Volume 18 Number 3
May 1979

Guillermo Bartelt

THOUSANDS of children and adults each year encounter English as their non-native language when they enroll in an educational institution within the United States. The idea of the "melting pot society" has generally been recognized to be illusionary, and sociological as well as educational circles have come to accept the fact that in the United States different languages and cultures have coexisted for centuries. The older educational idea that all students be taught by the same methods of instruction has left thousands of individuals deficient in achievement levels in English. Educational institutions faced with this problem have recently turned to alternative approaches of instruction.

Two main directions have surfaced which represent two conflicting educational philosophies. One of the two philosophies proposes the inclusion of English as a second language program and other "remedial" offerings as part of the traditional curriculum to allow better transition to the"majority" educational setting. In other words, the emphasis is acculturation. The other of the two philosophies would like to see comprehensive bilingual educational programs in which two languages are mediums of instruction. The latter approach would ideally create literacy in both the native as well as the second language.

While acculturation is the main goal of remedial ESL programs, bilingual education proposes goals such as "higher self concept, academic achievement and socioeconomic level for member of minority groups in the United States, and the understanding and preservation of our collective and diverse national heritage" (see Note 6).

Since bilingual education includes instruction in both the native as well as the second language, ESL is a necessary part. In a sense, then, both of the above-mentioned approaches of instruction require acculturation from the student. The difference seems to be merely a matter of degree. However, it is the degree of acculturation that takes on a special significance when viewed from a social-psychological perspective.

The learner finds that by learning another social group’s language he has made the step in becoming an acculturated part of a second linguistic and cultural community. Bilingualism may be viewed as a broadening experience, while at the same time it may create a feeling of not comfortably belonging in one cultural group or the other. Furthermore, the learner’s ethnocentric attitudes toward the other group determine the success in learning the new language. Teachers in English work, of course, are at a great disadvantage in trying to teach the English language in the face of negative stereotypes. Bilingual education proposes to systematically change these stereotypes by treating the language and culture of minority groups on an equal basis with English.

Perhaps the strongest opposition by many educational institutions to bilingual education comes from the idea that bilingual education should be applied to native English-speaking children as well as non-natives. Bilingual education proponents argue for the importance in a pluralistic society to stimulate students’ natural linguistic curiosity and help them to realize that there are equally valid ways besides English for expressing ideas. Furthermore, greater understanding and respect is developed for other languages. There has been much resistance to this policy, particularly by defenders of the Audio-Lingual Method who feel that speaking another language may hinder the progress in English.

Monlingual English school systems have typically used the Audio-Lingual Method in remedial ESL courses in order to facilitate a smoother transition to "regular" English courses. Students attending these remedial sections are usually considered second class or academically disadvantaged individuals by both teachers and peers. In other words, the minority student is being punished psychologically for having a native language other than English.

Since education begins in infancy and not when the child comes to school, proponents of bilingual education feel that the use of the native language for classroom instruction allows the education of the child to continue uninterruptedly from home to school. The second language is then introduced gradually through special ESL methods. This would ideally avoid the typical frustration of minority children in learning to read English when they lack the oral language readiness for it. At the same time, the educational system is awarding the individual the added advantage of being literate in two languages.

One of the difficulties the many bilingual programs face, however, is which of the languages spoken in the United States other than English to use as a medium of instruction. Some educators feel that the term "bilingual-bicultural" is an over-simplification of the extent of cultural pluralism in the United States. This is, of course, largely a regional problem, but the fact remains that even within most regions of the United States more than one minority language group can be found. In the Southwest, for instance, it is not unusual to find schools where three or more language groups are present. In most cases this is due to the numerous but very separate Native American linguistic groups.

How is an educational system to decide which one of these languages and cultures to represent in the schools? One alternative would be on the basis of numbers. However, selecting the language of the largest minority could have a serious psychological effect on the unrepresented minorities in the school. To ignore the language of the largest minority, on the other hand, seems equally undesirable. It seems that whichever solution is chosen is unacceptable in the form of a double bind.

Critics of the bilingual or pluralistic model also charge that virtually no research on long-term effects of bilingual programs has been conducted (see Note 4). A hard look should be taken at other countries where large scale bilingual programs have been implemented. This possible source of historical data should be used for the formations of generalizations about bilingual education in this country. Other multilingual areas in the world, such as India, have, in fact, a much smaller number of balanced bilinguals than has previously been estimated. Of the 14 major languages in India, only 30 million out of 439 million Indians possess substantial knowledge of more than one language (see Note 4). Another example which is used often by proponents of linguistic pluralism is the case of Guarani and Spanish in Paraguay. Recent investigation showed, however, that diglossia rather than balanced bilingualism describes the language situation of that country. Guarani is used primarily in intimate and informal contexts and Spanish in formal ones (see Note 5).

Diglossic differentiation of languages is also the typical pattern in the United States. In other words, two languages are used in different contexts. Similar to the situation in Paraguay described above, the native language is used at home with the family and friends, while English is reserved for formal situations. For instance, Barber (see Note 1), commenting on multilingualism in a Yaqui Indian Community in Arizona, found that each language was associated with definite social relationships and cultural patterns. The Yaqui language seems to dominate in familial, informal and formal-ceremonial circumstances. Spanish, on the other hand, seems to occur in familial, informal and formal-catholic situations, while English is used purely in formal, educational, economic and legal instances.

Putting two languages in competition with each other in a bilingual educational setting disrupts the pattern of normal diglossia. In response to this problem, proponents of bilingual education have suggested that bilingual programs actually aim at diglossic differentiation of languages. On the other hand, this diglossic differentiation "entails the objectionable implication that one language is more suitable than another for use in formal contexts" (see Note 4). Bilingual education programs also have been accused of ignoring the effects of their activities on community diglossia.

Some proponents of bilingual education have in fact begun to investigate their programs from a sociolinguistic perspective. Language use patterns, as opposed to simply assessing changes in the individual’s language skills and language attitudes, have been described in a few studies. For example, Cohen (see Note 2) found that in the bilingual education project in Redwood City, California, instruction did contribute to the maintenance of the Spanish language by encouraging the use of Spanish among the students involved. Cohen explains:

Cohen further remarks that these language use results are most promising for the prospects of bilingual education. Bilingual programs have always intended to encourage minority children to maintain the language of their heritage, and the Cohen study shows this is happening. The study makes no mention of any disruption of normal diglossia, even though English and Spanish were used in the same formal context.

A serious paradox in current approaches in bilingual education is the striking discrepancy between goals and methods (see Note 4). Although most programs claim to be perpetuating and strengthening minority languages, many have actually become merely agents to speed up the process of acculturation. In fact, Kjolseth (see Note 3) has divided bilingual programs into assimilation and pluralistic types and has found that most bilingual programs in the United States are in reality of the assimilation type. The present pluralistic model is usually initiated by a group of ethnic and non-ethnic community leaders who, in consultation with teachers and school administrators, control the operation of the program. The assimilation model, on the other hand, is initiated by a school with very little involvement from the ethnic community.

However, the most striking difference between the assimilation and pluralistic model is the teaching staff. In pluralistically-oriented bilingual programs, the teachers and aides are usually of local ethnic origin. They are, therefore, familiar with the local ethnic varieties of language and culture. In addition, the teachers live and are active in local community social and political affairs. They are, in fact, bilingual and bicultural role models for their students. In the assimiliation model, the teachers are often non-ethnic. If a teacher is a member of an ethnic group, he is usually detached from the ethnic community and lives in a non-ethnic residential area. Consequently, knowledge of the local ethnic dialect is minimal with emphasis being put on the standard variety of the ethnic language. The teacher’s attitudes toward language tend to be exclusive and purist (see Note 3).

Kjolseth found that actually well over 80% of bilingual programs can be described by the assimilation model, while the remaining few are only moderately pluralistic. Therefore, most programs are in direct contradiction to their stated objectives fostering the maintenance and perpetually of ethnic languages. In fact, Kjolseth very emphatically states that "the ethnic language is being exploited rather than cultivated--weaning the pupil away from his mother tongue through the transitional use of a variety of his mother tongue in what amounts to a kind of cultural and linguistic ‘counterinsurgency’ policy on the part of the schools."

According to these findings, the result of most bilingual programs seems to be identical to the monolingual systems with remedial ESL courses: acculturation. Critics, therefore, accuse most bilingual programs of merely being a sophisticated form of linguistic imperialism. Although intentions of program planners and staffs are usually aimed at cultural pluralism, dedication and intentions often manifest themselves in doing what comes "naturally." Alienation of the educational institution to the values of the ethnic community seems to contribute significantly to the disparity between aims and means. Innovators in education often tend to ignore the fact that education is a social process and that it must be made part of the community that it is to affect.

Despite its many difficulties, the bilingual education approach has shown some promises from a sociolinguistic point of view. It is perhaps true that acquisition skills in the bilingual setting are not being developed any better than in the monolingual setting; however, students in bilingual programs generally seem to have developed a much more positive self concept than their counterparts in the monolingual schools. It may also be true that the majority of current bilingual programs foster acculturation just as much as monolingual schools with ESL courses. However, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the bilingual method of acculturation is so much more humane over the repressive and dogmatic approach of monolingual institutions, which are still determined to promote American middle-class values.

1. Barber, Carroll G. "Trilingualism in an Arizona Yaqui Village," in Bilingualism in the Southwest. Paul R. Turner, Ed., University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p. 295.

2. Cohen, Andrew D. "The Effects on Several Years of Bilingual Schooling on Language Maintenance; What Language Is Juanito Using Now?" CA TESOL Occasional Papers 1:39-48.

3. Kjolseth, Rolf. "Bilingual Education Programs in the United States: For Assimilation or Pluralism?" in Bilingualism in the Southwest. Paul R. Turner, Ed., University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p. 3-18.

4. Oller, John W. "Bilingual Education: Promises and Paradoxes." in On TESOL 74. Ruth Crymes and Williams E. Norris. Eds. TESOL, Washington, P.C., 1975, p. 112, 114, 115.

5. Rubin, Joan, "Bilingual Usage in Paraguay," in Readings in the Sociology of Language. Joshua A. Fishman, Ed., Mouton and Company, The Hague, 1968, p. 529.

6. Saville, Muriel and Rudolph Troike. A Handbook of Bilingual Education. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Washington, D.C., 1971, p. 4.