Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Bilingual Education Within U.S. Educational Debate Essay
University of Toronto
Bilingual education is usually characterized as a controversial issue within U.S. educational debate. Discourses of educational equity (often pejoratively labeled as “liberal” by neoconservatives) collide with discourses ranging from overtly xenophobic and racist to discourses that are not overtly xenophobic but rather portray themselves as concerned with “rationality,” effectiveness, and cost. Editorials in the New York Times over a period of 20 years or so would fall into this latter category (Cummins, 1996; Otheguy, 1991). Not surprisingly, debates over what the research data say about the effectiveness of bilingual education in promoting bilingual students’ academic achievement occupy a central role in this debate.
Advocates of bilingual education (e.g. Cummins, 1996; Krashen & Biber, 1988; Wong Fillmore, 1992) argue that some form of bilingual education is implemented in virtually every country around the world, research from widely varied contexts shows positive results from bilingual education with respect to both first and second language development for both “minority” and “majority” students, and there is compelling evidence that conceptual knowledge and language skills transfer across language such that less instructional time spent through the “majority” language exerts no adverse effect on achievement in that language. By contrast, opponents of bilingual education (e.g. Rossell & Baker, 1996; Porter, 1992; Schlesinger, 1991) often characterize it not only as educationally ineffective but also as promoting social fragmentation and divisiveness. Arguments that bilingual education is ineffective focus on interpretations of research that suggest bilingual programs are no better than “sink-or-swim” (submersion) programs and inferior to “structured immersion” programs. This
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
1 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
latter approach supposedly is modeled after Canadian French immersion programs that attempt to promote bilingual proficiency among predominantly English-background dominant group students by means of instruction through both French and English. The fact that much of the so-called research support for “structured immersion” (an English-only program, taught by monolingual teachers, with the aim of producing monolingualism) comes from a fully bilingual program, taught by bilingual teachers with the aim of producing bilingualism and biliteracy, does not seem to bother its proponents. They focus on the fact that in French immersion programs, initial literacy instruction is through French (students’ second language [L2]) and thus minority and/or bilingual students in the U.S. should also be taught (totally or almost totally) through their L2 (English) if they are to succeed academically. Their argument is that strong development of English academic skills requires maximum exposure to English in school.
The volumes by Marcia Moraes and Lourdes Diaz Soto each address, in very different ways, aspects of this issue. Moraes’ treatment of the issue is largely theoretical, an attempt to establish the foundations of a critical-dialogic pedagogy within bilingual education based on the theoretical contributions of the Bakhtin Circle, mainly the work of Voloshinov and Bakhtin. Soto’s volume, by contrast, details the struggle of a Puerto Rican community in “Steel Town” Pennsylvania to preserve a nationally-recognized bilingual education program, with 20-years of success to its credit, in the face of the opposition of the school superintendent, school board and majority community.
The ugly reality of racism jumps off the pages of Soto’s volume, making it gripping but also very painful reading. The legitimation for the school board’s eventual decision to eliminate the bilingual program, despite strong and sustained opposition from the bilingual community, is grounded by attitudes in the broader community that encouraged the following kinds of discourse:
Listeners heard about the “Blue E” on the local radio station. The “Blue E” referred to a proposed city ordinance encouraging local merchants to post a “Blue E” on their doorways to signify their support for the English-only ordinance. The ordinance provided store owners with the ability to price goods based upon the English language proficiency of their prospective buyer. For example, if the store clerk detected an accent or felt that the buyer’s English was not up to par, they were expected to pay an additional 10 percent to 20 percent on their purchase since this signified additional paperwork and expense for the merchant. Supporters of this ordinance called the radio talk show, expressing views such as: “Send all the spics back to their country”; “This is
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
2 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
America…for whites only”; “Our city was better off without all this trash”; “English is the language my grandparents had to learn”; “One state should be set aside for these people…but not Pennsylvania.” (Soto, 1996, p. 65)
The re-emergence of this racism was no doubt stimulated by the growth of bilingual communities in Steel Town (and elsewhere) and by the fact that the community decided to stop “swallowing hard” and remain silent in the face of discrimination as they historically had done; instead, they mobilized to demand their educational rights and became both audible and visible. In the eyes of the dominant majority, they no longer knew their place.
Soto details some extraordinary scenes that demonstrate the commitment to education and high aspirations parents held for their children. She quotes newspaper accounts of a crucial public hearing on January 28, 1993 in which more than 100 people approached the table of board members “who became noticeably frightened when a congregation knelt and prayed on behalf of the bilingual children in Steel Town” (p. 77):
The pastor of the Church on Steel Town’s Southside took the microphone off its stand and approached board members, speaking softly, “Bendito, please listen to the parents,” he said. “I’ve seen too many kids suffer and too many kids don’t make it. Let’s give the kids a chance.” Facing the audience, the pastor motioned Latino members to come to the front and began to pray as board members found themselves looking up at a solid wall of standing people. “Bless this administration. Let us love.” The two security guards tensed. (p. 78)
The vice-president of the board was reported to say later that he appreciated the blessing but that he had seen the light before the hearing: “I’ve heard them all before,” he said (p. 78).
In Soto’s account, the “bad guys” win: despite the unprecedented mobilization of the Puerto Rican community and a positive report on the bilingual program from a district-wide committee, the bilingual program is eliminated in favor of an English immersion program, a new school is commissioned in a white middle-class district rather than in the much more overcrowded South Side where the Puerto Rican community live, South Side students are bussed out of their neighborhood because of overcrowding and the refusal of the school board to construct additional facilities, the school superintendent gets generous salary increases and accolades from the board, an outspoken Puerto Rican advocate for the bilingual
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
3 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
program loses his job in a community college, pastors and priests from various religious groups who supported the community are transferred to other locations, a complaint from the community to the Office of Civil Rights remains in limbo, and the Puerto Rican community emerges from the struggle with emotions ranging from frustration and anger to despondency and resignation.
In her chronicle of these events, Soto makes no pretense to be an outside neutral observer. She participates with the community as an advocate for the bilingual program and equal educational opportunities. Her own voice is strong and articulate as she askes questions such as:
Is the American Dream for monolinguals only? What will it take to have children’s voices heard?… To the high school principal who shared how blatant and acceptable racism has become by stating, “This is America!” I will say that many of us will resist being a part of such an oppressive America. Our schoolchildren are taught about a different America, an America that promises democracy, freedom, and equal educational opportunities. Where is our democratic America? (pp. 94-96)
Unfortunately, as the histories of the United States, Canada, and many other countries show, democracy (understood as the rule of the majority) provides only very limited safeguards for subordinated minorities. The brutal physical and sexual abuse suffered by generations of Canadian First Nations children in residential schools run by religious orders under the “supervision” of government illustrates just how much protection of rights subordinated minorities can expect when the democratic majority considers them to be inherently inferior. As Soto’s account illustrates, coercive relations of power persist under the rhetorical veneer of democracy, respect for human rights, and equality of opportunity. What has changed during the past 30 years in many (but by no means all) countries is the perceived need to rationalize and legitimate the hegemony of dominant groups in terms of these latter constructs. Within a democracy, the continued dominance of dominant groups requires the consent of the majority of those who vote. Only a relatively small proportion of members of a society will readily admit (to others or to themselves) that they are racist or bigoted; the majority see themselves, and their nation, as fair, reasonable, and committed to freedom and human rights (within “reason”). The fact that large doses of historical amnesia are required to preserve and reinforce this individual and collective social identity is not at all problematic for dominant groups. Discourse can readily be mobilized through institutions such as the media and schools (largely controlled by dominant groups) to legitimate coercive relations of power as being reasonable, fair, and in the best interests of both the subordinated minority and the society as a whole. It is desirable, albeit not essential, that members of the subordinated minority also accept this legitimation; it makes for a smoother democratic process.
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
4 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
It is in this light that we can understand the school district superintendent’s argument in favor of the new proposal he recommended to the school board:
Its main premise is early English acquisition, which would ensure success equipping students with the ability to communicate in the language of this country–English! The fact is that English immersion programs are legal and have been implemented successfully all over the United States for many years…As superintendent, please know that my single motivation for changing the current bilingual education program is my deep and sincere belief that the earlier children master the English language, the better their chances for success. (newspaper column, January 27 1993; quoted in Soto pp. 76-77)
There is no reason to suspect the superintendent of hypocrisy; he no doubt had (and probably still has) a “deep and sincere belief” that English immersion is in bilingual children’s best interests. Those who hold power also usually hold “deep and sincere beliefs” that they act in the best interests of the society as a whole and that they have more insight than subordinated communities into what is in the best interests of these communities. Apartheid in South Africa was rationalized in these terms.
The questions left hanging at the end of Soto’s volume are “How can racist educational structures and provision be changed?” “How can coercive relations of power in schools be transformed into collaborative relations of power?” “How can marginalized children and communities make their voices heard by those who occupy the centers of power?”
Not surprisingly, she provides no definitive answers to these questions. She invokes the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (1980) to point out that the society as a whole can benefit from the linguistic and cultural resources of ethnic minority groups. Freire’s approach to transformative educational change through grassroots organization and action is also suggested as an appropriate direction for communities. However, the reader is left with the distinct impression of a community at least temporarily spent and dispirited. Community organization and action was tried but to no avail. Those who held power used it to reinforce the barriers between the center and the margins. Largely unresolved in Soto’s volume is the issue of why dominant groups should do otherwise and how can marginalized communities generate the power to persuade or force them to abandon coercive models of power relations in favor of more collaborative models.
Interestingly, this is the central issue that Brazilian educator Marcia Moraes attempts to address in her treatment of bilingual education in the United States. She uses the work of the Bakhtin Circle to argue both for a dialogic-critical
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
5 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
pedagogy within bilingual education (and other) programs and for an approach to educational and societal change that goes beyond the Freirean model of the oppressed struggling for liberation from the oppressor. She suggests that whereas the Freirean social movement towards awareness and struggle is from the margins to the center, a Bakhtinian movement would be from the margins and also from the center. We need a pedagogy of the oppressor as much as a pedagogy of the oppressed, she asserts. Dominant/oppressive groups have been educated “toward a tacit understanding that they are superior. Therefore the oppressed can be best empowered if we also turn our attention to the oppressor” (p. 115). Moraes elaborates on this point as follows:
We need to create conditions for oppressors to critically analyze their own situation; to critically analyze the levels in which they are also oppressed because they live under various forms of social control and are discursively positioned in contradictory ways that blind them to their own situatedness in relations of power and privilege. Then students from the oppressive groups will be able to understand the oppression of the oppressed, since they are also part of the oppressed group that is ideologically controlled. (p. 115) … if we do not reinforce the relevance of a dialogic interaction between the oppressed and oppressor, it will be more difficult for the oppressed to overcome social constraints and, therefore, to be empowered. From this perspective, the awareness of the oppressed is fundamental, but the awareness of the oppressor is crucial in the sense that the oppressor can understand that he or she must collaborate for a better society, for his or her own emancipation as part of the social arena…Then we can take a truly liberatory step toward emancipation and social freedom and a step toward democracy because the oppressive groups will be able to understand that oppression toward the other becomes their own imprisonment. (p. 112)
How does the work of a group of Soviet intellectuals in the 1920s and 1930s, who were more directly focused on the nature of language and communication than on social change, lead us to these conclusions? Bakhtinian constructs such as dialogue and heteroglossia are analyzed as follows by Moraes to make the connection between the nature of language and social interaction, on the one hand, and social transformation on the other:
According to Bakhtinian theory, an individual does not exist outside of dialogue (emphasis original)–a dialogue in which the consciousness of the speaker encounters the consciousness of another speaker; a
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
6 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
dialogue that reveals conflicts; a dialogue that embodies history and culture;… In the Bakhtinian sense of dialogue…the existence of the self and the other is a simultaneous existence; a dialogical existence. The Bakhtinian notion of language embraces the idea that the other cannot be silenced or excluded…language never exists outside historical forces and…the dialogic essence of language implies that a unique group can never dominate all other languages completely. (pp. 94-95)
The notion of heteroglossia refers to the multiple ideologically-infused discourses that intersect in all utterances and forms of language use. Thus, “language must be understood as a site of political struggle in which meanings collide and have to be negotiated” (p. 95). Moraes quotes Quantz and O’Connor (1988, p. 99) to the effect that the heteroglossic essence of social life can be better understood through the concept of multivoicedness:
Multivoicedness seems to be the term that best captures the idea that any particular, concrete, historical dialogue is best described in tems of the multiple voices participating… The concept of dialogue as a multivoiced social activity explains how the ideas of the powerful gain and maintain legitimacy as well as how the disempowered can attempt to legitimate their ideas and beliefs to others. (Soto, p. 100-101)
The foundations of a dialogic-critical pedagogy are rooted in the fact that “both oppressed and oppressor must understand that our dialogic existence is something that cannot be denied” (p. 112). Thus, we must construct a pedagogy that initiates and maintains a living dialogue between oppressed and oppressors whereby both groups can understand the social constraints that inhibit progress toward an emancipatory democracy and become more aware of the different forms of oppression each group experiences.
Moraes asks the obvious question “How can we make the oppressor aware that society cannot function fairly while people just think in egocentric and binaristic terms of domination and subordination?” (p. 113) She replies to this question as follows:
The fact is the oppressor must also understand and be aware of social inequalities… [We have to construct] a dialogic-critical pedagogy in which students who occupy the position of oppressors understand that the oppositional relationship between oppressor and oppressed is not a relationship that will guarantee social freedom or social hope. It
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
7 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
is important that the oppressor recognizes that both social freedom and social hope can be reached through dialogic interaction. (p. 113)
While these sentiments are difficult to contest, we are still left with the same question that faced us on the final pages of Soto’s volume. Why should dominant groups give up or share their (coercive) power? How can subordinated/oppressed groups convince their oppressors that it is also in their best interests to move towards more collaborative models of social progress? I know of no opponent of bilingual or multicultural education who is likely to be convinced by the argument that “our dialogic existence is something that cannot be denied” (Moraes, p. 112). In response to the argument that “the oppressor must understand and be aware of social inequalities” (Moraes, p. 113), those positioned as oppressors are likely to respond that they are very much aware of social inequalities and that’s why they are adamant that bilingual children must learn English as early and as quickly as possible.
It is tempting to dismiss the Bakhtinian-inspired perspective of reciprocal two-way dialogue between oppressed/oppressors advanced by Moraes as naive and impractical. It is much more straightforward to work from a Freirean perspective where the oppressed identify their oppression and its source in coercive power structures and take steps to transform their world through language and concrete action. The open racism and unwillingness to engage in any form of serious dialogue that the Puerto Rican community encountered in Soto’s account reinforces the view that rights will only be achieved by means of active community-based struggle against oppression.
It is possible to speculate on further measures that the community might take to assert their children’s right to a culturally-sensitive and equitable education. In addition to pursuing the Civil Rights complaint, they might consider the action taken by a Finnish community in Sweden who withdrew their children from school for an 8-week period in protest against the school’s termination of a successful Finnish-Swedish bilingual program (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988). The community demands were eventually met by the school who found it difficult to defend its arbitrary decision in the face of national attention and community mobilization in support of the strike. The accounts of this strike demonstrate how coercive power relationships break down when the subordinated group refuses to play their (essential) part in being the recipients of this form of power.
However, I believe it would be highly unfortunate to dismiss Moraes’ Bakhtinian perspective as impractical. On the contrary, I believe her work embodies important insights into the nature of progressive social change and how it can be furthered. Moraes is quite explicit in fully supporting the struggle of oppressed groups against the forces that oppress them. In addition to challenging coercive power structures directly, however, she appears to be suggesting that marginalized communities can also engage in other strategies aimed at promoting an identity change among dominant groups through engaging them in dialogue.
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
8 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
Her discussion of this process remains largely at a theoretical level and thus, without elaboration, is not particularly helpful to communities whose struggles for educational rights and attempts at dialogue are rebuffed. In what follows I attempt to elaborate in a concrete way what a “Bakhtinian-inspired” two-way dialogical process involving dominant and subordinated communities might look like and how pressure and persuasion can be exerted on dominant groups to engage in this type of dialogue.
I would see four components to this process:
Each of these components can be illustrated briefly.
Identification of the Possibilities for Dialogue. If we consider the fact that approximately 70 percent of those who voted in California’s Proposition 187 plebiscite in 1994 were in favor of severe restrictions on the use of languages other than English, we might well be apprehensive about the impact of further “democratic” action on minority rights in general and bilingual education in particular. Proposition 187 expresses the fear of diversity, the fear of the Other, the fear of strangers – xenophobia. It is about power, who has it and who intends to keep it. It is also racist and is intended to intimidate those who advocate for human rights. These realities must be recognized if we are to fight this type of initiative.
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
9 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
However, we should also recognize that a large proportion of those who supported Proposition 187 do not see themselves as racist and are not in any sense overtly or actively racist. They would see themselves as supportive of “the common good” despite the fact that they have bought into (or been indoctrinated into) the discourse of xenophobia. If we dismiss all those who support anti-immigrant initiatives as “racist” or “oppressors” then the possibilities of change through democratic action are remote indeed. If we are to challenge the discourse of xenophobia and work toward a saner and more tolerant society we must communicate and dialogue with many of those who currently see diversity as a threat. In fact, we must join forces with them to articulate a vision of our society where there is cooperation rather than competition across cultural boundaries and where cultural and linguistic differences enrich rather than fragment the whole.
Recognition of Common Goals and Shared Vested Interests. Among the common goals in which all members of society have a vested interest are the following:
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
10 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
form of sense for a society to squander its cultural and linguistic resources when for a minimal investment they could be so easily developed.
Demystification of Research Findings. The suspicion that bilingual education is some form of “Hispanic Plot” to destabilize the nation is fuelled by the apparent counter-intuitive nature of its rationale. This rationale suggests that English proficiency will be better developed if children are taught in Spanish (or some other language) rather than in English. It makes more sense to many skeptics to argue that success in learning English is more likely to be assured if instructional time through English is maximized. This “maximum exposure” hypothesis is totally at variance with all the research findings from bilingual programs around the world that involve either minority or majority language students (see Cummins 1996, Cummins & Corson, 1997 for reviews). Despite the empirical support for bilingual programs and the fact that some form of bilingual education is implemented in almost every country around the world, there has been a sustained attempt since the early 1980s to discredit both the rationale and empirical foundation of bilingual programs (e.g. Rossell & Baker, 1996).
It is not difficult to expose the superficial logic and sociopolitical functions of the attempt to undermine the empirical basis of bilingual education. For example, most of the “methodologically acceptable” studies related to bilingual education identified by Rossell and Baker (1996) are studies of French immersion programs in Canada. They label these studies “structured immersion” and suggest that they constitute evidence against bilingual education and for immersing bilingual students in English-only programs. They are reluctant to point out that French immersion programs are fully bilingual programs that provide strong L1 (English) instructional support after the initial grades; teachers in these programs are also fluently bilingual in French and English, and the goal of the program is to promote high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy. To argue for a monolingual program, taught by monolingual teachers, aimed at promoting monolingualism, on the basis of the success of a fully bilingual program, taught by bilingual teachers, whose goal is bilingualism is either naive or cynical in the extreme.
Similarly, Rossell and Baker together with other opponents of bilingual education (e.g. Porter, 1991) consistently invoke the “time-on-task” or “maximum exposure” notion to argue for monolingual instruction in English for bilingual students. However, they refuse to examine the predictions that derive from this principle in relation to the research. If this principle were valid, then there should be a direct relationship between the amount of instructional time in English and English achievement in all bilingual programs for both minority and majority students. This prediction is disconfirmed by all the evaluation results they cite in their review, whether these results derive from French immersion programs for majority language students or bilingual programs for minority students. In both types of programs students taught for a significant amount of time through a language other than English (the majority language) fare at least as well in
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
11 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
English as comparison groups taught entirely through English.
These are data that require explanation but rather than search for theoretical constructs that might account for the data, Rossell and Baker erect a facade of “methodological acceptability” that determines which studies they will accept as “scientific”. Their discourse becomes interpretable when seen as the discourse of the courtroom lawyer whose goal is to present the most persuasive case for her/his client with little regard for the truth. The goal is frequently to obscure the facts so that “reasonable doubt” is created in the jury. In a climate of xenophobia, all that is needed to confirm the paranoia in relation to “Hispanic activists” is to create soundbites to the effect that “In reading, 83% of the studies showed TBE [transitional bilingual education] to be worse than structured immersion” (1996, p. 21). As illustrated in Soto’s volume, these soundbites then get recycled through the media and into the discourse of policy-makers providing “scientific proof” for what was obvious anyway to reasonable observers that bilingual education doesn’t work and simply constitutes at best a make-work program for Hispanics and at worst a plot to undermine American values.
The fact that the bulk of the “scientific” evidence for this position comes from bilingual programs for dominant group students carried out in Canada (7 out of 10) or South Africa (1 out of 10) all of which clearly refute the “maximum exposure/time-on-task” notion is a detail that conveniently resides outside the soundbite’s regime of truth. The bottom line is that “the experts disagree” so policy-makers must rely on other criteria, such as “common sense” or “American values” to support their decision-making.
Promotion of Programs that Challenge “Us versus Them” Discourse. The “Achilles heel” of bilingual education opponents is the success of two-way bilingual immersion programs. More than 200 such programs are currently implemented across the United States and evaluation data suggest that they work exremely well for both minority and majority students (Thomas & Collier, 1996; Dolson & Lindholm, 1995). These programs involve either an initial 90:10 ratio of L1 to English, moving to a 50:50 ratio by about grade 4, or a 50:50 ratio throughout elementary school. For majority students the program is an L2 immersion program (modeled on the success of French immersion programs in Canada); for minority students it constitutes a language maintenance program that aims at full bilingualism and biliteracy.
According to the “maximum exposure/time-on-task” argument, these programs should be a disaster for language minority students since they involve much less English instruction than the vast majority of transitional bilingual education or all-English (structured immersion) programs. In fact, minority students in these programs consistently attain or come very close to grade norms in English academic skills by grade 6 or 7 (Cummins, 1996). The reason Rossell and Baker pay scant attention to these programs is that both majority and minority students clearly benefit from the program (thereby dismantling the effectiveness of “us
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
12 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
versus them” rhetoric) and the results show an inverse relation between exposure to English and achievement in English when compared to all-English immersion programs (Thomas & Collier, 1996).
Conclusion
Soto’s account of the community struggle for effective bilingual programs in Steel Town shows the ugly face of racism and xenophobia that peers through the transparent veneer of “deep and sincere beliefs that the earlier children master the English language, the better their chances for success.” Addressing the same issues from the perspective of semiotic theory, Moraes concludes that dialogic interaction between oppressed and oppressor is crucial to the possibility of social change. She combines Freirean and Bakhtinian analyses in arguing for a critical dialogic pedagogy that would equip students (and communities) with the tools both to struggle directly against oppression and to work for dialogue with the the oppressor.
In exploring the implications of these volumes for the current debate over bilingual education in the United States, I have attempted to elaborate some of the forms that a critical dialogue might take. However disdainful some academics might be of the media’s soundbite discourse through which coercive power relations are perpetuated, the reality is that this is a primary discursive arena for the political process. A major implication of Moraes’ theoretical analysis is that it is irresponsible to abandon this arena to the forces of racism and xenophobia. In the absence of dialogue, the “democratic” voice of the dominant majority, infused with pre-recorded soundbite formulas, will ensure that the coercive status quo will remain intact. Dialogue, by contrast, has at least the potential to identify common concerns and priorities shared by various sectors of the society, expose the superficial logic and sociopolitical manipulation underlying opposition to programs such as bilingual education, and finally work towards concrete social and educational changes that overturn xenophobic “us versus them” perspectives and implement programs that are self-evidently for the “common good”. Critical dialogue of this type has the potential to cause soundbites to implode because their apparent logic can be sustained only in the absence of dialogue. However, for this process to begin, the “real” world that Soto describes must be engaged by the “theoretical” world that Moraes explores in more concrete ways than just subjecting the real world to further theoretical analyses.
References
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowrment in a
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
13 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
Diverse Society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. & Corson, D. (1997). Bilingual Education. Volume 5, Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Dolson, D. & Lindholm, K. (1995). World class education for children in California: A comparison of the two-way bilingual immersion and European Schools model. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.) Multilingualism for all. (pp. 69-102). Lisse: Swets &Zeitlinger.
Hughes, R. (1993). Culture of Complaint: A Passionate Look into the Ailing Heart of America. New York: Warner Books.
Krashen, S. & Biber, D. (1987). Bilingual Education in California. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Otheguay, R. (1991). Thinking about bilingual education: A critical appraisal. In M. Minami & B. Kennedy (Eds.) Language Issues in Literacy and Bilingual/Multicultural Education. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review, Reprint series no. 22.
Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education. New York: Basic Books.
President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies (1980). Strength through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Quantz, R. & O’Connor, T. (1988). Writing critical ethnography: Dialogue, multivoicedness, and carnival in cultural texts. Educational Theory, 38:1, 95-109.
Rossell, C.H. & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30:1, 1-74.
Schlesinger, A. Jr. (1991). The Disuniting of America. New York: W.W. Norton.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Resource power and autonomy through discourse in conflict – a Finnish migrant school strike in Sweden. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. (pp. 251-277).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
The Case for Bilingual Education
Why Bilingual Education? by Stephen Krashen ERIC® Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation … read more.
Highlighted ESL Sites and Tools
Instant Multi-Language Translator Great tool for the ESL writing workshop classroom.
SETTING EXPECTED GAINS
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
14 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
How effective is bilingual education? Elizabeth Howard, Center for Applied Linguistics… read more.
Visit James Crawford’s Language Policy Web Possibly the most in-depth bilingual education site on the web.
for Non and Limited English Proficient Students Edward De Avila, Ph.D.
Mathematics For Students with Learning Disabilities from Language-Minority Backgrounds: Recommendations for Teaching Diane Torres Raborn
Rethinking Schools: Online Urban Educational Journal.
Dr. James Cummins is a leader in second language learning and literacy development research. This website is an expanding resource for educators the world over.
Top of Page i teach i learn.com © 1999-2003 Educators. Technology. Connected.
Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/bilingualedus.html
15 of 15 3/16/11 6:39 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|