Author: Booker Evans

According to Thomas and Collier’s interpretation of Berliner & Biddle’s 1995 article on English language education, “In 1988, 70 percent of U.S. school-age children were of Euro- American, non-Hispanic background. But by the year 2020, U.S. demographic projections predict that at least 50 percent of school-age children will be of non-Euro-American background.” (Thomas, Collier 13). These percentages indicate that non-English speaking populations are growing rapidly. So rapidly in fact, it will be very important in the coming years to figure out how to give these students the best chance for success in the American school system. Reformers are faced with the task of how to approach the education of these non-English speaking students.

Over the past two decades English language learning has evolved tremendously. It has become a necessity to educate American citizens in a Multilingual fashion due to the influx of immigrants and non-English speaking U.S. citizens. Many American teachers don’t know exactly how to approach the education of these citizens. There are a multitude of programs that educate non-English speaking students. Two-way bilingual programs, developmental bilingual programs and transitional programs are all educational agendas that focus on literacy in two languages. These bi-literal agendas have come to be known as Dual Language Programs. According to The Massachuettes Association for Bilingual Education, “Dual language is a form of bilingual education in which students are taught literacy and content in two languages.” (MABE). In comparison, English as a second language (ESL) programs and Structured English Immersion (SEI) programs are more geared toward proficiency in English only (NCELA). The two types of programs differ in that English only programs do not encourage and sometimes do not allow the use of Spanish and other non-English languages. English only programs which are highly in use in American schools are criticized for putting non-English speaking students at a disadvantage in terms of academic success beyond the understanding of English. As educators search for better ways to help their non-English speaking students achieve academic success they have run into a wall of debate surrounding the issues of Dual Language versus Single Language education. How have some educators of Spanish-speaking students attempted to shift to dual-language learning programs since the 1990s, and what kinds of challenges have they faced?

The early 1990s was a time period of slight criticism of the bilingual learning plan. As America underwent a transformation of its population and continues to undergo this transformation conservative voters have come out of the woodwork in groves with a “keep America American” type of mentality. Unfortunately while this attitude can be seen as patriotic it also does a good job of stigmatizing millions of English learning students. Laws like Proposition 227 have made it hard for certain states to continues their bilingual education programs despite the proven effectiveness of the programs. Dual Language learning programs which have proven effective for both English speaking and non-English speaking students are not taken seriously. In recent years educators of non-English speaking students have tried to push for more Bilingual programs across the country because they are equally beneficial for both types of students.

According to Smith and Rodriguez, in 1965 “Bilingual Education was made a public policy in the US with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). (Smith and Rodriguez)” Since that time, the perception of this act and the ways in which it is carried out have shifted. According to Smith and Rodriguez, “The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA brought with it vast changes in how language minority children are educated in the US.” (Smith and Rodriguez).  According to the ESEA any student whose original language is not English is now classified as “English Language Learners” (Smith and Rodriguez). These English language learners have two types of learning options. English Only education separates the language minority students and teaches proficiency in English Only and after a certain period of time these students are migrated into the regular population to continue their schooling. Dual Language uses both languages equally. Dual learning has been put onto a pedestal recently as it seems like an effective way to garner the attention of these language deficient students.

While Dual Language learning seems great, there are deeper factors that must be analyzed. The Sociolinguistic Environment of a Bilingual School by Kathy Escamilla is a 1994 case study that reports about a California school with a population of about 1200 students and a focus on Bilingual Education. The study concentrates on how an effective Dual Language program must have an environment outside of class where both languages are of equal importance. The data that Escamilla provides indicates the emphasis of English over Spanish in the classroom settings. (Escamilla)

According to Escamilla, “English is the language used to give students awards and rewards and English is the language used between adults, even adult bilinguals. All of the above impresses upon students that the important language is English and that Spanish serves no purpose other than as a “bridge to English”. (Escamilla 41). Escamilla follows this by noting that, “No matter what teachers and other people in the school “tell” students about the importance of being bilingual what they do in the context of both the classroom and the larger school environment presents a contradictory and much stronger message.” (Escamilla 42).

Escamilla’s findings indicate that while Dual Language education is a great goal it has minor discrepancies that limit its potential. For instance, educators in Dual Language classes do not emphasize the importance of the native languages of their students, which turns the native language into a translation tool as opposed to a cultural benefit. When utilizing Bilingual education, educators have to be weary about focusing too much on one language while downplaying the significance of the other language.

Reformers of the 1990s were worried about giving too much instruction in English therefore not fulfilling their goals of Spanish literacy. On the other hand there were similar worries that by incorporating Spanish instruction, the students would not be able to complete the main goal, which was to learn English. Some of the findings in Escamilla’s case study may have been crucial in the passing of Proposition 227 in 1997.

Proposition 227 banned bilingual education in California. Active at the beginning of the following school year, it became illegal to teach children in any other language that wasn’t English. Massachusetts and Arizona followed in California’s footsteps and by 2002 they were the only 3 states to completely ban bilingual education.

According to Susan Eaton’s 2012 report, in 2002, Massachusetts, California and Arizona were the only 3 states to have completely banned bilingual education (Eaton 2). By law, these states forced educators to use Structured English Immersion (SEI) plans in which non-English speaking students were separated from their English-speaking peers. In the segregated classrooms non-English speaking students were taught specifically in English until they showed enough improvement to return to the normal population.

While these laws are still in place in the 3 states, there has been a growing concern over the need to provide students with the alternative for Bilingual education. According to Eaton, “policymakers see it not only as an effective educational method, but also as a dynamic model of ethnic and cultural integration in a rapidly changing society” (Eaton 3).

Following Prop 227 some California schools converted into Charter Schools in order to continue using their dual-immersion programs. “Under California law, charter schools are exempt from virtually all state rules.” (Schnailberg). Other California school districts use a 1974 Supreme Court ruling which helped Chinese students take non-English classes (Alorro). Despite these few states banding against Dual Language education, research has shown that the benefits for students are uncanny.

School Effective for Language Minority Students by Wayne P. Thomas and Virginia Collier is a report published in 1997 that focuses on K-12 data for language minority students. The study uses over 700,000 “language minority” student records from between 1982 and 1996. (Thomas, Collier 31). This study cites long-term findings of non-English speaking students in order to see how they well they did up until their final years of regular education. The research uses these long-term results in order to compare the benefits of two-way bilingual classes with English only classes. According to their research, “children in well-implemented one-way and two-way bilingual classes outperform their counterparts being schooled in well-implemented monolingual classes, as they reach the upper grades of elementary school.” (Thomas, Collier 15). This finding is significant because it ultimately shows the effectiveness in dual language programs in preparing student for academic success. Their research also cites the importance in building “sociocultural context” for English language learners. Similar to Escamilla’s findings, when both languages are of equal importance it is beneficial to students of a non-familiar language backgrounds.

In their study, Thomas and Collier ask the question, “”Which characteristics of well-implemented programs result in higher long-term achievement for the most at-risk and high-need student?” (Thomas, Collier 26). They found that Dual Language programs have a great effect on the students academic record. The graph below shows how students of non-English speaking backgrounds need to work twice as hard to catch up with the regular population once their are out of the ESL classes.

Some of the most important findings of this study were the findings on School Effectiveness. The researchers labeled L1 as the students native language and L2 as English. According to Thomas and Collier, “Students born in the U.S., who received 2-3 years of schooling in both LI and L2 in U.S. schools, made greater progress than similar groups who received all of their schooling in English (L2), with ESL support, in U.S. schools.” (Thomas, Collier 50). This data also goes to the fact that Dual Language Programs are beneficial to students.

Thomas and Collier also attest to the fact that students who recieved mixed language work did better overall on their assignments. According to Thomas and Collier, “Students who received L I academic content and L2 academic content (taught by teachers trained in second language acquisition and the content areas who were also socioculturally supportive of students) did better than students who received only L2 academic work.” (Thomas, Collier 51). This finding shows that recieving work in both languages make it easier for the students to succeed. This finding also points to the fact that the students are not intellectually challenge but once they are given the opportunity to learn in their own language it makes it that much easier. Thomas and Collier follow this finding by stating that student groups in their research sample, “who are separated from grade-level classes for most of the school day for several years do not know the level of cognitive and academic work expected in the mainstream, and with time, students may develop lower aspirations for their own academic achievement” (Thomas, Collier 52). This finding goes against the belief that ESL or SEI programs have the same effect on students as Dual Language programs. The following graph from Thomas and Collier’s study shows just how much more effective Dual Language Learning Programs were.

This graph shows that by grade 11, students in Dual Language and billingual programs were much more successful than students in ESL and SEI programs. Thomas and Collier’s research shows us that “the program with the highest long-term academic success is two-way bilingual education” (Thomas, Collier 53).

If Dual Language programs are so effective what are educators doing to get them implemented. Many reformers cite the need for Bilingual education to inspire non-English speaking students to achieve at higher rates. Bilingual education has the ability to help non-English speaking students learn English but it also has the ability to teach English-speaking fluency in another language thus making these students more valuable by preparing them for communication with nations outside of the United States. Educators locally and nationally are making the push to get more dual language programs put into place. In her 2012 Hartford Courant article, Andrea Dyrness states, “the movement to restrict languages in schools is directly connected to the movement to restrict immigration.” (Dyrness). She also points to anti non-English education as a “disservice” to an English speaking students. I think dual language education is important because of the benefits of being multilingual in a competitive national economy. Other educators like Susan Eaton cite the importance of Multilingual education because of its ability to garner friendships and bonds across cultures. Educators are making clear strides at implementing Dual Language programs more widely because of its numerous benefits. While they are faced with few roadblocks such as Prop 227 it seems as if at least a small portion of American schools will be geared toward bilingual education.

Works Cited

Alorro, Audrey. “English-only Law Hits California Schools Ban on Bilingual Education Ignites Protest.” Freedom Socialist Party, October 1998.

“Bilingual Education – Dual Language Programs.” Bilingual Education, n.d. http://www.massmabe.org/Dual-Language-Programs.html.

Dyrness, Andrea. “English-Only Teaching Ignores Bilingual Benefits.” Hartford Courant, March 23, 2012.

Escamilla, Kathy. “The Sociolinguistic Environment of a Billingual School: A Case Study.” Bilingual Research Journal 1&2, no. 18 (Winter/Spring 1994).

Eaton, Susan. “Have We Learned Our Language Lesson?” One Nation Indivisible (June 2012). http://www.onenationindivisible.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ONIstory4LanguageLessonV4.pdf.

NCELA. “Language_Instruction_Educational_Programs.pdf”, n.d. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/5/Language_Instruction_Educational_Programs.pdf.

Schnaiberg, Lynn. “Some Calif. Schools Finding Ways Around Prop. 227.” Education Week, September 30, 1998. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/09/30/04biling.h18.html?qs=two-way_bilingual.

Schnaiberg, Lynn. “Two-Way Bilingual-Ed. Programs Show Promise, New Study Suggests.” Education Week, March 23, 1994. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/03/23/26note.h13.html?r=1312758814.

Thomas, Wayne P., and Virginia Collier. School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students. NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 9. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, George Washington University, Center for the Study of Language and Education, 2011 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-467-0867., December 1997. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED436087.

The reformation of education for Native Americans was based on ideals of individualism, industry, and the acceptance of Christian doctrine and morality (Wallace Adams 15). The set of European values that were prevalent in American culture saw to it that the Native Americans could never live in harmony due to Euro-centric hegemonic views. In the 19th century it became clear that the Native Americans would either face extermination or “civilization”. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Americans built an all-encompassing system of Indian academies. These academies were largely funded by Congress and increasingly controlled from Washington. These schools were primarily residential, boarding institutes. Their goal was to instruct Indian children in white ways or to get rid of native tribal cultures (Fear Segal). This movement to transform native children into American citizens appeared to represent a clear affirmation of faith in the equality and educability of the Indian. Two schools which pioneered the cause of Indian education were Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute, in Virginia, and Carlisle Indian Industrial School, in Pennsylvania. By carefully comparing the policies and philosophies of these two schools we can explain how the Native Americans experienced the “Americanization” process from the 1870s to 1910.

Today, Native Americans are one of the most underrepresented groups in the hierarchy of American culture. In the past they have been viewed as savages and lower level members of society. Attempts to educate the Indians were based on the ideals of assimilation or nothing at all. Policymakers never took into account that Native Americans had their own set of skills and intellect that they could bring to the table. In general, the system of mass education, not only for Native Americans but for other immigrants has been based around deculturation and not integration. This process is successful in creating a mostly unified nation but it fails to account for aspects of ethnic identity that cannot be drawn out and erased. Hampton School and Carlisle School were both somewhat successful in the process of educating the Native Americans during the 19^th century.   The attitudes and practices that these two schools shared have a lot common, but the schools have also exhibited significant disagreements which were vitally important at the time and which continue to animate the issue of cultural difference and assimilation today (Fear Segal 325). The ideals found at Hampton were based on a biological theory of social development while the ones found at Carlisle were based around an egalitarian view of society. These differing viewpoints crucially affected the way the students were taught and the way they experienced the American education process. Although the two schools taught the same things Carlisle may have been a better experience because they got the students at a younger age and the school’s underlying theory was based around a belief in universal human capacities.

The 19th century saw the rise of the common school movement, which changed American education forever. The common school movement led to the collective socialization of the American population. Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Richard Henry Pratt, the founders of the two Indian schools we will examine would both become pioneers in the common school movement for their efforts in education of the Indians. Samuel Chapman Armstrong was the founder of Hampton Institute. He was the son of a Hawaiian missionary and was awarded American citizenship after leading an all colored troop in the Civil War. His participation in the platoon of colored men aroused his interest for the welfare of blacks. After his time in the war he felt like colored people had enough mind power and determination and that they were capable of doing well in school and furthering their lives. This interest inspired him so much that he started up Hampton Institute in 1868 to educate freed blacks in the south. In 1878, a party of seventeen Indians was brought from St. Augustine, Florida where they had been prisoners of war. This became the nucleus for the Indian Department at Hampton (Armstrong, M F). The man who brought the Indian prisoners to Hampton was Captain Richard Henry Pratt who would soon become the founder of the Carlisle Institute. During Pratt’s time with the Indian prisoners of war Segal explains, “he used these warriors to develop a simple set of rules for educating Indians and then elaborated a code which he adhered to tenaciously for the rest of his life. (Fear Segal 326)” Segal further explains, “Every step Pratt took to ‘civilize’ the prisoners was guided by his belief that they were essentially no different from whites. (Fear Segal 326)”. Pratt’s belief in equality would provide a more enjoyable experience for Indians in education in the 19th century.

Pratt and Armstrong shared an interest in Native American education. Both agreed that the best answer to the age-old “Indian problem” lay in education (Fear Segal 327). After a lot of collaborative work Pratt began to defer because he didn’t share some of the same ideals as Armstrong. A year after the first Native American program started at Hampton he moved on and started the Carlisle Indian School. Pratt picked the right time to leave because politicians in Washington were looking for something to do with the Indians. By 1885, the United States made a clear effort to try and educate the Native Americans. Hampton Institute reported “120 Indians are provided for by the United States Government” (Armstrong, M F). Carlisle also received grants so that they could start their school in some abandoned military barracks in Pennsylvania.

The two institutions developed a pattern of schooling rooted in a general view of what was needed to convert wild Indians into American citizens (Fear Segal 326). At both Hampton and Carlisle, it was essential to teach the Indians how to work. The division of the day was split into two parts, one part was for study and the other part was for practical work. During these two time periods the children learned their lessons, were taught a trade and concurrently provided most of the goods and services necessary to run the schools. This process kept the costs down and made it easier for the schools to thrive financially. At both schools the students wore uniforms and were taught discipline. It was imperative that the students were taught agricultural work. Hampton particularly taught industry and the necessity of becoming good workers in the capitalist system for both blacks and Native Americans. Hampton was a normal school and it’s goal was to create teachers that would go on to educate minority students about the American values of both hard-work and perseverance that they internalized at Hampton. This process would effectively pass down white American values from generation to generation for both blacks and Indians. It is important to remember that the goal of these schools was to eradicate Indianness so it was vital to teach the students colonial trade. The course load focused on “the fundamentals of political economy and civil government” ( Armstrong, M F). Not only did the schools teach students the American way but they also stripped the students of their culture. The students had their hair cut, were put into American clothes and had their names changed to become assimilated.

Pratt believed that the process of eradicating Indianness could happen in a few years while Armstrong thought that it would take a few generations before change occurred. Particularly at Hampton Armstrong recalls, “For a majority of cases the three years’ Normal course is preceded by a year in the Night School, during which time the students work eight or ten hours daily and study two hours in the evening an arrangement which…weeds out effectually the incapable or unwilling.” Brief glances at Armstrong’s writings on his colored students show a general uncertainty about his colored students. When he says things like “Will Indians study? Can they learn” or “Will Indians work? Can they be broken in to civilized pursuits” it shows that he has a certain negative perception towards these students (Armstrong, M F). In comparison Pratt had a firm belief that the Indians could learn. He compared the situation of the Indians to that of the immigrants in that “they both needed to be absorbed into American society to achieve full participation” (Fear Segal). This positive viewpoint allows for a more liberal education where the Indian would not have to fear being disenfranchised.

Segal cites that Pratt was a Universalist and Armstrong was an evolutionist. For Armstrong, “education was necessary, but it was not sufficient alone (Fear Segal)”.  Segal states that in Armstrong’s opinion “Indians would have to be guided step by step up the evolutionary ladder, from hunter to herder to farmer.” Armstrong didn’t believe that the Native Americans could make any progress on their own or without guidance. It is reasonable to infer that their experience at Hampton wasn’t a polite one. Armstrong’s colleague Helen Ludlow talks about how she visited the Hampton Indians when they went back to Dakota. Her article asks about whether or not it was useful sending students to Hampton and how a good percentage of the students went back to the traditional dress of the Indians after receiving education at Hampton. Her testimony shows that the process was somewhat unsuccessful (Armstrong, M F). Many of the downfalls of Indian education at Hampton might be due to the fact that it was a black school for freedmen. Carlisle didn’t have to deal with this problem because their school was based solely on the education of Indians. Armstrong was uncertain about mixing the two races at Hampton because he believed that their strengths and weaknesses were very different.

In comparison, Carlisle’s procedures were much less focused on race. “At Carlisle he insisted on a set of principles rooted in a fundamentally different attitude to the Indian (Fear Segal 329).” Carlisle’s different structure allowed for a better Indian experience. In this testimonial to the Institutional experience some Indian children expressed excitement in “dressing up like whites” (Wallace Adams 108). “How proud we were with clothes that had pockets and boots that squeaked! We walked the floor nearly all that night. Many of the boys even went to bed with their clothes all on.” (Wallace Adams 108). This testimonial shows a certain positive attitude towards the Indian experience at Carlisle that is partially due to the theory of Universalism that Pratt instilled in the school.

Carlisle was such an open and accompanying campus that it even put together a football team. Pratt wanted to bring Indians into direct competition with Americans and show they could win (Fear Segal). One of their goals was to become one of the best football teams in the country. They aqcuired a good coach and after a while the Carlisle team was known as one of the better teams in the country. Just the fact that Pratt wanted to do this shows a differing approach to the way Carlisle and Hampton went about the Indian experience. Pratt was “utterly opposed to what he called ‘race school'”(Fear Segal). He wanted his students to count as more than just Indians but as equals. In comparison at Hampton, Indian graduates weren’t encouraged to settle amongst white people. At Hampton the most important task was to train “Indian leadership.” This perspective is very significant and it insists upon self-sufficiency amongst the Indians. Armstrong of the Hampton school pushed for segregated environments which in his words would, “afford the best conditions to prepare the red race for citizenship.” (Fear Segal). Hampton Normal may have produced some of the same results as Carlisle Industrial but its methods didn’t provide as gratifying an experience for Indian students.

Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute, in Virginia, and Carlisle Indian Industrial School, in Pennsylvania were the foremost schools in the education of the Native Americans during the 19th century. The founders of the two schools believed in the education of the savages but went about it in very different ways. The approach that Armstrong from the Hampton Institute took was evolutionist and less encompassing. The approach that Pratt at the Carlisle Institute took was based around Universalism and it allowed for a better experience for the Indians.

Sources: