English Only Movement in New York State - Essay Example

CONSEQUENCES OF ENGLISH ONLY MOVEMENT ON EDUCATION IN NEW YORK INTRODUCTION English-only movement, also called Official English movement by its supporters, refers to a political movement for the use only of English language in public occasions through the establishing of English as the only official language in the United States. There have been various unrelated incarnations of the movement throughout American history. In 1986, Larry Pratt founded English First, while Lou Zaeske established the American Ethnic Coalition. Tanton and other former U.S. English associates founded ProEnglish specifically to defend Arizona's English-only law in 1994. More recently in 2006, the U.S. Senate voted on two separate amendments to make English the national language and to make it the common unifying language of the country. U.S. English, an advocate group for "Official English" summarizes their belief that "the passage of English as the official language will help to expand opportunities for immigrants to learn and speak English, the single greatest empowering tool that immigrants must have to succeed". Even though many states in the United states have passed legislations stating english as official language, New york does not seem to have one yet. Thus, it can be seen that there are several advocates of this movement. However, there are several ill-effects of this on the education of language minority students, besides others. In this essay, we will first examine the ideologies underlying the English-Only movement, then review the consequences of it on the education in New York. IDEOLOGY OF ENGLISH ONLY MOVEMENT The advisability of legislation mandating an official language policy is hardly a new issue, but one that has been debated throughout the history of the United States. Crawford (1992) in his book, Language Loyalties, summarizes the opposing views on this topic, as follows: "For supporters, the case is obvious: English has always been our common language, a means of resolving conflicts in a nation of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups. The Reaffirming the preeminence of English means reaffirming of a unifying force in American life. Moreover, English is an essential tool of social mobility and economic advancement. The English Language Amendment would "send a message" to immigrants, encouraging them to join in rather than remain apart, and to government, cautioning against policies which could retard English acquisition. For opponents, Official English is synonymous with English-Only: a mean-spirited attempt to coerce Anglo-conformity by terminating essential services in other languages. The amendment poses a threat to civil rights, educational opportunities and free speech, even in the private sector. It is an insult to the heritage of cultural minorities, including groups whose roots in this country go deeper than English speakers Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and American Indians. Worst of all, the English-Only movement serves to justify racist and nativity biases under the cover of American patriotism". THE SCENARIO OF EDUCATION IN NEW YORK By the year 2010, over thirty percent of all school-age children will come from homes in which the primary language is not English. Though we tend to think of immigrants settling in primarily urban areas, large numbers of recently arrived families live in rural and suburban communities. In New York City alone, there are more than one hundred languages represented in public school classrooms. The same phenomenon is the norm in many areas of the country. In Rochester, Minnesota schools serve students speaking over 60 different languages. Some of the most common languages spoken by students in these classrooms include Spanish, Korean, Cantonese, Mandarin, and other dialects of Chinese, Haitian-Creole, and Russian. The educational predicament of students of limited English proficiency has been a focus of policymakers and the courts for almost 30 years. According to federal law, and under many state laws, if students cannot participate meaningfully and equitably in the English-only school environment by virtue of their limited proficiency in English, they are eligible for special services. Programs to serve the needs of these students vary considerably. In some cases, students receive some proportion of their instruction in their native language. In others, they receive instruction exclusively through the medium of English, but the English is simplified, and the instructional context is enriched to make the content more understandable. In still others, the special help comprises instruction in English as a second language (ESL), with a primary focus on the development of English-language skills, rather than on the academic content areas. Determining the relative efficacy of this range of approaches has been the principal focus of the educational policy debate. EFFECT OF ENGLISH ONLY LEGISLATIONS ON EDUCATION The education of children from disadvantaged groups has been frequently a topic of political debate. The current English-Only movement, which advocates that English be the official and only language used in the United States, dramatically influences the life of language minority children, their families, and educators working with them The enactment of English-Only legislation in many states not only threatens to inhibit the academic advancement of many language minority children, but also deprives these children of the many social advantages resulting from using their mother tongue. For example, a survey has shown that school drop-outs number has increased because of English-only notifications. The group, Advocates for Children, said based on an unscientific survey of 1,100 immigrant and refugee parents and students from schools across the city, the following: More than half the school-age children in New York City come from immigrant households. Only 18 percent of the students and parents surveyed said that English is their native language, and 85 percent said that their summer school notification letter was written in English, the group's report showed. The survey was given to 650 students enrolled in 173 summer schools and 457 parents with children in 104 schools Summer school attendance was a top priority for school officials, but 12.1 percent of the 62,537 students who were required to attend classes did not enroll. The study released also found that less than 25 percent of parents said they were notified that their child would probably have to attend summer school by the January 31 deadline, the date by which the Board of Education said that 86 percent of parents had received letters. Less than half of the students surveyed said that they had received remedial help to avoid summer school, the study showed. All failing or borderline students are supposed to receive remedial help before being required to attend summer school. The growth in language minorities in the USA is matched by an increase in language policies encapsulated by the English-only movement and support for policies controlling immigration and health/welfare services to immigrants. THE LANGUAGE POLICY While English is the dominant language of New York, it has always been a multilingual city. In a detailed account of the use of languages since European colonization and the subsequent formation of the nation state, Bernard Spolsky (2004) chronicles the tension between English mono linguistic tendencies and a multi linguistic reality in the United States. Specifically, he argues that movements to make English official and to suppress other language usage have existed side by side with the reality of a country that has been significantly defined by a continual history of immigration and multilingualism. In normative terms, the languages that have been imported to the United States from non-English speaking areas are often referred to as community languages, minority languages, ethnic languages, or heritage languages. According to Kaplan and Baldauf, these terms are euphemisms intended to recognize that, while these are not the majority languages, they represent populations of citizens in the country. They are acknowledged as practiced languages despite English dominance in written policy, implying a discursive distinction between the spheres of policy and practice. Policy is generated and implemented hierarchically, while practice takes place on the community level. Spolsky (2004) argues that policy is generated through practice, not through what is codified and written by an external force. He contends that the widespread use of other languages, such as those officially recognized through the legal and governmentally sanctioned support of multilingual services and unofficially recognized through usage in particular speech communities, indicates that, while some national and state policies may attempt to make English official, in practice, New York is multilingual. Language policy, therefore, is not necessarily determined on the national level, although nation states do exercise a significant and relevant locus of power. By focusing only on centralized national language policies, however, studies are likely to overlook other factors that generate language policy. According to Spolsky (2004), much of what constitutes language policy operates within a specific speech community, defined simply as "any social or political or religious group or community ranging from a family through a sports team or neighborhood" (p. 40). It is within these speech communities that policies of language are not only manifest, but are also determined by grounded ideological language choices. Often, these choices involve an overt attempt at the employment of language management. Thus, English only policy is something that is very inappropriate for a state like New York or even a country like United States for that matter. CRAWFORD'S TESTIMONY James Crawford, Director of Institute for Language and Education Policy has stated in his testimony before the House committee on education reform the following: "Official English is: 1. Unnecessary - The overwhelming dominance of English in the United States is not threatened in any way. Newcomers to this country are learning it more rapidly than ever before. Our language does not need "legal protection." 2. Punitive - Restricting government's ability to communicate in other languages would threaten the rights and welfare of millions of people, including many U.S. citizens, who are not fully proficient in English. 3. Pointless - Official-English legislation offers no practical assistance to anyone trying to learn English. In fact, it is likely to frustrate that goal by outlawing programs designed to bring immigrants into the mainstream of our society. 4. Divisive - The campaign to declare English the official language often serves as a proxy for hostility toward minority groups, Latinos and Asians in particular. It is exacerbating ethnic tensions in a growing number of communities. 5. Inconsistent with American values - Official-English laws have been declared unconstitutional in state and federal courts, because they violate guarantees of freedom of speech and equal protection of the laws. 6. Self-defeating - English Only policies are foolish in an era of globalization, when multilingual skills are essential to economic prosperity and national security. Language resources should be conserved and developed, not suppressed." FOES OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN NEW YORK The English only movement indirectly affects, also the interest of students in bilingual programs. On the other hand, there are some who voluntarily oppose bilingual education, even as they belong to minority communities in New York. The foes of bilingual education, at least as practiced in New York, are not Eurocentric nativists but Spanish-speaking immigrants who struggled to reach the United States and struggle still at low-wage jobs to stay here so that their children can acquire and rise with an American education, very much including fluency in English. Bilingual education coasted along on its perception as a virtual civil right for Hispanics. Maybe such a reputation was deserved 30 years ago, when the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund sued and won a consent decree requiring that New York City offer bilingual education. But as the innovation hardened into orthodoxy, and as a sort of employment niche grew for bilingual educators and bureaucrats, the idealistic veneer began to wear away. Absent major changes in federal and state accountability mandates, the recent decline in bilingual enrollments and a corresponding increase in English only enrollments may be only the beginning of a long-term trend. Crawford suggests a strategy to reverse the effect as to stress the benefits of bilingualism, which is a model that includes English-speaking students acquiring a minority language alongside minority students acquiring English. To reverse the decline of bilingual education, it must be combined with consistent efforts to educate the public about the pedagogical and societal benefits of developing students' native-language skills. While such advocacy is necessary, however, it is insufficient in today's political climate. There's no escaping the reality that, as long as high-stakes testing continues to drive American education policy, the trend toward all-English programs will continue to accelerate. SPECIAL CLASSES - ARE THEY PRACTICAL In New York, there are several institutions like the ELL that are aimed at supporting students for whom English is a second or foreign language. Children who start school knowing little or no English can learn the basic skills of word recognition quickly in about two years, if they are carefully taught. They need the same kind of reading instruction that works for native speakers, only more of it, and they need to be monitored carefully so they get help adapted to their language development needs as soon as they run into problems. Kindergarten and first-grade classes should be structured in ways that help children acquire these skills, regardless of whether the English language learners are in regular classes or in special sections. Although students can learn Basic English reading skills in two years, their chances of failing later in school are still greater than native English speaking children. Even if excellent oral language support is provided in the primary grades, it takes far longer than two years for English language learners to become as fluent as native speakers and to acquire the broad vocabulary and reading comprehension skills needed for sustained academic achievement. Successful English learning requires targeted and continuing intervention. There is no evidence that this extra teaching can be effectively offered in special programs that are not closely integrated with the main literacy program. Lengthening the school day or year for these students is one way to close the gap. Teachers' skills can also make a big difference. English language learners need teachers who can deliver the intense, explicit, and supportive reading instruction shown to be most effective, and these teachers need intensive professional development. Providing additional time, and ensuring that each child receives expert instruction, is expensive. But students cannot learn what they are not taught. Transforming English language learners into good readers and academic achievers requires increased resources and commitment, both from those who run the schools and from the citizens and communities that pay for them. If special classes are to be established for the children of each foreign-speaking element as gets necessitated by English only policy, then in fairness, instruction must be made available across the board, from Swahili to Mandarin, from Hindi to Slovene. This will require a lot of money expended. Thus, instead of wasting money on extra classes, it is better to avoid restrictions to the use of other languages. CONCLUSION New York, being one of the popular states, which attracts thousands of immigrants every year, is culturally diverse. The lingual differences are obvious and therefore, an English only policy in such a state can only hinder the growth and progress in the development of the state. This essay has attempted to cover the general consequences of English-only movement and also its connections to education in New York. It has been elucidated that English-only policies are only a form of educational and social restriction. REFERENCES Bernard Spolsky (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge. University of Cambridge Press. English-only movement. (2008). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved, May 12, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=English-only_movement&oldid=211789739 James Crawford (2008). Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. James Crawford (2007). The Decline of Bilingual Education: How To Reverse a Troubling Trend Elladvocates. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/bilingualed/Crawford_Decline_of_BE.pdf James Crawford (2006). Official English Legislation: Bad for Civil Rights, Bad for America's Interests, and even bad for English. Institute for Language and Education Policy. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/englishonly/Crawford_Official_English_testimony.pdf Kaplan and Baldauf. Language Planning: From Practice to Theory. United Kingdom. Multilingual matters Mara Hantzopoulos (2005). English Only Greek Language as Currency in Queens, New York City. Languages, Communities, and Education. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.tc.edu/students/sie/LCEjr05/pdfs/Hantzopoulos.pdf One Land, One Language Unites Us All. New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=950DE0DA153EF93BA3575AC0A96F948260 Samuel G. Freedman(2004) ON EDUCATION; It's Latino Parents Speaking Out On Bilingual Education Failures . New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9C01E4DA163AF937A25754C0A9629C8B63 State Legislation(2006). US English. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.us-english.org/view/364state=NY Work and Money(2004).The Christian Science monitor. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0126/p13s02-wmgn.html Read More