Framing of Bilingual Education Past & Present

Past

Bilingual education was once grounded in the movement social justice and equity (Paez, 2008). Bilingual education was original designed to address the needs of children who were not receiving an equitable education (Paez, 2008). Accordingly to the Supreme court decision that mandated supports for ELL's (Lau v. Nichols, 1974), "there is not equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education". So for over 30 years students acquisition of the English language was supported by the use of their heritage language. Both their L1 (heritage language) and their L2(English) was taught inside classrooms across the nation. Students' native language was seen as an asset and as a resource that teachers could use to help them to master English as their second language. Students were encouraged to use both languages inside the classroom.

Present

In the last decade there has been a silencing of bilingualism and bilingual education. In 1998, California passed the Bill Proposition 227 which ended bilingual education in public schools (it is also known as English for the Children headed by Ron Unz)---The Unz initiative is notorious for creating a climate of xenophobia that has dominated politics in the recent years. It is the Unz initiative which is responsible for the recent state of bilingual education across the country. Bear in mind Unz has no educational background in teaching yet he decided what would be "best" for non-native speakers or immigrants as he would put it.

Soon after Massachusetts passed a similar bill known as question 2 on the 2002 ballot. In states like Massachusetts and California English only is welcomed in the classrooms and the only supports students are given are 1st year sheltered English classrooms in which the heritage language could be used to assist students language. Educational policy has gone from taking into account students' home languages and being flexible to emphasizing English-only. The stance that educational policy has taken is one that is "subtractive in nature and ignore[s] the linguistic resources [our students] bring into the classroom" (Paez, 2008). Educational policy goes against research which supports and continues to demonstrate that the use of a students heritage language and English is beneficial and aids in student academic success in English. English only classrooms depreciate what students bring with them into the classrooms. It also forces/enables educators to view their native language as a deficit instead of an asset. This view that we take regarding bilingual education excludes our students from an equitable education. It also shows our students that the only acceptable language is English and shows them that the educational system has power over the languages they use in their everyday lives. It tells them that their language is NOT good enough.

To view the academic article referenced click here.