Unz got your tongue: what have we lost with the English-only mandates?

As a group, my students are facing a dramatic shift in their experience of schooling. On November 5, 2002, Massachusetts's voters took away immigrant students' right to a bilingual education in our State. What have we lost with the passage of Question 2 in Massachusetts? (1)

Effective teachers know that in order to teach any topic we must first find out what students already know. Tapping students' existing knowledge base enables the teacher to identify the entry point for introducing new knowledge. But what if students' existing knowledge and skills are perceived to be valueless? Under the current English-only law, this is precisely what happens to English language learners (ELLs). (2) They are prohibited by state law from using and learning in their native tongue. To further frame the racist and anti-pedagogical nature of the loss of access for my students, consider this: proficiency in a second language is a high-school graduation requirement in our state; ironically, our students are forced to forget the language that they bring to school in order to learn. (3) Bilingual education emphasizes recognizing and using students' assets as the foundation for developing new academic competencies--including English oral language and literacy development. However, with the enactment of Question 2, knowing a language other than English is now viewed as an obstacle to learning.

I write this article from my location as a Cuban-American teacher of a fifth grade Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) classroom. I am writing through a variety of lenses that include my role as a teacher of a SEI fifth-grade classroom, a twenty-four year practitioner of bilingual education, and a former administrator of native language literacy services--all in the Boston Public Schools (BPS). I am also writing from the position of an immigrant who entered this country as a third-grader speaking no English. During the last two years of state-imposed SEI instruction, I have personally witnessed the tremendous injustice committed against my mostly first and second-generation immigrant students under the guise of teaching them English, and I believe that this story urgently needs to be told. I thus hope to describe in this article the adverse results of native language prohibition on ELLs. The purpose is to expose the current English-only movement for what it really is: a reactionary political tendency with deep roots in the nativist and xenophobic excesses of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is an attempt to disrespect and subordinate students while stripping them of their native language and culture.

WHAT HAVE WE LOST: DEFUNCT BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND THE OUTLAWING OF NATIVE LANGUAGE USE

Following the voters in California (1998) and Arizona (2000), in November 2002 the Massachusetts electorate, made up of primarily white non-users of bilingual education who outnumbered urban voters of color--voted to end bilingual education, and thus voted to end equitable access to public education for immigrant students in Massachusetts. This prohibition of non-English language use in the school has created an almost Big Brother-like atmosphere where teachers can be punished for calling on students' language strengths and knowledge unless expressed in English.

It is the second year of English-only instruction for immigrant students in Massachusetts. Prior to the passing of Question 2, BPS statistical data illustrated the large numbers and the tremendous diversity of the English language learner student population. During the 2001-2002 academic year, the year before the passage of Question 2, 9,808 BPS students (about 17% of the total) were enrolled in bilingual education programs. The programs offered to families in Boston Public Schools were prompted by the mandates of the Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974, the federal law that codifies standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1974 Lau vs. Nichols decision. Lau required states and school districts "to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation in instructional programs." (4) Families could choose among a menu of programs that best suited their child(ren).

Bilingual programs enabled students to use their native language in order to learn content--such as mathematics, reading comprehension, writing skills, social studies, and science--while learning English as a second language. For example, families could choose to place their child in a "transitional" program facilitating academic learning in the native language for three to five years thereby easing their transition into "mainstream" English-only classes. Older students who entered school with low literacy due to limited prior schooling in their country of origin were allowed to learn to read and write in their native language with the goal of transitioning into bilingual programs where they would continue to enhance their native language literacy skills while they simultaneously acquired English language proficiency. The following is a synopsis of the type of bilingual programs offered to families prior to the outlawing of bilingual education:

1. Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE): The goal of this program is to facilitate the transition of English Language Learners into the all-English curriculum. Instruction in the students' native language ensures that students learn subject matter in the language they understand best. Classes in the native language continue as students acquire English language skills sufficient to function successfully in English-only mainstream classrooms. Transition to the English-only classroom is expected to occur within three years.

2. Native Language Literacy (NLL): This program constitutes a safety net program designed for intensive literacy development for students who have had limited or no schooling in their home countries. The program targets students between the ages of 9 and 21 and is designed to help students eventually enter and succeed in the TBE program. The focus of the program is on developing native language literacy and ESL skills as well as subject matter knowledge.

3. Two-way Bilingual (TB): The goal of this program is to develop full bilingualism for all participants, regardless of their linguistic background. These programs serve both English language learners and native English speakers seeking to learn a language other than English. All students receive instruction in English and a second language from the outset. It is important to note that, typically, native English speaking students come from middle-class homes where parents understand the long-term value of rendering their children bilingual.

Common features across programs are worth emphasizing. TBE, NLL and TB all use native language instruction so students do not fall behind in their acquisition of academic knowledge while acquiring English as a second language. Since the native language is used in the schools, non-English speaking parents can understand more about the everyday life of the classroom and assume greater participation and ownership of their child's schooling. Being allowed to teach in the students' various native languages frees educators to tap and build on students' existing linguistic and cultural capital. Bilingual programs in Boston offered instructional support in various native languages including Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cape Verdean Creole, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, and Somali. This allowed for the hiring of linguistic-minority teachers as role models for students. BPS programmatic documentation demonstrated that 64% of these students exited the bilingual program within three years. Counter to the political rhetoric coming from the English-only movement claiming that linguistic minorities were trapped in bilingual programs and never learned English, the average length of stay of an ELL in bilingual education was about two and a half years.

THE PASSAGE OF QUESTION 2: TONGUE-TYING ELL STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS

In November 2002 an overwhelmingly white suburban-based electorate voted to end bilingual education through a ballot initiative inspired and bankrolled by Silicon Valley millionaire, Ron Unz. Bilingual education in Massachusetts was defeated by close to 70% of the voters yet it is important to highlight that 93% of all Latinos polled voted in favor of keeping bilingual education. (5) The passage of Question 2 clearly illustrates the imposition of the white majority will on minority students, especially Latinos. Question 2--or "the Unz law," completely abolished bilingual education for all immigrant children in kindergarten through fourth grade; students older than ten may apply for a waiver from the English-only program on a limited basis. The irony is that, counter to common-sense mythology regarding second language acquisition, it is precisely the younger children who benefit most from native language instruction. Older immigrant students, literate in their native languages and academically competent in various academic subjects, are cognitively and linguistically more capable in an English-only environment since they have the academic tools and cognitive abilities to simultaneously learn English and transfer their already existing knowledge to English subject matter. Younger children, on the other hand, suffer tremendously from education that strips them of their native language and provides instead shoddy English-only instruction.

Despite the promise of potential waivers for older students, in general, the law prohibits the teaching in any language other than English. For example, school personnel are powerfully discouraged from endorsing waivers. In fact, the law states that if a parent requests a waiver and then later decides that his/her child did not benefit from native language instruction, that parent can sue teachers, school administrators, and elected or appointed school officials as individuals. If found guilty, educators can be liable to pay monetary damages and attorney's fees out of their own pockets. Moreover, offenders are barred from employment in any public school or from being elected to political office for a period of five years.

Despite a history of general effectiveness of bilingual education, existing bilingual personnel, and the variety of special language programs available to ELLs, BPS's superintendent expedited the dismantling of bilingual education after the November 2002 vote in favor of Question 2. It is interesting to note that the superintendent pushed the implementation of sheltered English instruction despite having less than one year to plan, develop curriculum, purchase materials, or prepare teachers. His English-only assimilationist ideology proved to be stronger than the common sense realization that teachers and other personnel would require time to pull together a coherent instructional program--especially when the majority of mainstream teachers knew very little about second language acquisition or sheltered English instructional techniques.

Despite the lack of professional development and materials, BPS directed teachers to do away with all non-English language textbooks and materials. I personally witnessed bilingual teachers tearfully boxing their books and materials. The day after the vote, in plain view of our students, piles of discarded Spanish-language books lined our hallways. In addition, despite the push for English-only instruction, the reality was that teachers were pretty much left on their own to prepare for their first year of SEI. Given these rushed and haphazard conditions, it should come as no surprise that the type of instruction that most ELLs are receiving constitutes little more than a contemporary version of "sink or swim" submersion--a type of instruction that is illegal. Although the federal government does not specify or mandate a specific type of instruction for ELLs, it does make dear that special modifications must be made by classroom teachers in English-only settings that help render English-only instruction comprehensible. English-only instruction without special modifications--a "sink or swim" situation where ELLs have to fend for themselves and either learn English on their own and "swim" or fail to learn English in a short period of time and thus "sink" is illegal, yet this is precisely what occurred and continues to occur in many classrooms.

During the first year of SEI implementation [2003-2004 school year], 5,550 English language learner students were enrolled in SEI grades 1-12. (6) For the most part, SEI programs remained language-specific. This means that students are grouped by native language categories (e.g., all the Spanish speakers are grouped together and all the Cambodian speakers are grouped together) to receive all academic instruction in English. Officially, BPS continues to offer ELLs the various special language programs discussed earlier. However, while most ELLs were placed in classrooms labeled as SEI, these were in reality "sink or swim" submersion settings where both teachers and students felt silenced by the linguistic restrictions imposed on the teaching and learning process.

The only ELLs able to escape being placed in SEI classrooms have been those fortunate enough to be placed in two-way bilingual programs. During the first year of SEI, approximately 350 students whose first language is English and 250 students whose first language is Spanish participated in the district's two-way bilingual programs. Despite the success of 250 students at avoiding instruction in English-only settings, the majority of immigrant students was placed and continues to be placed in SEI classrooms.

Devastating as the vote against bilingual education was, we teachers held out one hope: that along with losing bilingual education, we might finally escape the legacy of segregation, isolation, and cultural marginalization historically experienced by bilingual educators and their students at the hands of English-only colleagues and administrators. My experience with SEI has destroyed this hope. Not only are immigrant students being inadequately prepared linguistically and academically in SEI settings but they are also being taught under segregated conditions that stigmatize them.

SEGREGATION AND ISOLATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

A closer look at the implementation of the current English-only regime illustrates how supposedly well-intentioned policies continue to limit access to educational opportunity. For example, in an effort to maximize support for students in their native language and control the mobility of students while shifting to English-only instruction, the school department mandated "language specific" settings for students. In practice, this means that the same bilingual children in my school who were in the same second grade classroom move, with few exceptions, to the third-grade sheltered English classroom as a group. One adverse result of this practice is that English language learners continue to be isolated in segregated classrooms with little access to native English speakers and more proficient English speakers.

Students in the sheltered English program stay in their language-specific, segregated student grouping for all activities during the school day and thus have little contact with native English speaking and non-SEI peers. English language learners eat lunch at their own separate tables; during recess they play with their own group; and they attend enrichment classes such as physical education, music, and computers in their segregated groups. This separation limits ELLs' access to English spoken by their more fluent peers.

INCONSISTENT, SPORADIC, AND CONFLICTING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Teachers in the new SEI classrooms are expected to teach according to the Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) pedagogical model. This particular brand of SEI requires that teachers develop lessons that are student centered and that contain numerous communication and text modifications to render English-only instruction comprehensible to ELLs with varied levels of English language proficiency. However, professional development efforts are limited and largely voluntary. Furthering the confusion, BPS is implementing a number of competing pedagogical models, such as the Collaborative Coaching and Learning Model (CCL) for literacy professional development in the Readers and Writers' Workshop, leaving teachers understandably unsure and anxious about their instructional responsibilities.

SADISTIC OVER-TESTING IN ENGLISH OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

While administrators and teachers are able to skirt around the new mandates, accountability measures place the unfair burden on students in the form of standardized tests. The ultimate absurdity is that students who are not proficient in English are expected to take a myriad of tests in English. In the beginning of the 2004-05 academic year, students in my fifth grade SEI classroom took the following standardized tests:

1. The Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA)

2. The Stanford 9 (for advance-work class placement)

3. The APRENDA (a test given in Spanish, even though Spanish is not taught, for Spanish advance-work class placement)

4. The MELA-O (Massachusetts English Language Assessment-Oral), an assessment of oral language proficiency.

Each of these tests takes about three to four days to complete. Testing consumes valuable instructional time through the end of October--a critical time of year for establishing a culture of learning in the classroom. Unfortunately, the testing does not end in October; two language proficiency tests, the MEPA and the MELA-O, are repeated in the spring. In addition, my students are expected to take the science, math, and social studies components of the state standardized test (the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, the MCAS) and their success rate is understandably low.

The children, pressured by the sheer number of tests, are painfully affected by their inability to perform in English. It is particularly poignant that the students sense that they are not doing well in their own native language when administered the Spanish language APRENDA test. One of my students perceptively asked, "Why do I have to take this test in Spanish? They don't let me use [Spanish] in school anymore." Another complained, "?Cuantas veces les tengo que comprobar a esta gente que no se leer ni escribir en ingles?" How many times do I have to prove to these people that I cannot read or write in English?

STUDENT PLACEMENT OFFICES MISINFORM FAMILIES AND IGNORE LEGAL MANDATES

As immigrant families enter the BPS system, they register at the Multilingual Placement Center (MCPC) where children and their families are assessed for English language proficiency. This process is also supposed to be used to help caregivers understand the kinds of programs and classrooms that are available to their children. Families with children, who are eligible for bilingual education under the new law, can apply for it through the waiver process. Only three categories of children are eligible to receive waivers:

1. Children with "special educational needs" (other than not being proficient in English)

2. Children who already know as much English as the average 5th grader, or as much as the average child in their grade, whichever is lower (this will primarily affect children wanting to take courses in their first language as a "foreign language," or those students who wish to enter two-way bilingual programs)

3. Children who, regardless of their fluency in English, are 10 years old or older, and whose school officials fed would be better served by bilingual education than by English immersion. (7)

Even after a family is successful in acquiring a waiver, the student assignment process disregards available and proper placement for students, and they are assigned by a central office to English-only classrooms. Similarly, students requiring native language literacy services may end up in English-only classrooms since the school department no longer supervises this program. I have two such students in my classroom at this time. One child is twelve years old, not yet literate in Spanish, who was transferred while repeating fifth grade. In actuality, school budgets--not legal mandates--dictate offerings in schools. As a result, a designated English Language Learning Center can only offer Sheltered English programs. The message articulated in English only to my students and their families is unwelcoming and disempowering.

A CONTINUING VIEW THAT IMMIGRANT STUDENTS ARE INTELLECTUALLY AND CULTURALLY DEFICIENT AND INFERIOR

The day after the vote, some of the monolingual teachers at our school rejoiced at the end of bilingual education. As the children entered the school that morning they expressed their sense of being rejected: ?Maestra? Does this mean that I can't speak Spanish with my family?" "Why do they want to take away my teacher?" "Why do they hate us because we speak Spanish?" The most thought-provoking finding of my dialogues with students involves their sense of being "othered". The impact of a negative sociopolitical context on student academic achievement is well documented in the literature (Beykont, 1994; Brisk, 1998; Nieto, 1992; Schmidt, 2001; Stritikus & Garcia, 2003; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco; Valenzuela, 1999). This historical event accentuated the already negative climate that immigrant and linguistic-minority children endure in public schools.

A CASE FOR MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION--EQUITABLE PUBLIC EDUCATION

My vision for a more just, equitable, and accessible democratic education posits radical bilingual education as the right to learn in the mother tongue while acquiring English and the many other languages necessary to negotiate today's global reality. Bilingual education is essential to establishing a school climate that is welcoming and prepares a fertile ground for respectful relationships with families and communities. But first, we must dismantle the racist and unequal vestiges of linguistic-minority education including segregation, inadequate linguistic and antiracist preparation of teachers, and the unjust use of standardized testing that oppresses students and maintains their subordinated status. All students, not just the white affluent students enrolled in popular immersion programs, should have the right to become academically proficient in two languages.

As urban teachers blessed with the charge of educating immigrant students, we need to make our curriculum radically, culturally responsive. As teachers, we have some power that we can exercise in our own classrooms and some influence in our schools. Therefore, we also have an ethical and moral responsibility to work toward changes for equal access for our diverse students both as American voters who can work to undo the unjust English-only mandate, and as teachers who can work to humanize as much as possible inhumane English-only instruction for our students. Each setting requires particular solutions. Teachers can actively develop solutions in concert with peers, colleagues, families, and students.

In schools, we must find ways to honor the experiences of children as a way to enrich the learning for all in their classrooms. Bilingual education makes this possible. While recognizing the resources that children bring to school creates a fruitful environment for learning, it also challenges students to engage other cultures with open minds. That is, in a culturally inclusive classroom, all students are encouraged to contribute to the learning and create culture anew from a position of strength. Capitalizing on the languages and strengths of the children and their families is an important and enlivening project for student and teacher alike. While building cross-cultural understanding, teachers can play a crucial role in preparing students to interact effectively as global citizens without having to sacrifice their cultural identities.

WORKS CITED

Beykont, Zeynep. Academic Progress of a Non-dominant Group: A Longitudinal Study of Puerto Ricans in New York City's Late-exit Bilingual Programs. Doctoral dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Education: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, 1994.

Brisk, Maria Estela. Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Mahwhah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.

Cummins, James. "Conversational and Academic Language Proficiency in Bilingual Contexts." In Jan H. Julsfihn and J.F. Matter (Eds.) Reading in Two Languages (75-89). Amsterdam: AILA, 1991.

Krashen, Steven. Condemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments against Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman, 1999.

Nieto, Sonia. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. New York." Longman, 1992.

Schmidt, Carol L. "Educational Achievement, Language-minority Students, and the New Second Generation." Sociology of Education. Extra Issue, 71-87, 2001.

Stritikus, Tom & Garcia, Eugene. "The Role of Theory and Policy in the Educational Treatment of Language-minority Students: Competitive Structures in California." (2003, August 6). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (26). Retrieved [1/18/2005] from epaa.am.edu/epa/v11n2.6/.

Suarez-Orozco, Carola & Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo. Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Valenzuela, Angela. Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1999.

NOTES

(1.) For the complete text of the Question 2 ballot initiative, see the Mass English Plus website at www.massenglishplus.org/

(2.) The term "English language learner" restricts the understanding of a person who is doing much more than learning English in school. Children are in school to learn mathematics, history, science, as well as languages. I prefer the term "immigrant students" because it honors the history and the knowledge of the families of my students.

(3.) A complete listing of graduation requirements in the State of Massachusetts are available at the DOE website www.doe.mass.edu/

(4.) The full report on the legality of English-only mandates prepared by Jacinta Ma for The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University is available online at www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu /research/billngual02/bilingual_paper02.php

(5.) For the exit poll of Latinos conducted by the Mauricio Gaston Institute; see, www.gaston.umb.edu/events/spser/blinged.html. Ironically, Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to legislatively support bilingual education some 31 years ago.

(6.) There is no documentation or explanation of the dramatic reduction in enrollment of 3,496 students between the end of 2002 and 2003-2004 school year.

(7.) For on-going information on the waiver process or other issues

related to the implementation of Question 2 contact the Mass English Plus Coalition at 18 Tremont Street, Suite 320 Boston, MA 02108 or Email: [e-mail]