ED 179 624

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

,UD 019 914

Hispanic Migrations from the Caribbean arid LatinAmerica: Implications for Educational Policy,Planning and Practice: Conference Proceedings.ERIC/C4X Urban Diversity Series, Nuaber 65, August1979.Columbia Univ., New fork, N.Y.. ERIC Clearinghouse onthe Urban Disadvantaged.: Columbia Univ., New York,N.Y. National Origin Desegregation AssistanceCenter.: Columbia Univ., New York, N.Y. RaceDesegregation Assistaace Center.; Columbia Univ., New'York, N.Y. Sex Desegregation Assistance Center.National Inst. of Education (DHEW) , Washington,D.C.Aug 79400-77-0071

Institute for nrban and Minority Education, Box 40,Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NewYork 10027 ($5.00)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Bilingual Education; *Educational Improvement;*Educational Policy: Elementary Seccndary Education;Federal Legislation; *Immigrants; Mexican Americans;Puerto Ricans: Residential Patternsr SchoolIntegration: School Segregation: SocialDiscriminatioa; *Spanish SpeakingLau v Nichols

This report includes papers by two educatorsconcerning the education of Hispanics in the United States. JoseHernandez addresses the issues of Hispanic demographic patterns and

. migration and the implications of these factors for educational' planning and policy. Rafael Valdivieso focuses on the Federal role in

Hispanic desegregation, discussing detates over the gcals andeffectiveness of bilingual education, the lack cf compliance with theguidelines established by the Office cf Civil Rights after the Lau v.Nichels de4sion, and the high rate of school segregation amongnational origin (language minority) students. Both papers emphasizethe growth in the overall population of Hispanic students and arguethat present and future educational legislation and policy must takeinto account the needs of this minority group. (Author/EB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.*****44****************************************************************

ERIC/CUE URBAN DIVERSITY SERIESNumber 65, August 1979

HISPANIC MIGRATIONS FROM THECARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICAIMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY,

PLANNING AND PRACTICE

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODuCED ExAC to, AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR oRGAN.ZATION oRICHN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECFSSARILY REPRE-SENI OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

DuC A t ION POS.TION OFI POL ICY

vsol

CrzCro«pftr4

Conference Proceedings

LER1q®Published by

CLEARINGHOUSE ON URBAN EDUCATION,and

NATIONAL ORIGIN, RACE, AND SEX DESEGREGATIONASSISTANCE CENTERS

Institute for Urban and Minority Education

Teachers College, Columbia UniversityNew York, New York 10027

This publication is ont in the ERIC/CUE Urban DiversitySeries produced by the ERIC Clearinghouse on UrbanEducation under contract 400-77-0071 between the Na-tional Institute of Education (DHEW) and Teachers Col-lege, Columbia University. Additional copies will beavailable from:

ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceP.O. Box 190

"Arlington, Virginia 22210

Its ED identification number and full ordering instructionswill be found in Resources in Education, the monthlyERIC abstnct journal, or can be obtained by contactingERIC/CUE.

Copies are also available from the Institute for Urban andMinority Education, Box 40, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, New York, New York 10027, for Sie0 each.

..rso

The material in this publication was prepared pursuant tocontracts with_the U,KOffice of Education and the Na-tional Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare. Contractors undertaking suchprojects under Government sponsorship are en.. mraged toexpress freely their judgments in professional matters.Prior to publication, the manuscript was submitted to theMigration Studies Center of the Institute fOr Urban andMinority Education, New York, New York, for criticalreview and determination of professional competence.This publication has met such standards. Points of view oropinions, however, do not necessarily represent the officialview or opinions of the Migration Studies Center, the Of-fice of Education or the National Institute of Education.

HISPANIC MIGRATIONS FROM THE CARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICAIMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY, PLANNING, AND PRACTICE

an invitational conferenceJune 1-2, 1979 Columbia University

Sponsored by:

PROGRAM

ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, National Origin Desegregation Assistance Center, Race Desegregation Assistance Center, and Sex DesegregationAssistance Center, Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, Colum-bia University; and institute for Latin American and Iberian Studies, Columbia University

HISPANIC MIGRATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS:IMPLICATIONS FOR 'EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND PLANNING

Speaker: Jose Herncindez, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee;i,ormer Director, Social Indicator Research, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Discussants: Jesse Vazquez, Assistant Professor, Department of Education and Director, Puerto RicanStudies Department, Queens College, CUNY; Roberto Alvarez, Research Associate, in-stitute for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, Columbia University

CONFLICT, CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN CULTURAL PATTERNS AMONG HISPANICS IN THE UNITED STATES:

VARIATIONS IN INSTITUTIONS, OCCUPATIONAL AND SEX ROLES

Speaker: Lloyd Rogler, Director, Hispanic Research Center, Fordham University

Discussants: Marta Vega, Director, Visual Arts Research and Resource Center Relating to theCaribbean, New York City; Herminio Martfnez, National Origin Desegregation AssistanceCenter and Sex Desegregation Assistance Center, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity;Francisco Chapman, Latin American Studies Program, University of Massachusetts,Boston

THE ROLE OF FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL POLICIES IN DESEGREGATION AND STATUS EQUALIZATION FOR HISPANICS

Speaker: Ray Vaidlvieso, Director, Aspira Center for Educational Equity, Washington, D.C.

Discussants: Gil Sanchez, Director, Bilingual Program, New York University; Peter Negroni, CommunitySuperintendent, District 12, Bronx, N.Y.

AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES FOR HISPANICS: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Speaker:

Discussants:

Carmen Perez, Chief, Bureau of Bilingual Education, New York State Education De-partmentSteven F. Arvizu, Director, Cross Cultural Resource Center, Department of Anthropology,California State UnIVersity at Sacramento; Marietta Saravia Shore, Associate Director,National Origin Desegregation Assistance Center, Teachers College, Columbia University;Ana M. Villegas, Acting Director, Bilingual/Bicultural Program, C. W. Post Center, LongIsland University

Herminlo Martinez and Marietta Saravia Shore, Conference Co-ChairsNational Origin Desegregation Assistance Center

. Institute for Urban and Minority EducationTeacherS College, Columbia University

IntroductionThe rapid population increase of Hispanics in the United

States, particularly the increase due to m,igration from theCaribbean and Latin America, has had. important implica-tions for educational policy, planning and practice. Inorder to eonsider these implications, a conference was heldin June, 1979 at Columbia University:The conference wasco-sponsored by the ERIC Clearinghouse on UrbanEducation and the National Origin, Race, and SexDesegregation Assistance Centers of the Inatitute for Ur-ban and Minority Education, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, and by the Institute for Latin American andIberian Studies at Columbia University.

The objectives ot' the conference were: to provide aforum for leading Hispanic educators to address issues ofmutual concern, such as educational equity and bilingualeducation; to assess current federal policies affecting theeducation of Hispanics; to encourage greater understand-ing of the diversity among Hispanics, including differencesrelating to diverse national origins and socioeconomicsituations.; and to enable conference participants to expressconcerns, interact, and develop recommendations foreducational policy and practice for Hispanics.

Dr. Jose Hernández, Department of Sociokigy, Univer-sity of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, addressed the issues ofHispanic demographic patterns and migration and the im-plications of these factors for educational planning andpolicy. Hernandez's paper points out that Hispanics in theUnited States have migrated from many geographic areas,primarily from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Domin-ican Republic, Colombia, and Central America. Whatbecomes increasingly evident is that these are hetero-geneous populations characterized by socioeconomic,cultural, and historical differences between the groups,which directly affect their attitudes about acculturation,language acquisition, and educational goals.

Hernandez describes the Hispanic population ot' theUnited States as being very young in composition. Over 30pereent are between the ages of five and seventeen,customarily considered the "school-age" segment of apopulation. In comparison, the school-age segment of the

ition's population is only 23 percent. Hernandez ex-amines the implications of this contrast for educationalplanning and policy making, and he points out that thepresent generation of young Hispanic adults will likelyengender an even larger group ot' school eligibles duringthe next twenty years. The significance of these facts forfuture educational planning are extremely critical,especially for urban school districts.

The paper is perhaps most valuable for its focus on somevery important but often ignored facts which affectHispanic education practices and planning. In describingresidential segregation and its limitations for access to amiddle-class economic condition; Hernandez underscoresthe fact that no significant change has occurred in theresidential concentration patterns of most Hispanics. It'anything, he concludes, segregation has increased,especially as the external and domestic migration trendshave brought thousands of Hispanics to such cities as NewYork, Chicago, San Antonio, and Los Angeles,

Dr. Hernandez is critical of some of the directions pastplanning and policy for Hispanics have taken, and hispaper challenges schools to assumveffirmative roles associal change agents.

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lau v. Nicholsdecision addressed the educational needs of non-English-speaking children. In its decision, the Court concluded thatschool districts are responsible for providing educationalprograms such as Bilingual and English as a SecolidLanguage programs which enable linguistic minoritystudents to participate meaningfully in the classroom.Rafael Valdivieso, director of the Aspira Center forEducational Equity, discusses the issues and the debatesover the goals and effectiveness of bilingual education, thelack of compliance with the Lau guidelines of the Officefor Civil Rights, the role of bilingual education, and thehigh rate of school segregation among national origin(language minority) students.

In his paper, Valdivieso presents and analyzes statisticaldata regarding Hispanic achievement and attainment. Forexample, data indicate that Hispanics who 'usually speakSpanish tend to have a higher dropout rate than any othergroup in the country and, in fact, they drop out at a ratethree times higher than Hispanics who usually speakEnglish. Valdivieso points out, however, that the relation-ship between the use of Spanish and a high dropout rate isonly correlational and not causal. Other data indicate thatbilingual, middle-clas-s- Hispanics have slightly higher earn-ings than Hispanics who usually speak only English.

Th:s paper presents a close scrutiny of bilingual instruc-tion. The author notes that there has been a growth in bi-lingual education during thiS deeade, but future expansionof the program has been dampened by political and publicnegative sentiment and nonsupport. With great skill andclarity, he analyzes the unsystematic manner in which thepolicy on bilingual education has evolved and the con-sequent program confusion, gaps, and duplications inservice.

Hispanic school segregation is compared tO black schoolsegregation; Hispanic children are more likely to be attend-ing a predominantly minority school than blacks.Valdivieso's discussion of the pros and cons of desegrega-tion for Hispanic students, as well as its effect on politicaland cultmal consciousness, is very timely.

The future of bilingual education and desegregation ofnational origin language minorities remains uncertain. Asboth papers emphasize, the 1980s will see a great growth inthe overall population of Hispanic students. Present andfuture federal legislation must take into account the educa-tional needs of this multi-ethnic, multicultural, and bi-lingual population rapidly becoming the largest minoritygroup in the United States.

The legal and political decisions of the 1970s have pro-vided a framework for educational change. The currenttask of educators, researchers, and policy makers is todevelop a comprehensive approach that will insure equaleducational opportunity for the millions of Hispanicchildren attending U.S. schools.

1

Hispanic Migration and Demographic Patterns:Implications for Educational Planning and Policy

José HernándezUniversity of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

A major po. 'on of the United States Hispanicpopulationabout two in every three Chicanos and everyother Puerto Ricanis now "native born." Many descendfrom generations of people who lived in this nation longbefore the recent immigration from the Caribbean andLatin America. Migration has nonetheless been central totheir experience through such movements as itinerant farmlabor, the urbanization of the Southwest, and settlement inthe North Central region and in areas different from tradi-tionally Hispanic America. Today some fifteen millionHispanics are commonly recognizedtas a national minor-ity, partly a result of geographic dispersion and concentra-tion, as well as the stability and enduring character of theirdistinctive lifestyle and sense of peoplehood.'

The sizable immigration dating from the late 1960s hasbeen an outcome of rapid population growth in the Carib-bean and Latin America and permissive legislation by theUnited States. But the principal background factor re-mains the largely frustrated hopes among the commonpeople for social and economic improvements in their na-tions of origin. Since educational attainment facilitateslegal entry in the preference system, many of the new Latinimmigrants have been professional, technical, managerial,and highly skilled workers.' During recent years, the entryof such persons has somewhat diminished, in step with atrend of increased immigration among middle-levelworkers, typically in sales and clerical positions.' Thepreference system operates inversely for persons withlimited schooling and work abilities. For this, among otherreasons, a large and growing number of Latin immigrantshave entered the United States without official documenta-tion, many with hopes of eventually legalizing theirresidence if the migration gamble succeeds.' For Hispanicsgenerally, these trends have meant diversity and newdimensions in the national political agenda. The changehas also enlivened the Hispanic culture, creating a motiveand need for such programs as bilingual education.

What are the collective features of the Hispanic popula-tion? For example, how many consider themselves to be ofMexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South Amer-ican origin? Are they primarily young, middle-aged orelderly? Do women outnumber men? Are traditional, two-parent/children families typical? Do most find employ-ment ant mcceed in their jobs? Is there an income gap be-tween Hispanics and other population groups? How exten-sive are poverty cmditions? Should we conclude thatHispanics face greater discrimination than average forpeople who differ from the identity and lifestyle of theAtnerican majority?

Some of these demographic patterns will be discussed interms of their influence in educational problems and solu-tions. A more detailed response must await the results of

2

the 1980 Census, which should provide information ingreater depth than any recent data source. The many prob-lems involved in the 1970 Census and the limited scope ofother data collection activities since then have made it diPficult to obtain an accurate, up-to-date evaluation of \several crucial issues and the kind of thoroughgoing '\research possible for other tnajor segments of the UnitedStates population. Moreover, proposed improvements instatistical accounting for Hispanics are as frequent a topicof discussion as actual results of scientific investigation.'

Fundamental Aspects

One of the basic problems in obtaining valid and reliableinformation for Hispanics derives from the vaiiety and im- -precision of the methods used to identify people asHispanics.' Currently, self-designation according to aspecific national origin or ethnic group (Mexican, PuertoRican, Cuban, Central or South American) seems to yieldthe most accurate and meaningful results. Nevertheless,the labels uscd to identify persons of Mexican origin (Mex-ican, Mexican American, Mexicano, Chicano) are not fullyadequate in categorizing the population, estimated as 6.5million in recent surveys. It is therefore thought thatatnong the 1.5 million persons who are identified in thesesurveys as "other Spanish" many are of Mexican origin ordescenaants of the Hispanic population of the South-western United States, once territory belonging to Mex-ico.' If the Mexican origin totals are adjusted for this fac-tor, about 65 percent of the, United States Hispanicpopulation can be 'said to belong to this ethnic category;the percentage is higher if we consider the unknownnumber of undocumented aliens and problems ofstatistical coverage having an unusual impact on MexicanAmericans.'

The second largest Hispanic group is the continentalPuerto Rican, making up nearly 2 million persons or morethan 15 percent of the United States Spanish origin popula-tion. The 3.2 million Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico,which is considered an "outlying area' of the UnitedStates, are not included in U.S. Census Bureau figures fornational totals.9 Another 15 percent of the United StatesHispanic population is about equally divided between per-sons of Cuban origin and those from Central or SouthAmerica and the Caribbean. While all of the Hispanicgroups are increasing rapidly, the most significant growthrates are among Mexican Americans and persons of Cen-tral American, Colombian and Dominican origin. In theseinstances, recent immigration in substantial numbers hasbeen added to the usual reproductive pattern as a factor inpopulation growth.

Generally speaking, the Hispanic population of theUnited States is very young in age composition. Except forCubans (most of whom entered the United States duringthe early 1960s and are today somewhat older), people ofSpanish origin are typically young adults, teenagers, andchildren. At least half or more of all Mexican Americansand Puerto Ricans are under twenty years old, and over 30percent are between ages five, and seventeen, customarilyconsidered the "school-age" segment of a population. Incomparison, the median age of the total United Statespopulation is thirty, and only 23 percent of the nation'spopulation is of school age." The most significant implica-tions of this contrast for educational planning and policyare that Hispanics are represented in larger-than-averagenumbers among children eligible for schooling and that thepresent generation of young Hispanic adults will likelyengender an even larger group of school eligibles duringthe next twenty years. While nationally Hispanics of allages make up less than 10 percent )ts the total population,in many school districts the enrollment of Hispanicchildren far surpasses that percentage and will be evengreater in future years.

Among adult Hispanics, women outnumber men byabout a half million personsa significant margin,especially in a predominantly young population. Theresearch literature provides little or no explanation,perhaps because of a lack of interest in the topic and thetraditional assumption that most immigrants are males.Recent publications on Mexican Americans have docu-mented an increasing trend in immigration among women;this trend has grown to the extent that immigration ofwomen is as frequent as that' of men," Researchers arebeginning to focus attention on the problems women facein adaptation to the United States." Several studies ofPuerto Rican migration have recognized that more womenthan men have migrated and live in the continental UnitedStates, but no detailed explanation is given." In practicalterms, this situation implies that many Hispanic womenare responsible for households. In fact, the average ishigher than that for the total United States population.While less than 10 percent of "white" households are"female-headed," 17 percent of Hispanic households andover 30 percent of Puerto Rican households are so labeled.In addition, Hispanic households are more often com-posed of people related ty family tiessuch as cousins andin-laws than in the majority population.

For educational planning and policy, an important im-plication is that many Hispanic children eligible for school-ing are not living in husband-wife households, ordinarilyassumed to describe the family situation of most students.Also, many student households are relatively disadvan-taged, since' the responsible adult, as a member of aminority group and very often female, may be unable towork outside the home, may have a low-paid job, or maybe trying to survive on a limited support basis. The Surveyof Income and Education showed, for example, that in1975 one in six Hispanic women with responsibility forchildren under age eighteen received support paymen,s,and these averaged less than $2000 annual income.''

Hispanic households with both husband and wiferesponsible for the children have a somewhat strongereconomic situation than the one just described. But incomparison with white Anglo households a significant dif-ference becomes readily apparent. In 1977 the medianyearly income of Hispanic families was about $5000 less

than the average received by white Anglo families. About25 percent of Hispanic families were classified as livingbelow the poverty level, in contrast with anly 9 percent ofwhite Anglo families," Since a greater number of personsparticularly childrenmake up Hispanic families, thisfigtiie implies not just limited income, but a higherdependence on earnings than average among Americanfamilies.

Th economically depressed condition of Hispanichouseh Ads derives mainly from a limited earning poten-tial. The average Hispanic worker receives about half ofthe income receiver.: by a white Anglo worker and manyHispanics are among the lowest paid employees in theUnited States. The gap has been traditionally explained interms of educational differences: Hispanics earn lessbecause they have less formal schooling and qualifications.However, factual evidence shows that the educational dif-ference accounts for only a small portion of the incomegap. Limited employment opportunities and discrimina-tion in hiring, wage determination, and promotion areclearly operative in reducing income levels for Hispanics.For example, in the accompanying table the average an-nual income of Puerto Ricans and white Anglos.at peakearning ages are compared according to educational levels.These data show that a Puerto Rican high school graduateearns about as much as a white Anglo with only elementaryschooling, and that it takes a college degree for a PuertoRican to earn as much as a white Anglo with a high schooldegree. Such discrepancies imply major job disadvantagesfaced by Hispanics, as revealed by recent studies."

In addition to demonstrating the impact of discrimina-tion on the economic condition of Hispanic households,comparisons such as those above Lave important policyimplications for educational programs. They make it clearthat a traditional motive for obtaining the highest degreeof schooling possiblenamely, the financial rewardisnot a strongly convincing argument for Hispanics. if aHispanic student survives the educational syStem to highschool graduation and makes the further investment oftime, energy, and money needed to graduate from college,the likely result will be an economic situation resemblingthat of his or her white Anglo classmates who did not goon to higher education. While the statistics of inequalityare now being refined and disseminated, the realitiesdiscouraging children from seeking advanced schoolinghave long been part of growing up Hispanic in the UnitedStates. As a result, the percentage of Hispanics who oc-cupy professional managerial positions is about half of thecomparative figure for white Anglos, while work in fac-tories is twice as common among Hispanics."

For students who attain advanced schooling, the key tosuccess is "overqualification," or having more educationthan white Anglos in order to compete on the semblance ofequal terms. Access to a middle-class economic conditionmay further require overcoming residential segregation,which limits job prospects to those available in areas whereHispanics can find a place to live. One's living ar-rangements are partly a matter of choice and certainHispanics have managed to find the accommodations theydesire outside the ethnic neighborhoods or barrios in citieswhere many of them live. But generally speaking, nosignificant change has occurred in the residential concen-tration patterns of most Hispanics since the recording offactual information on this topic in the 1950 Census." Ifanything, segregation has increased, especially as the exter-

7 3

nal and domestic migration trends earlier mentioned havebrought thousands of Hispanics to such cities as NewYork, Chicago, San Antonio, and Los Angeles.

Arguments that question the segregation of Hispanicsare generally based on impressions derived from compar-ing their residential patterns with those of blacks. The lat-ter are often restricted to central city areas in their realisticscope of living chances, and they respond by occupying asubstantial proportion, if not all of the dwellings in a largeghetto. Comparisons are typically made in ignorance offactual evidence regarding the urban ecology of Hispanicresidence, which clearly documents the existence of theequivalent of black ghetto conditions in the major citiesjust mentioned, and others as well. Also, certain aspectsparticular to the Hispanic experience serve to explain whysegregation remains operative in situations more limitedthan the "large ghetto." For example, in manySouthwestern cities having a decentralized or urban-sprawlpattern of settlement, a highly segregated neighborhood ofHispanics may appear "suburban" to an Eastern observeraccustomed to associate detached single household unitsand yard space with a diversified, middle-class environ-ment. In North Central and New England cities whereHispanics make up a relatively small community comparedwith whites and blacks, they are typically concentrated inurban strips called "buffer" zones by euphemism, imply-ing a social insulation and mediating function between theblack ghetto and the rest of the city. In a recent case studyof such an area the living conditions of Hispanics werefound to be comparable to or less favorable than those inthe black ghetto. The barrio researched was one of threeHispanic buffer zones located at the ghetto's fringe."

Instead of asking, "How many Hispanics live in thisbarrio?" the question should be: "Among Hispanics inthis city, how many live in this barrio?" The answer willclarify the nature of social isolation in the segregation ofHispanics, especially where the community is small in com-parison to the population of blacks and whites. Outside ofcertain limited niches, there is very little room forHispanics in most United States cities where beingHispanic has some social meaning; this would include amajor portion of American urban places. Little is knownabout the way discrimination operates, but certain thingsare clearly evident; for example, physical appearance maynot always be involved. In many cases a Spanish name onthe application form or an accent detected in a telephoneinquiry will suffice.

The negative consequences of segregation for the school-ing of Hispanics have been documented by the U.S. Com-mission on Civil Rights as well as various researchers.'Factors closely related to segregationsuch as unemploy-ment and poverty among parents, the school system's in-difference and the students' sense of social isolationhavebeen found to explain the unsuccessful performance ofHispanics in formal educati During recent years mostresearch has dealt with the topic of noncontinuance,variously called "drop out" or "push out," which reducedthe proportion eligible for higher education to some 25percent of the original group starting school.

The Aspil a study of noncontinuance among PuertoRicans in twelve cities concluded that the problem waswcrse where the students were delayed in the usual se-(ranee of schooling, primarily as a result of the practice ofleaving them back at least one year as a solution to suchthings as a teacher's assessment of language and behav-

4

ioral "problems."" The delay was most apparent inBoston and other highly segregated cities like Bridgeport,Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut, and Patterson andPassaic, New Jersey. The Universidad Boricua studyrevealed further details that link the difficult circumstancesof life in Puerto Rican barrios to school performance, par-ticularly in terms of the survival strategies devised bystudents and their families." Contrary to widely heldassumptions, the crucial factors influencing school reten-tion and success were found to be a supportive attitudeamong teachers (not necessarily associated with "specialschools, programs and expenditures") and greater com-munication and guidance from parents (not necesarilyassociated with employment, financial status, or educa-tional background).

The fundamental demographic aspects of the Hispanicpopulation in the United States can be summarized asfollows. It is a rapidly growing, predominantly, youngpopulation with many children eligible for school who willcompose the major portion of its people by year 2000.More women than men make up the parent generation'andthe "husband-wife-and-children" household pattern is lessfrequent than usual in the United States; still, families arerelatively large and cohesive. Most Hispanics are native-born citizens of the United States and have grown up withother Americans in this country's society. Nevertheless,they face inequalities and disadvantages in obtaining aneducation, employment, and adequate living conditions.The average Hispanic must have more education thanother Americans to qualify for the same job and earn thesame income. Discrimination is also operative in housing,to the extent that most Hispanics remain living in clearlydefined urban sectors often marked by low-quality condi-tions and typically isolated socially from the remainder ofthe city. These and many related factors have a depressingeffect on the school performance of Hispanic children,resulting in a below-average achievement and a low rate ofcontinuance and graduation at the secondary level. Certainfirst-orthr implications for educational planning andpolicy have been suggested. In the discussion whichfollows, some of these implications are addressed in thecontext of the author's professional assessment rather thanthe results of research.

Average Yearly Income by Age, ComparingPuerto Rican with Majority Males

by School Attainment: 1970*

Puerto Ricans,by School Attainment

Average Yearly IncomeAge 25-34 Age 35-44

Majority, bySchool Achievement

Less than 5 yearsElementary $ 4,650 $ 5,100

5-8 years Elementary 5,000 5,450

1-3 years Secondary 5,850 6,000 Less than 5 yearsElementary

High School Graduate 6,100 6,800 5-8 years Elementary

1-3 years College 7,650 8,930 1-3 years Secondary

College Graduate 8,710 10,280 High School Graduate

Graduate Studies 94710 12,470 1-3 years College

11,880 17,280 College Graduate

11,940 19,950 Graduate Studies

'Data for New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Majority is defined as"while" persons not of Puerto Rican origin. Source; U.S. Census Bureau,PC (1)-D Mate Reports.

Discussion

The educational measures that were briefly mentioned(school attainw-nt, delay, and continuance) were re-searched by the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights forHispanics and other minority groups." The results of the1960 and 1970 Censuses of Population and the 1976 Surveyof Income and Education were compared to see if' anychanges had occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. ForHispanics, some improvement was evident; but whatevergains were made pros ed to be in proportion to the generalimprovement of education in the United States, particu-larly when compared with the white Anglo majority. Thismeans that in relation to the rest of American society,Hispanics remain in about the same situation as in 1960,before legal reforms were attempted to strengthendistributive equity and facilitate progress by minorities.Whatever arguments may be made to explain the lack ofchange, the fact remains that twenty years lwve passedwithout any deal indication of a positive trend for thefuture. What can be said, then, about prospects for moreeffective planning and policies?

An encouraging aspect of thc 1970s has been thedevelopment of research documenting the educationalproblems of Hispanics and serving to explain in an initialway why these problems remain unsolved. The documenta-tion itself has had some impact7on school boards, ad-ministrators, and teaching staff, particularly in areaswhere the Hispanic community has pressured the schoolsystem to give the issue attention or where the schoolsystem has been held accountable through litigation orprogram evaluation for the conditions documented. To theextent that knowledge of the documentation has raised theawareness of non-Hispanics to the need for solutions andchanged their attitudes regarding the nature of solutions,the research effort may have beneficial. results for thechildren in the school system. As in other areas ofconcernemployment, housing and agency servicesthings do not begin to happen until the disadvantaged con-dition of Hispanics is made apparent and a motivatingreason emerges for improvement.

In certain limited respects, the direction to be taken inworking for improvements has become evident. For exam-ple, practices such as leaving Hispanic students back in thegrade sequence toward graduation or classifying them asretarded because of language deficiencies should not beused as solutions t'or learnibg and disciplinary difficulties.Rather than avoiding the need to provide positive solutionsthe schools should seek ways ot' promoting a favorableself-image among Hispanic students, motivating them totake interest in their studies and perform to the level oftheir abilities. Changes are needed in curriculum, learningmaterials and (especially) the didactic style and interper-sonal relations between teacher and student, school andparents, the school system and community.

Unfortunately, most of the research has not gonebeyond these general lines of redirection to specific ways inwhich the schooling of Hispanics can be improved. This ispartly a developmental aspect in that an initial chance tohave some influence on the school system depends on theability to demonstrate gross inequalities and the mostsevere manifestations of problems. The next step will be toobtain answers to the question often resulting from the in-itial stage: "If things are as bad as you claim, what can wedo to remedy the situation?" in the 1980s the likely em-

phasis in research will be on policy alternatives and pro-gram effectiveness. This may eventually produce guide-lines for reform that can be implemented with reasonableassurance that the education of Hispanic children will beimproved.

The lack of specific directions for planning and policycan also be attributed to certain controversial issues andconflicting Ypoals in the initial attempts to improve educa-tional conditions for Hispanic children. Litigation for bi-lingual programs and court-ordered ways of implementingthem are among the few strategies available to Hispanicsfor gaining power in the broader social and political arena.The Hispanic community may also pursue the chance ofhaving bilingual programs of a transitional or remedialnature in hopes of eventually obtaining a curriculumenriched with Hispanic cultural elements and the teachingof the Spanish language." These goals are not easily recon-ciled with other concerns, such as the possibility that atransitional-remedial program, alone, may be the endresult, or, on the other hand, the fear that a genuinelybilingual-bicultural program might become just anothermeans of offering low-quality education or of trackingHispanic children into a low-status curricular category.

Similar considerations involve the relation between bi-lingual programs and desegregation efforts. It will berecalled that residential segregation and social isolation arefundamental demographk aspects of the Hispanic popula-tion in the United Staes, Again, Hispanic communities arenot always "large," nor ecologically situated in waysfamiliar to administrators,concerned with black/white im-balances. This means that if Hispanic children are bused topredominantly white schools, their dispersal may create anobstacle to the adequate development of a bilingual-bicul-tural program, and confusion may be created in the at-tempt to assimilate Hispanics as an alternative to a pro-gram aimed at developing in them a positive self-image inrelation to the rest of society. Desegregation through bus-ing to predominantly white schools may also imply theuprooting of Hispanic children from neighborhood sup-port systems that currently provide about the only opera-tive means to cope with the discrimination and negativefactors affecting their future situation in American society.

The unchanging circumstances influencing the lives ofHispanics in the United States perhaps explain best whyspecific planning and policy directions cannot be readilyarticulated. In the final analysis, the school is an agent ofsocialization for the larger society; and if society continuesto assign a low and limited position to Hispanics, pooreducation for them is the likely reslult. The most effectivesolutions to the school problems of Hispanic children mayhavc more to do with what happens to grown-ups in theiraspifations for employment and housing, than what takesplace in the classroom. If, for example, it became lessnecessary for a Hispanic to be overqualified for job com-petition on equal terms with a white Anglo, Hispanicchildren would be encouraged to finish t..hool and performwell in their studies. At present, only those showing excep-tional abilities are so encouraged.

The unchanging character of the school-work relation isnowhere more evident than in whatever measures of oc-cupational segregation are available for Hispanics. By thisis meant the tendency to be over-represented in certain jobcategories such as farm laborers, factory operatives, res-taurant kitchen help, secretaries and recreation leadersand under-represented in more prestigeous and higher-paid

5

categories like airplane mechanics, electricians, lawyers,librarians and real estwe salespersons. Segregation in cer-tain employment types is partly a matter of regional andhistorical factors; farm labor is more common in Ca'ifor-nia than in Ohio, migrants to industrial cities tend tobecome factory workers, and service jobs,are )re plen-tiful in the 1970s than in the 1960s. But the primary factormaintaining occupational segregation at the same level forHispanics during the past two decades has been the strongand widely unrecognized pattern of exclusion from hiringand promotion opportunities. Until such time as Hispanicwomen and men are given access to the kinds of employ-ment that make a difference in American society, it is

unlikely that they or the schools will change in orientationaway from preparing children for the low-status positionssocially defined as appropriate for Hispanics.

In conclusion, the challenge schools face is that of re-versing the relation just described, by assuming an af-firmative role as a social change agent. Instead of follow-ing the dictates of a discriminatory society, the schoolsmust seek to maximize quality instruction for Hispanics,

encouraging children to face the future realities with abackground that prepares them not just for survival butfor reducing such things as overqualification. To do this,perhaps the most specific d:rective calls for an open mindto ways of adapting to the needs of Hispanic children-instead of expecting Hispanic children to adapt to anredetermined educational system. The school must bereoriented to favor 'Hispanic children in their struggle witha racist and oppressive social order-instead of being onthe side of the fgrces keeping Hispanics in a segregatedsituation. For this to happen, the school system mustwelcome the Hispanic community to its decision-makingprocess as a genuine participant, ranging upward fromoutreach and parent-involvement activities at the barriolevel to the executive sanctuaries of educational manage-ment, The record n this regard is not promising; it showssystematic exclusion, as in many other areas of social life.It is therefore to be hoped that conferences such as tWs andthe dissemination of the presentations and discussions willcontribute to an opening of the doors that presently keepHispanics out of school.

NOTES

I . The population figures cited are drawn from U.S. Census publica-tions. Use of the term ipanic" in this paper follows the con-ference title and does not neCessarily imply endorsement of the U.S.Department of Health, Education and Welfare classification systemof minorities, which combines "Hispanic" with other ethnic addracial categories and generally discourages use of categories such asPuerto Rican, Cuban, and Mexican American.

2. Charles B. Keely, "Immigration Composition and PopulationPolicy," in Population: Dynamics, Ethics and Policy (Washington,D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1975),pp. 136-143.

3. See Judith Fortney, "Immigrant Professionals: A Brief HistoricalSurvey," International Migration Review 6 (197450-62; and Ian H.Rockett, "Immigration Legislation and the Flow of SpecializedHuman Capital from South America to the United States," Inter-national Migration Review 10 (1976):47- 61.

4. See Jorge A. Bustamante, "Undocumented Immigration from Mex-ico: Research Report," International Migration Review II (1977):149-177; Craig Jenkins, "Push/Pull irtillegal Mexican Migration tothe U.S.," International Migration Review 11 (1977):178-189; andSpecial Issue on Illegal Mexican Immigrants to the United States, In-ternational Migration Review 12 (1978):469-558.

5. See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Counting the Forgotten: The1970 Census Count of Persons of Spanish speaking Background inthe United Slates (Washington, D.C.: 1974); U.S. Commission onCivil Rights, Improving Hispanic Unemployment Data: The Depart-ment of Labor's Continuing Obligation (Washington, D.C.: 1978);James F. Gum, "The Puerto Rican Population of New York City:Who Counts Depends on How You Count," New York CityPerspective 2, no. 2 (1975)1-8; Charles H. Teller et al., CuantosSomos; ,4 Demographic Study of the Mexican American Population(Austin: University of Texas Center for Mexican American Studies,1977); Jacob S. Siegel, "Collection and Analysis of ImmigrationData at the Census Bureau," statement before the Select Committeeon Population, U.S. House of Representatives, April 7, 1978; and J.Gregory Robinson, "Estimating the Approximate Size of the IllegalAlien Population in the United States by the Comparative TrendAnalysis of Age-Spe..ific Death Rates," paper presented at the an-nual Population Association of America meeting, 1979.

6. See Jose Hernández, Leo Estrada and David Alvirez, "Census Dataand the Problem of Conceptually Defining the Mexican AmericanPopulation ," Social Science Quarterly 53 (1973):671-687.

7. Teller, pp. 13.60.U. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Persons of Spanish Origin in the

United States," Current Population Reports, Series P-20, no. 329(Washington, D.C.: 1977).

9. Sec JosC Hernândez, "La tnigración puertorrionena como factordemografico: soluciOn y problema," Revista Interamericana 4

(1975):526-534; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Estimates of thePopulation of Puerto Rico and the Outlying Areas: 1970-1976,"

6

Current Population Reports, Series P-25, no. 731 (Washington,D.C.: 1978).

10. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Persons of Spanish Origin."11. Thomas Weaver and Theodore Downing. Mexican Migration

(Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1976). p. 55.12. See Margarita Melville, "Mexican Women Adapt to Migration,"

International Migration Review 12 (1978):225-235.11. Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, Puerto Rican Americans, the Meaning of

Migration to`the Mainland (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,1971), pp. 1-2.

14. U.S. Bureau of the Censuse"The Social and Economic Status of theBlack Population in the United States," Current PopulationReports, Series P-23, no. 46 (Washington, D.C.: 19)2), p. 68; seealso U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Persons of Spanish Origin."

15. U.S. Bureau of the Cengus, "Divorce, Child Custody and Child Sup-port," Current Population Reports, Series P-23, no. 84 (Washing-ton, D.C.: 1979), p..I3.

16. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Persons of Spanish Origin," pp. 11, 16.17. See Lois S. Gray, "The Jobs Puerto Ricans Hold in New York

City," Monthly Labor Review (October, 1975):12-16; Lois S. Grayand Eddie Gonzalez, Jr., "Institutional Barriers to EconomicMobility of Puerto Ricans in New York City," conference report,New York State School of industrial and Labor Relations, CornellUniversity, October 13, 1978; Morris J. Newman, "A Profile ofHispanics in the U.S. Work Force," Monthly labor Review(December, 1978):3-14; and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,Puertorriquenos en los Estados Unidos continentales: Un futuro incierto (Washington. D.C.: 1976).

18. See Newman, "A Profile of Hispanics"; and U.S. Bureau of theCensus, "Persons of Spanish Origin," p. 29.

19. See, for example, Terry Rosenbery and James E. I3earden, "Patternsof Residential Segregation and Change among New York PuertoRicans, 1960-1970," paper presented at the annual PopulationAssociation of America meeting, 1974.

20. The Puerto Rican Organization of Wisconsin, A Survey of thePuerto Rican Community on Milwa:Aee's Northeast Side i,i !976.(Milwaukee: Z,Iniversity of Wisconsin Urban Observatory, 1977).

21. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mexican American EducationolStudy (Washington, D.C.: 1971-1974).

22. Aspira of America, Inc. Social Factors in Educational AttainmentAmong Puerto Ricans in U.S. Metropolitan .4 reas, 1970, Report No.I on Puerto Ricans and Education (Washington. D.C.: 1976).

23. Victor G. Alicers and Julie Mathis, Determinants of EducationalAttainment Among Puerto Rican Youth in the United States.Universidad Borcua Report (Washington, D.C.: 1975).

24. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Social Indicators of Equity fotMinorities and Women (Washington, D.C.: 1978).

25. National Puerto Rican Task Force on Educational Policy, Law andBilingual Education; A Manual for the Community (New York:Centro de Est udios Puertorriquenos, 1978).

1 0

The Federal Role in Hispanic SchoolAnd National Origin Desegregation:

Trends and Prospects*Rafael Valdivieso

ASpira Center for Educational Equity

The continuing debates over the goal and effectivenessof bilingual education, the confusion and lack of com-pliance with the Lau guidelines of the Office of CivilRights, and the role of bilingual education in the high rateof school segregation among national origin (languageminority) students has led to questioning what is and whatshould be the role of the federal government in satisfyingthe mandate of equal edugational opportunity for schoolchildren limited in English! language proficiency as well asthose segregated by ethnicity. Secretary Joseph Califano,for one, has ordered a review of the Department of Health,Education and Welfare's guidelines (the Lau Remedies)for school districts in developing specific voluntary com-pliance plans to eliminate discriminatory educational prac-tices in the teaching of limited-English-speaking students.

This paper is an examination of the above issues withinan Hispanic perspective and context. It begins with areview of the most recent information on the educationalstatus of Hispanics in this country. This is followed by adiscussion of trends in the policy areas of language minor-ity (national origin) desegregation and,ethnic group schooldesegregation. The paper concludes with some specula-tioas as to the prospects in these areas.

Hispanic Achievement and Attainment

According to an analysis of the 1976 Survey of Incomeand Education (S1E), persons with Spanish-languagebackground enrolled in grades five through twelve wereabout twice as likely to be two or/more grades below thegrade level expected for their ages as were those withEnglish-language background. Data from the same surveyindicated that Hispanics who usually spoke Spanish haat,the highest dropout rate (45 percent) of aria other group in'*the country. Moreover, Hispanics wh. usually spokeSpanish dropped out at a rate three ti es higher thanHispanics who usually spoke English Xl5 percent). Itshould be noted, however, that the relationship betweenthe use of Spanish and a high dropout rate is only correla-tional and not casual.'

In fact, another analysis of the SIE data indicates thatbilingual, middle-class Hispanics had slightly higher earn-

VA preliminary ve.sion of this paper, entitled "The Role of FederalEducational Policies in the Desegregation and Status E4ualization forHispanics." was presented hi the conference, "Hispanic Migrations fromthe Caribbean and Latin America: Implications for Educational Policy,Planing and Praittice," held on June 1 and '4, 1979, at Columbia Univer.sity in New York City.

The author appreciates the helpful comments that Drs. Eva Gavillan,Ricardo Fernandez., Peter Negroni, Oil Sanchez, and Isaura Santiagomade in teference to earlier versions of this paper.

I

ings than Hispanics who 'usually spoke only English.' Wecan infer from these findings that proficiency in two ormore languages is not a problem; rather, the problem isthat a student cannot achieve if he or she is not proficientin the langnage of instruction.

As for the academic achieaement of Hispanic students ingeneral, the most recent nationwide attempt to study thesubject was reported in May 1977. That study indicatedtat the greatest disparity between Hispanics and the na-tional norm came among seventeen-yeas-old Hispanics inthe Northeast. Scores in social studies were almost eighteen .

percentage points below average, and in math seventeenpoints below average. In other achievement categories andages Hispanics were found to be consistently ten, twelve,fourteen or more percentage points below the nationalaverage. The study, conducted by the National Assessmentfor Educational Progress, also revealed that Hispanicstend to stay in lower grades at older ages than otherstudents. More than a third of seventeen-year-oldHispanics in school were in the tenth grade or below---three Ames the 'tate of white students.' In general, thesefindi* are similar to the findings oo Puerto Ricans andMexican Americans reported in Coleman's Equality ofEducational Opportunity published over ten years earlierin 1964."

During the past three of four decades, Hispanic com-munities have sought possible remedies to the schoolingconditions that these disturbing statistics represent. At dif-ferent times and in different places they have turned to theconcepts of school desegregation, community control ofschools, and the provision of bilingual education.

Language Minority StudentsBilingual education, in its various forms, is really the

only universal educational demand that Hispanic com-munities have placed on governments. While many pro-ponents of bilingual education despair at our present pro-grams, the movement really has been quite remarkable interms of growth and energy. Still, satisfying the need forbilingual education conthfues to be an uphill battle. Weknow that of the official Hispanic population of 11.2millien there are 10.6 million who have a Spanish-languagebackground in terms of either their mother tongue or theirhome language.' We know from another study that thereare 1.75 million limited-English-speaking-ability childrenaged five to fourteen with an Hispanic background." Yet,when we compare the number of students reported as hav-ing limited English-speaking ability (LESA) with the lateste, ta (as of March, 1977) on ptudents reported as enrolled

oilingual instruction programs, we find that some states

7

mid{ as California, Massachusetts, and Texas provided bi-lingual instruction to 50 Tcent or more of their LESAstUdents, but other states, including New York, provided,such an education to only 20 percent or less of their LESAstudents. In total, only 40 percent of reported LESAstudents were enrolled in bilingual instruction programs.'If we were to use the LESA category today the percentagewould be probably higher. However, with the passage ofthe Education Amendments of 1978, the LESA categorywas replaced by the limited-English-proficiency category,which includes students having sufficient difficulty inspeaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English

-1anguage that they are unable to learn successfully inclassrooms where the language of instruction is English.'This new category expands the scope of persons who couldbe receiving bilingual instruction. In addition, it will re-quire reassessments of both who should be receiving suchinstruction as well as who, in fact, is already receiving suchinstruct ion .

Undeniably, then, there has been a substantial growth inbilingual education during this decade, although there isstill a need for more. There are at least two major reasonsfor not expecting too much further expansion in the im-mediate future. One is that such expansion would costmore money and cause more headachesall for a goal oran objective many federal officials claim has no solidresearch to support it. The second reason is really muchmore ambiguous but has to do with an apparently wide-spread American belief that the support of any languageMstruction besides English will cause societal fragmenta-tion.'

This is probably why our country has failed to develop anational language policy that encourages the use oflanguages other than English. Language, of course, is

related to culture; language can't be separated fromculture. The structures and functions of language andculture are in a basic sense determined by the bearers. AsShirley Brice Heath has said, any language policy is ineffect a cultural policy that calls for changes in the qualityof cultural developments in the life of specific groups ofthe nation.'" She adds that this is why any language policymust have at its center a notion that culture and languagederive in large part from the communities that bear them;policy cannot be planned to yield a set of designated resultsthat may not fit the needs and goals of communities. Thegeneral American indifference and, often, intolerancetowards the nurture lier languages and cultures are, ofcourse, at odds with the bilingual/bicultural aspirations ofmany Hispanic communities.

The clash in attitudes and aspirations has also affectedthe federal policy for bilingual education. The original titleVII legislation in 1968 supported bilingual/bicultural in-struction in the child's native language. Then in 1974 thelegislation was amended to include only bilingual transi-tional programs which are designed to give instruction inthe child's native language while intensive instruction inEnglish takes place. The purpose of such programs is tomainstream the child into the regular school program assoon as possible, while ensuring that the child suffers nodisadvantage in achievement in the regular areas of thecurriculum. The new .1978 amendments, while still focus-ing on transitional bilingual Mucation, allow the districtsto use their Title VII funds for complying with Federal orstate court-mandated bilingual education." Because policyon bilingual education has evolved in an unsystematic

8

manner, many of the policy elements conflict and are (hesource of a good deal of program confusion as well as gapsand duplications in services.

A brief mention of several issues will illustrate some ofthese problems. For example, a school district can receiveTitle VII monies for bilingual classes and still not be incompliance with the "Lau Remedies" of the Office ofCivil Rights. To take another example, until the newamendments were passed, the supplement/supplant provi-sion of Title I did not allow funding for a district that wasattempting to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Actwhen a court had made a (Lau) finding that the distLict hadto provide additional language instruction. The objectivesof the Lau assistance centers under Title IV of the CivilRights Act are not always clear. Is the assistance intendedto facilitate the desegregation of national originminorities? Is it to promote affirmative steps to rectify thelanguage deficiency of targ : .tudents? Or is it to stimulatethe provision of high quality programs of biiingual educa-tion?

Next year the Title VII program office will administerthe Emergenc; School Assistance Act Bilingual Program,which assists uistricts undergoing racial desegregation tomeet the needs of limited-English-speaking students. Thismeans that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will be closelyexamining the Civil Rights compliance of one set of TitleVII grant applicants but not that of the regular Title VIIapplicants.

The Office of Civil Rights has been neither swift noreffective in its Title VI (Lau) enforcement policy. For thelast few years, OCP has been involved in analyzing formsand determining whether school districts were in com-pliance with the Lau Remedies, which essentially requireschool districts to have bilingual programs whenever thereare twenty or more limited-English-speaking children intheir districts.

There are 334 Lau districts in the country. One hundredand two of them were originally found in compliance and191 plans have been accepted as of January 19, 1979. Atthis point we really do not know enough about the effect pfboth the planning on the part of the districts and the in-volvement of the Office of Civil Rights on creating changein these districts.

In sum, we can refer to the bilingual education policy-making of the past fifteen years as the "muddlingthrough" variety-of policy making." There is, however, agrowing awareness in the highest circles of the Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare that something is wrongin terms of an overall coordinated policy. Reform is ob-viously needed, but the question arises: in which directionwill the reform go? The outcry of the AIR report and thejournalistic assaults on bilingual education cannot butdeeply concern any advocate for bilingual education.

When I consider these Alifferent policy elements I amstruck by a paradox. Some federal officials seem interestedin the rapid assimilation of limited-English-proficientchildren into the American mainstream while at the sametime ignoring the neglect and discrimination that keepthese children and their parents from entering theAmerican mainstream. They see language and culture asobsticle.; to assimilation; consequently they want childrento abandon what is inherently an asset and potentially asocietal asset. This is like saying that participation in thelarger society requires the sacrifice of certain values. Infact, persons should not have to deny who they are in order

9

to get the basic things they need in life. Yet, these officialsdo little in terms of removing the negative forces involvedin the ghettoization of poor Hispanics. Specifically, I amreferring to the tremendous school segregation ofHispanics, especially Puerto Ricans, and its effect on thelife chances of these children.

lEthnk Group Isolafion

While the need for and the goals of bilingual ed-eationhave been national issues for the last few years, tnere isonly the. barest awareness of the degree and the possible'consequences of Hispanic school segregation in this coun-try. Actually, the minority group isolation of MexicanAmericans was established in at least two federal courtcases earlier in this decade.'' The desegregation efforts ofboth Northern blacks and Mexican Americans were greatlydiminished during the Nixon-Ford years and have simplynot regained their momentum. In the case of MexicanAmericans, there was a conscious decision to dropdesegregation efforts and instead concentrate on attainingbilingual/bicultural programs in school systems that wereunder court orders to desegregate their schools in responseto court petition by black groups.'

While the case of the school desegregation of PuertoRicans as an ethnic group was hardly raised in the courtsearlier in the decade, their legal representatives, like theMexican Americans, also adhered to the principle of"piggy-backing" their efforts for bilingual education onthe black efforts for thsegregation. These combined

/ efforts did lead to more bilingual instruction, but theycould hardly account, as some have claimed, for the highdegree of Hispanic school segregation that was firstreported on a national level in 1977." In other Words, mostof the Hispanic student population was already segregatedor well on its way to a segregated condition before the ad-vent of .bilingual education; these students would havebeen in segregated school situations ,Ivhether or not therehad been bilingual education programS.

We will have more information mit this subject by theend of the year when Aspira of America will have corn-pletechhe most comprehensive analysis ever of Hispanicschool segregation. Under the direction of Abdin.Noboa,the Project Staff has been studying segregation trends inthe major school districts with large Hispanic enrollmentfor the years 1968 through 1976. Already the preliminaryproject reports confirm a much smaller study completed byAspira in 1977.

In that study, -Aspira used Office of Civil Rights datafrom 1970 and 1974 to determine that Hispanic childrenwere as likely as black children to be attending predomi-nantly (defined as 50 percent or more) minority schools ina segregation pattern that was stable and growing in everyregion of the country where there was a concentration ofHispanics. This Pattern Occurred during a period when thecorresponding national rate for blacks was declining. In1970, 70.6 percent of all black children in the nation at-tended schools that were predominantly minority publicschools; the figure for 1974 was 66.8 percent. Comparablenational figures for Hispanics were 64 percent in 1970 and67,4 percent in 1974. The hieiest rates of segregation werefound in the Northeast. Specifically, in 1970 78,7 percentof all black students attended predominantly minorityschools, and in 1974, 81 percent attended such schools. ForHispanics the rate was 84.2 percent for the same two years.

1 3

The situation was even mole striking for Hispanics in NewYork City, which contains well over half of the nationalPuerto .Rican ,population. The proportion of Hispanicchildren in intensely segregated schools (defined as 90-100percent Minority enrollment) climbed fr n 57.5 percent in1970,to 67 percent in.1973.-

The reader may well ask: Vat is the significance ofthese statistics? How does se tool .segregation affect theoutlook and world-view of the Hispanic child? DoesSegregation mean attending inferior schools with ineffec-tive teachers, inadequate facilities, and poor resources?Does segregation affect the achievement of Hispanicstudents? Further, won't desegregation dilute the criticalmass needed to develop, political consciousness andmobilization? Won't many Hispanic parents resist desegre-gation since most are known to be for neighborhoodschools and against .busing? The answers to all of thesequestions will require a great deal of study, including ac-tion research and discussions among parents and com-munity leaders.

There is a recent report that sheds light as well as raisesquestions on how segregation may be affecting Hispanichigh school students, Rita E. Mahard conducted ananalysis with data from the 1972 National LongitudinalSurvey in which she examined the impact of high school,racial composition on the academic achievement, collegeattendance and survival of three Hispanic minority groups:Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and "Other" Latins.Her analyses indicated that Puerto Ricans showedsignificantly hiiher achievement and a strong tendencytowards higher college attendance rates when they at-tended predominantly Anglo high schools. 'Other Latinsalso showed a positive effect in achievement when they at-tended higher-percentage Anglo schools, but the patternwas significant only in the West. Her largest sample, Mex-ican Americans, showed a zero effect on all dependentvariables."

While Mahard's study is provocative, it is, as she pointsout, of a preliminary nature. More research Will be re-quired in this area before we can draw any definite Conclu-sions.

Prospects

The discussion in this paper has been restricted to thetrends within me funt:amental issues which the federalgovernment has . legal obligation to resolve: thedesegregation of both national origin or langtfageminorities and racial/ethnic minorities whenever it can bes!own that they have been deprived of equality 'of educa-tional opportunity. In response to widespread discontentfrom various quarters over compliance with the LauRemedies, the Office of Health, Education and Welfare iscurrently reconsidering its position. This reconsiderationmay lead to a new co iguration of programs. In anyevent, HEW will prOb, develop a coordinated approach.by the end of this calen. ear.

But some will be disappointed by the new approachbecause there probably will be a.rnove toward using TitleVII as an entitlement program based on need ra'.her thantoward sponsoring the development of 'excellence in bi-lingual programs as the primary goal. In other words, TitleVII, the various efforts in technical assistance for civilrights complicance, and other bilingual activities mighteventually be organized under the overarching principle of

9

language minority or national origin desegregation. Con-gress has already amended the Title VII leglislation duringthe past year to allow the use of Title VII funds for Laucompliance plans.

This orientation de-emphasites bilingual education as agoal and allows for consideration of additional meany,such as English as.a Second I.anguage inst rue ;on and im-mersion programs, for the student's rapid achievement ofEnglish proficiency.

In turning to the subject of racial/ethnic segregation, itmay strike some readers as curious that the two apparentlyseparate issues of providing an adequate education tolanguage minority students as well as desegregatingHispanic students are discussed in the same context. Thereis a good deal of overlap as many Hispanic students. areaffected by policies in both areas. Actually, however, thetwo areas are joined mainly as a result of historical

reasons. A mistaken assumption that has prevailed is thenotion that providing remedies in one area will lead to anegative effect in the other area. For example, it has beenfeared that racial or ethnic desegregation will result in adispersal of students who need bilingual educationto thepoint that not enough students will be available for bi-lingual instruction. But solutions can be and actually havebeen devised to meet both goals.

We will need to know as much as We can about theseareas because as the overall percentage of Hispanicstudents dramatically increases during the 1980s, 'especiallyin urban areas, the dimensions and effects of minoritygroup segregation will become more critical. Unlike thissues involving limited-English-proficient-students, whichhave been discussed,. debated, and fought over, the con-temporary issues involving Hispanic school segregationhave hardly been defined.

NO1 ES

I. U.S. Department of Health. Education and Wc:tare, " File Educa-tional Disadsantages of 1 anguage Minority Persons in the l'mtedStates,'Spritig, 1976," N(ES Bulletin 7813-4 (Washington, D.C.: Ju.ly 1978), p. 3.

2. Erom work in progress by Cats in Veltman.Robert Crane, "Hispanic Student Achiesement in Eke 1 earniiigAreas: 1971-75," National Assessment of Educational ProgrAsReport No. BR2 (Dense", Colorado: Education Commission of theStates, May 1977).

, 4. James S. Coleman et al., Equality of Ethicational Opportunity(Washington, D.C.: U.S. (ios eminent Printing Office, 1966).

S. U.S. Depart mem of Health, Education and Welfare, "Place of Birthand 1 anguage Characteristics of Persons of Hispanic Or;gin in theU.S., Spring 1976," NCES Bulletin 7813-6 (Washington, D.C.:October, 1978), p. 2

6. "Study Finds 3.6 Million School Age Children are Limited EnglishProficient," Ecrwn, a publication of the National Clearinghouse forBihngual Education 2, no. 6 (June July 1979): 1-2.

7. National Admory Council on Bilingual Education: Tlurd AnnualR epor t (Vs ahingt on , D.C.: InterAmerica Research Associates,1917). p. 91.

8. Public 1 ass 95-561, Section "03(a)(1), 92 S rAt. 2269.9. See, for mimple, "Bilingual Education," in Congressional Record

(daily) t dr 2 \las 1979, 96th Congress, lst Session, pp. S5201-2.10. Shinto Brice Heath, "Bilingual dueanon and a National I anguage

. 3,

10

Policy," in Georgewwn University' Rhumhable on ,anguage andLinguistics 1978: International Dimensions of Bilingual Edueation,ed. James E. Alan\ (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UniversityPress, 1978), pp. 53-66.

11. Publit Easy 95-561, Section 721(b)(3)(G), 92 S FAT. 2269.12. Sally 13ould and Rafael Vaklisieso, "The Sociology of Social Policy:

Paths Through the Morass," in Putting 'Sociology to. Work, ed.Arthur Shostak (New York: David Mcgay, 1974), pp. 195-205.

13. Meyer Weinberg, Minority Students: A Research Appraisal (Wash-ington, D.(.: National Institute of Education, 1977), p, 287,

14. (iary Or field, Must We Bus (Washington, D.C.: BrookingS Institute,1978), chap, 7, and Ricardo R. Fernandei and Judith (itiskin, "Bi-lingual Education and Desegregation: A New Dimension in Legaland Educational Decision-Making" in Bilingual Education, ed. Her-'min 1 a Fontaine et al. (Wayne, Ness Jersey: ,Avrry PublishingGroup, 1978), p. 60.

15. Eugene Lowe and William 1.. Taylor, comps., Trends in Hispwii(-,School Segregation, 1970-1974 (Washington, D.C.: National In-stitute of Education, 1977),

16. Bob Swierczek and Rafael Valdivieso, National, Regional, andDistrict Population and Segregation Trends Among Hispanic'Students, 1970-1974 (Ness York: Aspira or America, 1977).

17. Rita E. Mallard, The Impact of High School Racial Composition onthe Academic Achievement and College Attendance of Hispanics(Santa Monica, ('alifornia: Rand Corporation, Eall, 1978).

*it

Recommendations

One of the purposes of the Conference on Hispanic Migrations was for participantsto have the opportunity to develop recommendations on educational policy affectingHispanics. During the last session of the Conference, some of the participants suggestedthat recommendations be drafted on educational policy based on the discussions that hadtaken place. Accordingly, the following recommendatiors, which voice some of the con-cerns expressed during the Conference, were formulated:

1. The process of establishing the goals of education for Hispanics must includeinput from organizations representing parents' goals. The school is responsible foreducating the community as to the options for their children in their school programs.

2. The mainstram school curriculUm and structure must be modified, and thesemodifications institationalized, so that the needs and strengths of Hispanic students,including their socioeconomic, cultural and language strengths and needs are taken intoaccount.

3. The school Curriculum and support services should be sufficiently articulated withthe regular school system so that students are prepared to demonstrate basic competen-cies in literacy, communication, social and cognitive skills in order to enable them tohave options: either to compete in the world of work and/or to participate in further.education.

4. There is a need in the field of evaluation to establish criteria arylcedures for diagnosing students' needs at entry, and evaluating stuucompetencies for success in further education and in the world of work.

,!ssment pro-drogress and

5. Evaluations of program must take into account sufficient time for cumulativegrowth. Students who are evaluated must have been in the program for at least threeyears.

6. The field of evaluation and testing should include an evaluation of the process,not only the outcomes, of bilingual programs.

7. Bilingual/multicultural education should be an option for all, monolingualEnglish speakers as well as speakers of languages other than English.

8: Schools should be responsible for counseling bilingual students. There is a needfor articulation between the school'and follow-up institutions to place students, in jobs inthe world of work, or in pniversities. Businesses and corporations need literategraduatesconsider, for example, the Boston model of internships in agencies andbusinesses.

9. There is a need for systematic articulation of schools with other agencies whichrelate to the lifeof the student and his/her family. The school needs to be seen as a com-munity center coordinating day care centers, mental health services, dental care, andhealth care.