The Pros and Cons of English-only Educational Policy

as a Pathway to Assimilation into American Living

By Kayla Knott

April 15, 2009

Teac 330- Ricardo Garcia

Today, in American public schools, every] in 10 students are LEP, or Limited English

Proficiency. (Thompson) These students are from families who are immigrants or refugees, and

are facing a future of struggling to gain an education as an English Language Learner. They are

constructing identities for themselves, figuring out life, and trying to make sense of the world in

which they live. (Potowski) On top of this, they are strangers, trying to figure out what

assimilation looks like in a dynamic and diverse country- the United States of America.

The United States has long been deemed a "Melting Pot" society, referencing the rich (if

not brief) history of the nation- that of immigration, of leaving the old and embracing the new-a

new homeland, a new society, and since language is central to nationalism, perhaps the factor

that united this country the most-a new language,. (Garcia 267) Lustig and Koester explain in

Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures, that this mindset is

changing, and the melting pot mentality is being revisited for the sake of cultural diversity and

acceptance. What once was a melting pot is now a "Tossed Salad", seeking to embrace each

unique culture and language and the rich differences displayed within each person and heritage.

(qtd. NeuJip et al 140) Even with the diversity being promoted, "there are underlying concerns

that the more emphasis there is on other factors that set people apart, the more likely that society

will end up divided." (Branigin)

In the midst of this changing mindset toward immigration and assimilation, saturated

with hopes of ethnic diversity and acceptance, the question remains: is the English-only policy,

which has been the foundational bond of all immigration thus far, the best way to ensure success

for immigrants in terms of assimilation, cultural identity, and education?

The first question, one of successful assimilation, targets three major areas of focus for

immigrants to assimilate into America: Economic assimilation, social assimilation, and

1

.'

educational assimilation. There is a new "underclass" in America, constructed mainly of

immigrants. (Fletcher) Steven A. Camarota, who conducted studies on immigrants living in

poverty, advised that "each successive wave of immigrants is doing worse and worse ... each

wave of immigrants has a higher poverty rate, and a much larger share of their children will grow

up in poverty." (Fletcher) Immigrants are likely to have high levels of unemployment, low

education levels, and have larger families than native Americans. (Fletcher) Even more difficult

than these facts is that even for families who have jobs, the wage gap is very high. For instance,

the average Mexican adult male earns 60 percent less than a white (non-Hispanic) native.

Although this number does improve for each generation, the deficit still remains at 29 percent for

third generation immigrants. (Orrenius) The concern lies mainly in education, for while all

immigrants' children have access to school, one third of immigrants are classified as high school

drop outs, with low skills, and often low English proficiency. (Orrenius)

Social assimilation, which is closely linked to educational assimilation, both have much

to do with the level of English proficiency students are able to develop when they move to the

United States. According to Ginger Thompson, in her article titled Where Education and

Assimilation Collide, "teachers of those learning English [make] little effort to organize activities

that would bring [ELL's] and mainstream students together." This is flagged as a large issue for

anyone who has studied how to most effectively learn a language, for most would argue that

being exposed to native input, having opportunities to converse and negotiate meaning, and

being introduced to authentic and contextual grammar and vocabulary are the most effective

ways to learn a language. (Brandl 80)

The sad truth is, according to the Bonnie Norton, author of Identity and language

learning: Gender, Elhnicity and Educational Change, that "naturalistic language learning is not

2

always a linguistic utopia in which learners are surrounded by fluent native speakers who

enthusiastically provide input and negotiate meaning in a supportive atmosphere." (Norton 113)

Social isolation is extremely common for immigrants, due to a social divide based on linguistic,

economic, political hurdles which most ELL's cannot even begin to cross. (Thompson)

Because of the hurdle learning English can prove to be, education assimilation is not as

easy as just putting a student in an English-speaking classroom and expecting them to learn the

language and soak in all subject matter. (Brown 297) In fact, "getting (ELL) students to

graduation often means catching them up to a field that has a 15 year head start." (Thompson)

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to educational assimilation in a nation that seeks to

value culture, but still enforces an "English-only" policy within the schools. 20 percent of school

children today are the children of immigrants (Orrenius) and 10 percent of these (at least) are

Limited English Proficiency. (Thompson) These immigrants are generally educated in

mainstream subjects in a manner that ensures they are able to pass state tests, through methods of

drilling and rote memorization, but do not receive much exposure to "the kinds of courses,

demands or experiences that might better prepare them to move up in American Society."

(Thompson)

It takes the average ELL 2 years of studying English to be able to hold conversations in

English, and another five to seven years to be able to write essays, read novels, or explain

scientific processes. (Thompson) The risk with current ELL education is that there seems to be a

divide in thought on how best to teach them: integrate them into the mainstream English

speaking classroom and hope they catch on, or teach them in an isolated "ELL-only" classroom

in which their chances to learn the material are better, but their hopes of learning English

fluently, and their chances of social assimilation, are very minimal. (Thompson) As noted by

3

"

Peter Bedford, a history teacher of ELL's, "High schools have to make a .. ,choice when it comes

to [ELL'sJ-are you going to focus on educating them, or socially integrating them?"

(Thompson)

The second question, which plays off of these foci of assimilation, is one of cultural

identity. Is it possible to assimilate successfully into American living without losing your first

culture and language? Or, simply put, is biculturalism possible in the United States? This

question definitely steps into a political realm, which I will discuss briefly, in regards to the

"melting pot" mentality our nation was founded on. Theodore Roosevelt, an advocate of

"Americanization", is quoted to have said "Any man who comes here ... must adopt the language

which is now the native tongue of our people ... It would not be merely a misfortune, but a crime

to perpetuate differences of language in this country." (Gallegos 99) Roosevelt had "strict views

of the duties of new immigrants: no 'hyphenated Americanism,'" but rather a "full commitment

to English ... a complete break with the country of origin." (Jacoby 66). Politically speaking,

since the beginning of immigration with Germans, Swedes and Italians making their way over in

the 1800's, the mindset has been that which Roosevelt expressed-"a complete break with the

country of origin." That is not to say that a[] bilingualism was lost immediately. However,

"through social, economic, and political forces, American English was established as the nation's

common language." (Garcia 268)

Although these sentiments might seem harsh to many modern day Assimilationists, to a

certain extent, no matter how idealistic we may be about ethnic diversity and cultural acceptance,

the national policy still is, unofficially or officially, for English to be the language of business,

and the language of education, which, putting it simply, means that English is still the "language

of opportunity" in the minds of natives and non-natives alike. (Garcia 276) The question is, then,

4

can immigrants learn English to the point of fluency without investing in a new cultural identity,

or, in the least, adding to their current cultural identity? Bonny Norton would suggest no, based

on the fact that "When people speak, they are not just exchanging information; they are

constantly reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world.

Therefore, when people speak a language, they are investing in an identity as a speaker of that

language." (qtd in Potowski) Author of the article Identity and Language Learning, Potowski

elaborates on Norton's thoughts, explaining that identity for immigrants is a "site of struggle"

and that often children learning a new language, speaking two different languages, often have

"competing identity agendas" which make it difficult to adhere to one cultural identity (that of

their family or heritage) but rather to need to adjust one's identity and perspective to allow room

for both the native language spoken in the home, as well as English and the American identity.

(Potowski)

The truth of assimilation now, in comparison to assimilation of the grandparents, great­

grandparents, and great-great- grandparents of the now "native" Americans, is that assimilation

has changed. Many immigrants wish to retain citizenship in their countries. (Faist, et al 3) What

was before a "clean" shift from one national mindset to another is now becoming more complex

due to the availability of dual-citizenship.

This leads into the core question of this research: is an English-only policy in school

systems the best educational policy? In his article Language, Culture and Education, Ricardo

Garcia explains that the discussion of English-only education has two camps of thought: one

being the English-only advocates, who "desire to maintain a Eurocentric American culture and

identity through the schools" and English-plus advocates, "who desire to foster pluralistic

American culture and identity through the schools." (Garcia 277)

5

Bee Gall egos elaborates on the stances of both parties in English: Our Official

Language?, noting that "Assimilationists believe the mission of U.S. Schools is to nurture a

common language-English-- and a common national identity" whereas "pluralists feel diverse

languages and customs enrich the U.S. cultural stew and should be allowed to flourish."

(Gallegos 98)

In Hold your Tongue, by James Crawford, a debate in New York City in 1989 is

described, in which a bilingual education was the topic of discussion. The practice leading up to

this debate in NY State had been that students began school in ELL classrooms, and were

reassigned to mainstream classrooms as soon as they reached a minimal proficiency in English.

The problem with this was that many students still did not have the proficiency necessary for

academic material, and were falling behind in the classroom, "never to catch up." The Division

of Bilingual Education desired that a new plan be implemented: one in which ELL's would be

gradually transitioned to English mainstream classrooms. Under this policy, "the child's first

language [would be] regarded as an important cultural asset as well as a useful tool in learning

English and school subjects." Their supporting statement was the "Research over the past two

decades ... lends strong support for developing students' native language and literacy skills while

they learn English." (Crawford 203)

As mentioned, research does indeed point to bilingual education as being a better route

for the students because it helps eliminate the "never to catch up" result that many immigrant

children find themselves in after having been placed into an English-Only classroom before they

were ready. (Crawford 203) The "interdependence of the two languages", as noted by Garcia,

ensures that infonnation learned in one language "need not be learned in a second language."

(Garcia 281)

6

On the other side of the discussion, leaning toward "English·only" policies, many of the

concerns raised earlier in this paper would support the need to teach English thoroughly, with a

focus of integrating students into the classroom as soon as possible for the sake of social

assimilation. Although competing identity agendas are difficult for children to navigate and

construct in the midst of learning English and struggling with academic content in a new

language, the sooner they are integrated, they more likely they are to successfully discover how

to live with dual-cuJturalism, in a bilingual world. (Potowski)

In the end, it seems that there is no easy answer, and especially no answer that covers all

situations, for every state, culture and language. However based on research discussed in this

paper, the best policy would be to instruct students in an English-plus school system, where their

language is viewed as an asset, valued, and bui It upon, but at the same time, a cl assroom where

the students are given opportunities to assimilate socially (with native-English-speaking peers),

economically (which begins by earning an education) and educationally (through carefully

scaffolded academic instruction). In this environment, the focus would perhaps not be as drastic

as Roosevelt stated: most likely, in a dynamic nation with immigrants holding dual-citizenships,

there will not be a clean cut "forsaking" of home culture and language. But perhaps with an

English-plus system, students will be able to construct a new identity- one of bilingual roots,

with their home language and English both contributing to their personal identity. Perhaps in this

situation, immigrant children would finally begin to experience assimilation, development of

cultural identity, and academic success.

7

•

Works Cited

Gallegos, Bee. English: Our Official Language? First. New York: H. W. Wilson Company,

1994 . Print.

Crawford, James. Hold Your Tongue. First. Binghamton, NY: Addison-Wesley, 1992. Print.

Jacoby, Tamar. Reinventing the Melting Pot. First. New York, NY : Perseus Books Group,

2004. Print.

Garcia, Ricardo, and James Banks. Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations,

Curriculum, and Teaching. 5th. Allyn & Bacon, 2006. Print.

Norton, Bonnie. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. 1.

Essex, England: Longman, 2000. Print.

Lustig, Myron, and Jolene Koester. Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication

Across Cultures. 5th. Allyn & Bacon, 2005. Print.

Brandl, Klaus. Communicative Language Teaching in Action. 1st. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education INC, 2008. Print.

Thompson, Ginger. "Where Education and Assimilation Collide ."The New York Times. March

14, 2009. A 1. Print.

Fletcher, Michael A. . "Immigrants' Growing Role in U.S. Poverty Cited ."Washington Post.

September 2, 1999. A2. Print.

Branigin, William. "Immigrants Shunning Idea of Assimilation ."The Washington Post. May

25, 1998. A 1. Print.

Neuliep, James W., Michelle Chaudoir, and James C. McCroskey. "A Cross-Cultural

Comparison of Ethnocentrism Among Japanese and United States College Students ." Spring 2001 :

140. Print.

Brown, H. Douglas. Principles ofLanguag Learning and Teaching. 5th. White Plains NT:

Pearson Longman, 2007. Print.

Potowski"Kim. "Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change."

Bilingual Research Journal Winter 2001 Web.14 Apr 2009.

<http://findarticles.com/p/articJes/mi_qa3722/is_2001 0 1/ai_n894 7709/>.

Orrenius, Pia. "Immigrant Assimilation: Is the U.S. Still a Melting Pot?" Southwest Economy

3May 2004 WebA Apr 2009. <http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2004/swe0403a.html>.

Faist, Thomas, Jurgen Gerdes, and "Dual Citizenship in the Age of Mobility." Transatlantic

Council on Migration: A Project ofthe Migration Policy Institute (2008): 3. Print.

<http://www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic/docslFaist-FTNAL.pdf>