

sociologically dominant language. The most obvious signs are when rates of fluency in native

language increase with age, as younger community members prefer to speak the dominant social

language. Usage tends to decline in churches, schools, the cultural sphere, and the home, and a

growing number of parents fail to teach the native language to their children. By this model, the

only languages on the decline are the non English languages. (Crawford)

In the 1990’s various agencies began enforcing their own illegitimate English Only laws

with an alarming degree of resentment against non English speakers. Business owners

nationwide increased the use of speak-English only rules in the workplace, many defying

guidelines of the EEOC. Tavern owners in Washington DC refused to serve patrons who

conversed in Spanish, posting signs such as “In the USA, It’s English or Adios Amigo.” A judge

hearing a child-custody case in Amarillo, Texas accused a mother of neglect and abuse for

speaking Spanish to her five year old daughter, and in New York City, police officers began

ticketing Cuban-Americans for their inability to answer questions in English. In Georgia,

authorities fined the pastor of a Spanish speaking congregation for posting placards that allegedly

violated an English-only sign ordinance. (Crawford, 172)

 As part of his Contract with America program, Newt Gingritch introduced HR123, the

English Language Empowerment Act. The bill took pains to emphasize that it would not effect on

“the teaching of languages” but as passed by the House of Representatives, the bill declared

English the sole official language of the US government and banned most federal operations in

other tongues. Some of these federal operations include US State Department Immigrant Visa

services, INS processing, and US Customs Service processing for tourists and visitors of the

United States, not to mention numerous social services in which non English residents and

citizens pay for in their taxes. Fortunately this bill did not pass in the US Senate, but it did

highlight the growing national support of English only legislation.

The most significant move towards English Only legislation was on the 8 th of November,

1988, when voters in Arizona, Colorado, and Florida turned out in large numbers to approve

ballot measures declaring English the official language of their state governments. These

measures included state medical services, department of motor vehicle services, and almost all

forms of legal, licensing, and property registration services. Fortunately, the Supreme court

struck down these measures as violations of the first amendment due to provisions which banned

the spoken use of languages other than English. (Crawford, 174)

A new strategy was needed by English Only supporters to halt the official use of

languages other than English. What could be a better tactic than using child welfare and

education as a pretext. Ron Unz, chairman of the national advocacy organization “English for

the Children” took the lead at the forefront for this cause. Unz’s strategy was simple: claim that

children in the United States were being denied the opportunity to be educated in English and

avoid any and all reference to academic performance records. Subsequently, the strategy won

support of minorities and non minorities alike, selling the concept of exploited children, rather than

asserting that language minority children should be denied their right to maintain their

bilingualism. In 1998, the state of California passed the “English for the Children” law with 84%

of the vote, effectively revoking any and all bilingual education for LEP students. Since then,

Unz’s proposals have been passed in Arizona, and are being considered in Colorado, New York,

Massachusetts, and Oregon. (Leistnya, 3)

 One of the strangest ironies is that most supporters for English Only programs have little

idea or concern about the various types of existing bilingual education programs, or their

educational effectiveness. The perception as a whole has been that students are being

permanently instructed in their native language, and these students (or parents) refuse any

attempt to learn the English language. As we will see, this could not be further from the truth.

Bilingual education is generally defined as an education program that involves the use of

two languages of instruction at some point in a student’s career. There are numerous

interpretations of bilingual education in the schools, ranging all the way from ESL to

developmental (complete instruction in the native language) bilingual education. Some of the

most common models are transitional, maintenance, two way, and immersion. (Nieto)

The most prevalent model of bilingual education provided for LEP students has been

transitional bilingual education. Subject matter is taught in the student’s native language while

they are learning English, and only until they have gained enough English proficiency to be

placed in the mainstream classroom -- usually limited to a maximum of three years. Instruction in

the student’s native language ceases at that time, with no continued efforts to maintain their

languages. (Senesac, 11)

Two way bilingual education is a model for integrating both native English speakers, and

students who speak English as a second language. The goal of this approach is to develop

bilingual fluency, academic achievement, and positive cross cultural attitudes amongst both

English speakers and language minority students. A typical program design for a Spanish /

English program would be that K-2 students study 90% of their materials in Spanish, and 10% in

English, and then from grades 3 to 6 the same students would have equal instruction in both

English and Spanish In a study of 160 schools with two-way programs between 1991 and 1994,

it was found that the schools were effective in educating both English-Speaking students and

students who speak languages other than English.(Senesac, 2)

Maintenance bilingual education is a more comprehensive and long-term model. The

difference between maintenance models and other models is that there is no limit on the time that

students can participate in the program. The belief is that a child’s native language is worth
maintaining because it is an asset in its own right, and therefore an appropriate channel for

continued learning. Surprisingly enough, maintenance bilingual schools are becoming

increasingly popular in many non-English speaking countries for instruction in English and

French. (Nieto)

Immersion bilingual education represents quite a different approach to learning a second

language. In these models, students are immersed in their second language for a year or two,

before their native language is introduced as a medium of instruction. By a student’s fifth or sixth

year in schooling, they may be receiving equal amounts of instruction in both languages. In

Quebec, the early research on such programs found that English speaking students living in the

French province were quite successful in their acquisition of French. (Nieto)

A study conducted on Inter-American Schools, private bilingual institutions which use the

two way teaching model, found that students had outperformed in academic performance when

compared to similar English Only private schools. Despite receiving instruction in English for no

mare than 50% of class time, bilingual students consistently attain high levels of achievement in

English reading and writing, math, science and social studies. What is especially compelling is

the continued high achievement of low income LEP students in English reading and writing as

they progress through the grade levels. These results reflect additive bilingualism, as both

Englsh-dominant and Spanish-dominant students learn another language with no negative

consequences for their academic, linguistic, or intellectual development. Other indicators of

success are the very high attendance rates and parent satisfaction of participants in bilingual

programs. (Senesac, 5)

A commonly expressed fear about childhood bilingualism is that it could confuse the

child, both linguistically, and cognitively. Stripping away a student’s native language and culture

has been commonly been practiced for what teachers and schools believe are good reasons.

Schools often make a direct link between student’s English assimilation and their academic

performance. As a consequence, students who speak a language other than English are

frequently viewed as “handicapped” and urged, through both subtle and direct means to abandon

their native language. Students in this scenario often undergo subtractive bilingualism, where
one develops English at the expense of one’s native language – moving from being monolingual

in one language to being monolingual in another. Is there an advantage to the subtractive

model? Numerous studies have found the benefits of bilingualism and bilingual education to

outweigh the monolingual scenario. (Crawford)

According to the National Research Council “when socioeconomic status is controlled,

bilingualism shows no negative effects on the overall linguistic, cognitive, or social development

of children, and may even provide general advantages in these areas of mental functioning.” In

a 1964 study considered to have set the precedent for theories on bilingual education, Pearl and

Lambert discovered that bilingual children perform significantly better than monolingual children in

both verbal and nonverbal tests when variables such as gender, age, and socioeconomic status

were controlled. Scores of studies since the Pearl and Lambert study have again confirmed this

observation.( National Research Council, 40 Cassanova, 15)

Contrary to public perception, is has been determined that the degree of children’s

native-language proficiency is a strong predictor of their English-language development. The

more native-language instruction students received, the more likely they were to be reclassified

as proficient in English. One recent study examining the academic achievement of language-

minority students by Collier, found that the greater the amount of combined language and ESL

support LM students received, the higher the academic achievement. (Nieto, 197)

The goals of bilingual education are not to avoid instructing a student English as a

second language, but rather to gradually develop one’s command of the English language, while

maintaining a high degree of academic instruction, and the preservation of one’s original native

language. Studies also find that approaches that stress native-language instruction can be

helpful in overcoming other obstacles such as poverty, family illiteracy, and social stigmas

associated with minority status. (Nieto)

Some of the major downfalls to bilingual education programs exist in negative social

perceptions by the public, and by teachers. Language minority students are often among those

who perform poorly in school, as the languages spoke by children often influence teacher

perceptions of academic ability and the way they are grouped for instruction. The National
Research Council asserts that language minority students “are treated differently from main-

stream students as a result of forces both within and outside of school that implicitly promote and

sustain the perspectives and institutions of the majority.” (National Research Council, 22)

Quite often, bilingual and ESL programs are perceived as programs for slow students,

and students with discipline problems. Bilingual programs are frequently relegated to basement

spaces, and bilingual teachers have frequently been segregated programmatically from other

staff, thus isolating and alienating them more. Often times, English speaking students are sent to

bilingual programs as a result of the educational institutions inability to assess their needs. A

New York ESL instructor explains this scenario:

We had a kid come from Jamaica. They put him in the ESL program and I had a fit.

I said, "You can't take a kid from an English-speaking country and put him in an ESL

track. I don't care if he has an accent or speaks a dialect." They did, they railroaded it

through when the director was out sick. Why? Because he couldn't read and no one

wanted to teach him so they put him in ESL. Everybody in the school was saying that

they couldn't understand when the Jamaican child talks. He does speak differently from

how you and I do, but if you have half a brain you can follow and detect language

patterns to work from and on. The principal of the school that he was supposed to go to

didn't want him because, as she said, "We've had Jamaican kids before and they

haven't done well." It's like saying "so let's solve the problem by bouncing him into

ESL." I went nuts and said, "Do you know that this is illegal!" But, they did it anyway. The

first grade teacher that got him, she was young with all kinds of methods, but she is

also racist like you wouldn't believe. She made no attempt to use the kid's background to

enhance her own understanding and teaching, and would say things in the teacher

lounge like, "Oh yaa mon, let's light up some ganja," mocking a Jamaican accent and

demonstrating stereotypical attitudes. (Leistnya, 7)

Perhaps the problems in our educational institutions are not results of language instruction, but

instead due to the institutions inability to assess their student’s needs.

One of the major ironies in the English Only campaign that could indicate a sociopolitical

struggle rather than an education debate is the support for instruction of non-English languages

to Anglophone students. Assimilationists tend to argue that the development and maintenance of

languages other than English are the responsibility of the parents and of voluntary cultural groups

rather than of public schools, yet these same assimilationists push for foreign language

instruction to native English speakers. Leistnya argues that this “high value placed on school

acquired foreign languages, but devalued and discouraged use of vernacular language, is

designed to reaffirm the status quo and maintain social stratification.” (Leistnya, 7)

Two former Secretaries of Education under President Ronald Reagan, Terrell Bell and

William Bennett, promoted foreign language education in secondary schools while advocating

English-Only instruction for LM students. Secretary Bell cited the American education system for

turning America into “a bunch of monolingual bumpkins” and Secretary Bennet included two

years of foreign language education as a requirement for graduation at his model Madison High

School. None of these men seemed to experience any discomfort in promoting their respective

positions while also decrying the provision of bilingual education for the country’s language

minority children, the ones who are most likely to become fluent bilinguals. (Leistnya, 8)

Another irony exists in the state of Louisiana, a state which was once bilingual, but today

has an extremely low percentage of non English speakers. The founders of CODOFIL, a

bilingual French / English program, saw that the state’s existing bilingual heritage as a potential

economic and cultural benefit given the status of French as an important language of world

communication. They decided that instead of restricting bilingual education to teaching of English

to children of French speaking backgrounds, Louisianans could instead use and expand their

indigenous language traditions through two-way bilingual programs. The ultimate goal of

CODOFIL is “to make Louisiana a window of the French speaking world.” Surprisingly enough,

the CODOFIL program has met little or no opposition from English Only advocates, perhaps

because there is no existing struggle for sociopolitical control in the state of Louisiana. (Evans, 3)
 The issue of bilingual education is not a new idea in American history, however, the anti-

immigrant sentiment behind opposition to bilingual education has not reared it’s ugly head as

strongly as it has in the 1980s and 1990s. Opponents of bilingual education tend to harp on

fears of an immigrant takeover, and the loss of American culture as number of non English

speaking immigrants increase exponentially in the United States. Despite the proven

effectiveness of bilingual education programs on LEP student’s academic performance, English

Only enthusiasts have remained solidified in their opposition to such programs. The issue at

hand, despite such pretexts such as “saving the children,” is a struggle for maintaining

sociopolitical dominance.

Bilingual education, will no doubt continue to be a fundamentally political issue because

of its concern for the relative power or lack of power of various groups in our society. What

seems to irritate English-only advocates is not the translation of street signs or tax forms or

children's lessons, but what these accommodations symbolize: a public recognition that limited-

English speakers are part of the community and therefore entitled to services from government,

even if that may entail "special" programs and expenditures.

Both the proponents and opponents of bilingual education have long recognized the

potential of bilingual education for empowering those traditionally powerless groups. Because it

represents the class and ethnic group interests of traditionally subordinated groups and comes

out on the side of education as an emancipatory proposition, it is no mystery that bilingual

education has been characterized by great controversy and debate. The most significant effect of

the bilingual education issue is that it gives some measure of official public status to the political

struggle of language minorities in the United States.

Bibliography

Crawford, James At War with Diversity: US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety Multilingual
Matters, LTD. 2001

National Research Council, Institute of Medicine Improving Schooling for Language Minority
Children National Academy Press 1997

Neito, Soinia Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of MultiCultural Education White
Plains, NY 1996

Casanova, Ursula Bilingual Education: Politics, Practice, and Research National Society for the
Study of Education 1993

Evans, Carol “At war with diversity: US Language Policy In an Age of Anxiety” Bilingual Research
Journal, Washington DC, Summer 2002

Senesac, Barbara “Two-Way Bilingual Immersion: A Portrait of Quality Schooling” Bilingual

Research Journal, Washington DC, Spring 2002

Armendariaz, Abe “An Administrative Perspective of a Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Program”

Bilingaul Research Journal Washington DC, Spring 2002

Leistyna, Pepi “Scapegoating Bilingual Education: Getting the Whole Story From the Trenches”
Washington DC, Summer 2002