I'm in a program to earn an MLL (multi-language learner) endorsement and thought I'd periodically share some of the things I'm learning. The class I'm taking now is about cultural contexts for emergent bilinguals (the term is preferable to deficit-based terms that center the English language). The goal of these programs is to set students up for success in school by improving their academic English skills. Research shows that students are most successful when they are able to preserve their home language and culture and use it alongside English.
Some numbers (I can provide the source if someone wants):
60-70% of the world is (at least) bilingual
75% of MLL students were born in the United States --not all MLL students are immigrants, or even children of immigrants
73% of MLL students have Spanish as their home language
I had to read about Castañeda v. Pickard, an important case in the history of bilingual education. A group of Mexican-American parents representing students in the the Raymondville, Texas Independent School District (RISD for short) sued the district for ethnic and racial discrimination, claiming that they were denied rights secured for them by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The small district, which is located in the Rio Grande valley consists almost entirely of Mexican-American students (88%) who speak Spanish as their home language. The case was first tried during the summer of 1978 and appeals for the case lasted through 1981.
There are three main arguments. The first has to do with the failure of RISD to recruit and retain teachers that reflect the community. 27% of teachers in the district were Mexican-American; while 88% of students were. The second complaint has to do with grouping or “tracking” students in classes based on ability. Students entering kindergarten were given an English-language proficiency test and are grouped “high” if they’re proficient and “low” if they’re not. This tracking led to emergent bilingual students being placed in lower-performing groups, with the end result being de facto segregation. Finally, the suit called into question the quality of bilingual education programs that the district was offering. Many of the dual-language teachers had limited Spanish proficiency and most of them were not Mexican-American. The dual-language program was offered in grades K through third, then instruction transitioned to English-only.
The case resulted in a three-pronged test of bilingual education programs:
must be based on (a) a sound educational theory that is (b) supported by some qualified experts;
must be provided with sufficient resources and personnel to be implemented effectively; and
after a trial period, students must actually be learning English and, to some extent, subject matter content.
The language here leaves a lot open to interpretation. For instance, how do we determine what counts as a “sound educational theory,” and who constitutes “some qualified experts.” To what extent should they be learning subject-matter content?
If we view multilingualism as an asset, then that shapes how we engage these students. One thing I found interesting is the framing around English-language learners and students whose home language is English but they are studying another language. In some ways these are two sides of the same coin, right? But the former is often viewed in terms of deficit and the latter, in terms of an asset (you need to have three years of a foreign language to get into college, for ex.) I realize there are proficiency tests that come into play here tho.