Bilingual Eduation: Good or Bad?

Written by: Kelly L. Hunter

Freedom Road Socialist Organization


Joe Navarro is a bilingual education teacher who is frustrated with the many waves of assaults on bilingual education. According to Navarro, “Good educational theory and practices are officially and routinely undermined, while school district chips away at the bilingual program, shaving it down to nearly nothing.”(Navarro. 2007). Navarro also states that “Children are forced to transition into English-only learning without understanding English adequately.” (Navarro. 2007). According to Navarro, the bilingual educational programs were established in order to help the persistent struggle to defend the linguistic rights of all Latino and Asian students. Joe Navarro is quoted to say that “Educators are being pressured to abandon their beliefs in order to meet state mandates.” (Navarro. 2007). In 1998, Proposition 227, was put into affect in California. This ballot initiative convinced California voters to vote against bilingual education and put an end to all bilingual programs in the school system. This was based on misinformation, racist fear mongering, and anti-immigrant sentiments. (Navarro. 2007). It seems that the purpose of bilingual education has been misconstrued and distorted by government officials and many people in society. Navarro discusses these distorted views and says that, “Through a series of myths, such as the idea that the role of bilingual education is solely to maintain immigrant languages and prevent the learning of English, and accusations that Latinos and other immigrants simply refuse to learn English.” (Navarro. 2007). All-in-all, Navarro feels that English-only education comes with severe and irreversible consequences for many non-English speaking individuals. He feels that in addition to producing language-confused and undereducated people, this will also create certain barriers within families as well. Joe Navarro seems to be very passionate about his beliefs and support of bilingual education and feels that bilingual education has been victimized.

Navarro, Joe. Nine Years after Proposition 227: What Can We Do To Save Bilingual Education? Freedom Road Socialist Organization. (July, 2007). Retrieved November 1, 2007. http://freedomroad.org/content/view/451/1/lang,en/




Banishing Bilingualism


It seems that in California the word “bilingual” is consider to be as bad as any “four-letter” word. This word has been banned from all schooling vocabularies in the state. The word bilingual has been replaced with words like “English-language learning”. It is also against the law in California to talk to or to instruct a student in their native language if their language is one other than that of English. According to Susan Katz, “In an attempt to remake a teaching force in California that lacks any memory of bilingual education and any skill in teaching to the strengths of non-English-speaking students, the board of education has decided to end the granting of the two major teaching credentials—CLAD (Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development) and BCLAD (Bilingual Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development).” (Katz. 2002). Katz goes on to say that “By the end of 2003, when 45 percent of the students in California public schools will be living in non-English-speaking homes, these credentials will be phased out.” (Katz. 2002). According to Ms. Katz, “The direction of today’s education policy in California largely derives from the English for the Children initiative passed in 1998, sponsored by millionaire conservative Ron Unz and upheld by the courts.” (Katz. 2002). It does seem that other states are beginning to follow in California’s footsteps, supporting these anti-bilingual acts. However, states like Colorado are in support of upholding all individual rights to linguistic diversity.

Katz, Susan and Kohl, Herbert. Banishing Bilingualism. The Nation. 275. p20. (December 9, 2002). Retrieved November 1, 2007. http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%253C




California’s Language Wars, Part II


Maria Mendoza, a 62 year old woman from Tucson, Arizona, began her quest to put an end to bilingual education back in the year of 1968. (Gorman. 1999). Mendoza decided to start her one-woman campaign after she had visited her child’s fourth-grade bilingual classroom. She was shocked to find that there were students in this class that were unable to read English. According to Siobhan Gorman, “In 1974, she sued the Tucson Unified School District, asserting that students in bilingual classes were being discriminated against by not being taught English.” (Gorman. 1999). Gorman goes on to state that “The suit led to a statute requiring the district to give parents a choice about placing their children in bilingual classes.” (Gorman. 1999). As far as Maria Mendoza is concerned, this was not enough and she feels that Arizona’s school board should ban any and all bilingual education. In 1998, Proposition 227 passed in California; this left Maria Mendoza will hope for success. She had hoped that the California test scores would provide her with enough ammunition to help gets laws passed by the year 2000. (Gorman. 1999). According to Gorman, “Recent polls point to strong public sentiment in favor of English-only education.” (Gorman. 1999). So while society seems to be largely in favor of putting an end to bilingual education, politicians like Al Gore have been very supportive of the continuation of bilingual educational programs. President Bush has also been said to be pushing for something he calls “English-plus”—which allows for the continuation of bilingual education, as long as test scores indicate that children are also learning English.

Gorman, Siobhan. California’s Language Wars, Part II. National Journal. 31.31. (July 1999). Retrieved November 1, 2007.
http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252c%

Language Politics in the U.S.A.: The Paradox of Bilingual Education


According to James Crawford, “Whether to continue teaching LEP students in two languages is now a matter of public debate throughout the U.S.A.” Crawford goes on to say that “Since the mid-1980s, critics have won increasing support for the contention that this experiment, while well-intentioned, has failed to meet expectations.” (Crawford. 1998). Since the late 1990s, many of our policymakers are trying to come up with effective ways to limit or dismantle these different bilingual education programs. California, was the first state in the United States to choose to ban bilingual education in their school systems. According to Crawford, “Ironically, research provides considerably more support for bilingual approaches today than it did in 1968, when few program models existed and almost none had been evaluated.” (Crawford. 1998). As stated in this article, there have been new research findings that confirm that developing fluent bilingualism and cultivating academic excellence are complementary, rather than contradictory, goals. (Crawford. 1998). James Crawford also feels that it is not necessary to sacrifice LEP students’ native languages in order to teach them effectively in English. According to Mr. Crawford, “Politically speaking, however, the research findings are less encouraging and in fact, they support an educational rationale for bilingual instruction that is both complex and counterintuitive to members of the public.” (Crawford. 1998).

Crawford, James. Language Politics in the U.S.A.: The Paradox of Bilingual Education. Social Justice 25. no.3. (Fall 1998).
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/paradox.htm