'

I
l
CHAPTER 17
---_.-._------- ------
Bmngualisrn Bmngua!
tEducation as a Problern, Right

. . ; r
. . . \.
- .
. ,
17
and Bmngua;
as a Right
and Resource
INTRODUCTlON
BiJingual ism is not onl y st ll died lingllistically, psychologically and sociologically, it
is al so stuclied in relati onship to power and poltical systems in society. The basis of
this and the next chapter is that bil ingualisn1 and lJilingual education, whatever
form it takes, cannot be properly lInclerstood unl ess connected to ideol ogies and
politics in society. The activity of a bi lingual cl assroom, ami clecisions about how to
teach minority langllage chilclren, are not based purely on educabonal prderences.
Rather, catls far and against bitingual education are surrounded and underpi nned
by basic beliefs about nlinority languuges and cultures, linguistic and cultural
diversity, imlnigration and imlnigrants, equality of opportuni ty and equality of
outcomes, empowennent, aHirmative acti on, the rights of individuals and the
rights 01 language minority groups, assimilation and integration, desegregat ion
and di scrinlination, pluralisnl and Inulticultllralism, diversity and discord,
equali ty of recognit ion for Ininori ty groups and social cohesion.
For some people, bilinglla\ educat ion wil! facilitate nati onal cohesion, cultura!
integration and enabl e different language comnluni lies inside a country to commu-
nieate with eaeh other (e. g. Singapore) . For other bilingual education will
create language factions, national disunity, and clll tul' Ol.t economi c and pol iti cal
disintegration. Eclucation has thus been coneeived alternatively as part of the solu-
tion ancl part of the problem of achieving national unity, achieving cli versity or
unity in divers ity.
Teachers and education admi nis trators are not only affected by political deci -
sions and processes, they also deliver and im.plenlent those deci sions and
processes. Teachers are part of language p<1racloxes that are daily enacted and
382
: i:
: ;;
.; 'i
. ,
, .
A PROBLEM. A RI GHT ANO A RESOURCE 383
temp J .:solvecl in the cl ass room: ensuring equality of opportunity far all
whil e ce lebrating distinctiveness and difference; ensuring that diversi ty does not
becomf2 c:!iscord; encouraging s tuclents to share a COfillTIOn purpose while encour-
aging colorlul variet y; e!evel oping the eligni ty 01 ethnicity while aiding national
stabil it)' . In Illultilingual classrooms, teachers ha ve overt and covert beli efs aboll t
languages ranging from prohi bit ion to tolerance, li mited permission to
promoti on.
THREE PERSPECTIVES ON LM1GUAGES
1.Ve begln by considering different assumptions ancl varying perspectives that are at
the root 01 the politics 01 bil ingllalism anel bili ngll al eel ll cat ion. RlIiz (198'1)
proposed lhree basic perspectives about language around wh ich peopIe ane!
groups vary: language as l problem, language as a right and language as a
resource. These three different d ispositions may be conscious but they are also
embedded in the subconsciOllS assun1ptions oE teachers planners and poHticians.
Such or ie ntations are regardec\ as fundamental and rel ated to a basic philosophy 01'
icleol ogy held by m indivi elual.
Longuoge as o Problem
Public di scussions' oE bil ingual educaban and languages in society often CQlnmence
with the idea 01 language as causing complications and el ifficulties. This is well
iIlustrateel in the historical elebates about the supposeel cognitive problems 01 oper-
ating in two languages (see chapters 7 and 8). Perceiveel problems are not limiteel to
thinking. Personality and social problerns such as spli t-ie!entity, cultural elisJoca-
han, a pOOl' self-image, low self-esteem, ali enati on, en10nonal vulnerability and
anomie h ave also some times been at tributed to bili nguals (Pavlenko, 200Sb).1;)avicl
Blunke tt, once a UK Home Secretary, suggesteel that speaking English among Asian
immigrants ' helps overcome the schizophrenia wh ich bedevils generational r ela-
tionships' (reportee! in the Observer, 15 September, 2002). Bilinguals sometimes
have a language anxiety ('schizoglossia') because they l eel their Janguage does not
compare well with the supposed monolingual stanelard, anel in extreme cases this
has lee! to psychoanalysis anel therapy (Pavlenko, 2005b).
The positi oni ng of bilingual women has been connected to a deficit fl'amework
(Pavlenko, 2001a; Pa vlenko & Piller, 2001). For example, womenhave been posoelas
less bilingual than men and also more connected to the minority language: 'in luany
language contact conullunities, the dominant language, perceived as a power code,
is associa ted with masculinity, and the lninority language with dOlnestic values and
lemini nity' (Pavlenko, 20010, p. 128). This serves as an important" remineler that
gender anc! lnnguages interact in ways that 111ake bilingualismhave different n1ean-
ings to diffel'ent groups, including lnore oE a problen1 far ane, 1110re DE a benefit fOI
another. For example, in sorne commun.ities, WQTIlen may be given less access to a
seconel pres tigious langll age (e.g. English), restricting thei! bili nguali sm, access to
eclucati on, employment ol' economic advancement. The opposite can also occur.
384 FOUNDATIOf\IS OF BILl NGUAL EDUCATl ON
Ngugi wa Thiong'o spoke Gikuyu as a child, in the fields, in the home, and in the
community. However, he "vas sent to a colonial 5ehoo1 that taught solely through
the t1'ledi um of English. The lcll1g uage of education was at variance with the
language of his cu lture. Giku)'u "vas suppressed, as he vividly recalls: 'In Kenya,
Engl ish beca me much mOfe than a language: it was the Janguage .. and all others
had to bo,,\' befare it in deference. Thus ane of the most hUl1l il iating experiences
was lo be caught speaking Gikuyu in lhe vicini ty of the school. The w lprit was
gi ven corp oral punishment - three to fi ve strokes of th e cane 0 11 bare bu ttocks - Dr
was made to carry a metal pl ate arou nd the neck with the inscription: 1 AM
STUPID or 1 AM A DONKEY. Sometimes the cul pri ts were fined money lhey
could hard ly afford' (Ngugi wa Thiong'o, 1985, pp. 11<\-115).
'Where bilinguali sm is associated with inequali ty and soci-l disadvantage, ideolo-
ges of language and gender may conspire to p ut lTIOre press ure to be bili ngual on
the less powerfu l group, often women' (Pavlenl<o, 2001 a, p. 131).
Al a group rathe r than an individuallevet bilingualism is sometimes connected
with the potential of nati onal 01' regional d isunity and inter-group conflict.
Language is thus viewed by sorne people as a pol t ical problem. Part of the ' lan-
gU.Jge-as-problem' orientation is that perpetuati ng language nnorities and
language diversi ty may cause less integration, less cohesiveness, more antagonism
and more conflict in society (Parrillo, 1996). This is to be s ol ved by assi mil at ion into
the majori ty language (see chapter 18). Such an argument holds th at the majorily
language (e.g. English) unifies the diversi ty. The ability of every ei tizen to eommu-
nicate with ease in the n ation's maj ori ty language is regnrded as the common
leveler. Unity wi thin a nation i5 seen as 5ynonyrnous with uniformity and sni-
lari ty. The opposing argun1ent is th at it is possible to have national unity without
uniformity. Diversity of languages and national uni ty can co-exist (e.g. Singapore,
Luxembourg, Switzerland).
The co-existence oE two 01' more languages is rrely a cause of tension, disunity,
conflict or s tri fe. Rather, the history oE war suggests that economic, poli ti cal and
religiolls differences are typicalt y the causes. Langnage, in and by itseIf, is seldom
the erl use of confl icto Religious crusades and jihads, ri valries between different reli-
gions, rivalries between di fferent polit ical parties and economic aggression tend to
be the instigators of strife (Otheguy, 1982).
In an in ternationally cOlnpnrative research 5tudy on causes of civi l strife,
Fishman (1989) found tha t l anguage was not a cause of slleh d iscord. His analysis
involved 130 count ries wit h Dne outcome (dependent) v"ariable, narTIely civil strife
(defined as the freque ncy, duration and intensity of cOl'spiracy, interna l war and
turmoil ). Predictor variables concerned lneasures of linguistic homogeneily Iheter-
ogeneity, social cultural, economic, demographic, geographic, h istorical and
political measures . ' The widespread journali stic and popular poli tical wisdom that
linguishc he terogeneity per se is l1ecessarily conducive to civil s trife, has been
5hown, by Ollr anal)'sis, to be mOre m)' th than realit)" (Fishman, 1989, p. 622).
.,- ..
. ,
~ f ~ ; Y
"" '.
, ,
,, .
1,1
-,
1
I
I
1

i
I
L
Di' tL
1L u:;
A PROBLEM. A RIGHT AND A RESOURCE 385
Rathcr, the CClllses of strife were fou nd to be deprivation, luthoritaricm regimes and
modernization.
Romaine (2000, p. 14) condudes:
Beca use languages and dialects are often potent symbols of class, gender,
ethnic and other kinds 01 differentiation, it is easy to think that language
underlies conflicto Yct disputes involving language are really not aboLlt
langu'lge, but instead Zlbollt fundament<ll inequalities between groups who
happen to speak di fferent languages .
In lhe United Sta tes, 'becOlning American' has hi storical1y been associated with
being English-speaking. And that is English-speaking nlOrtolingualisI11 and not
bilingualism. Bilingualism is seen aS a characteristic of the poor, the disad vantaged,
and thc unassimil ated immigrant. Speaking English is valued for its perceived link
with liberty, lreeclom, justice and wealth. In col1sequence, other languages in the US
are someti mes seen as linked te terror, injusti ce, poverty and other societal prob-
lems. American icleals are learnt through English. A belief of some is that other
languages teach un-American ideas, and therefore must be discouraged in schools
(Valds el al., 2006). Bili ngualism, in thi s US 'problem' viewpoint, will lower the
GNP, increase civil strife, faster poltica} ancl soci al unrest, and endanger US
stability.
A minority language is olten connected with the problems of poverty,
underachievement in 5chool, nlinin1al social and vocational mobility and with a lack
01 integration into the majori ty cul ture. In this perspective, the minority language is
perceived as a parti al cause of soci al, econemic and educational problems, rather than
an eHect of such problems. 'Ihis 'Ianguage is an obstade' attitude is illustratecl in the
phrase, 'lE onJy they would speak Engsh, their problems wou!d be solved'. 'Ihe
minority language is thus se en as a handicap to be overcome by the school system.
One resolution 01 the problem is regarded as the increased teaching 01 a majori ty
language (e.g. Engli sh) at the expense of the home language. Thus, mainstrearning
and transitional bilingual eclucation airo to develop competent English language
skills in minority language children as quickly as possible so they are on a par wi th
English first language speakers in the mainstream class room. In the US, the rise 01
high stakes testing has suggested that language is a problem si nce Spanish-speakers
have relatively lower test scores . The group labe! (e.g. Hispanics, Spanish speakers)
beco mes the perceived cause (Escamilla el al., 2005) sllch that, lar example, Hispani cs
are ilI'IInediately associated with lower test performance. Language is wrongly ath"ib-
uted as the origin of under-achievernent rather than, for example, the poor
economic cenditions that surround many sll ch bilinguals.
A language problem is sometimes perceived as c3used by 'strong' Eonns of
bilingual education. Such educat ion, it is sometimes argued, will cause social
unrest Ol" disintegration in society. Fostering the minority language and ethni c
differences might provoke conflict and disha rmony. The reSponse is gene rally that
'strong' fo rms oE bilingual education willlead to better integration, harnlony and
social peace. Otheguy (1982, p. 314) replies lrom the US experience:
I
'1
I
,1
l'
,1
,
'.
'1
!,
i
I
I
" '1
386 FOUNDATl ONS OF BILlNGUAL EDUCAflON
Cribes oE bilingual education with a concern far civil arder and social dishar
mony should also concern themselves with issues oi pover ty, unemployment,
and racial discriminatian ... In pledges oi allegiance, it is liberty and justice-
nat English - [ al' all, th"t is to keep us indivisible.
'Strong' iorms of bilingl.lal education do not create a language problem. Rather,
the evidence suggests tha t developing bilingualism and bi literacy within ' s trong'
bi li ngual education leads ta higher achievement across 1 cu rriculum and the re
Eore n better usage of human resources in l country's economy and less wastage of
tal ent. Fostering self-esteem, self-identity and more positive attitude to schooling
through such bilingual educalLon may also relate to increased saciC!. l harn\Ony ancl
peace.
Within tllis 'problem' orientalian, there not only exists the clesire to remove differ-
ences belvveen groups 1:0 achieve l cOlnman cul tu re. There can be the desire for
inl ervention to improve the position of language minorities. 'Whether the orientabon
is representecl by maliciolls attitudes reso!ving lo eradicate, invalidate, quarantine ar
inocula te, 01' coolparalively benign ones concerned with remediation and 'in1prave
ment', the central activity remains that of problem-solving' (Rlliz, 1984, p. 21).
Language as a Righl
f\ different orientation to that of 'language as a problem' is thinking of language as a
basic, hUJl1an ri ght. J ust as there are often indi vidual rights in choice o religi011, so
it is argllecl, there should be an indi vidual right to choice of language, and to bilin-
gual education (Cummins, 1999b). usl as there are attempts to eradicate
discrimination based on color and creed, so peopIe wi trun thi5 orientation will
argue that language prejudice and discrinlination need to be eradica ted in a cierno
cratic society by establishing language rights (May, 2001; Skutnabb-Kangas &
l'hill ipson, 199'1; Sklltnabb-Kangas, 1999b, Sklltnabb-Kangas, 2000).
At bne level, language ri ghts concern protection from discrimination. NIany
language minorities (e.g. tvlaori, Na ti ve Americahs) have suffered considerable
d iscrimination. Sklltnabb-Kangas (2000) vividly por trays the oppression of the
Kurcri sh language by torture, imprisonment; confiscation of books, dismissal from
jobs, even executi on. Ngugi wa Thiong'o (1985) depicts the discrimination thot
African people have suffered econornically, politically, culturally ancllinguistically
fram a colonialist a ttitude and AInericanization. For Ngugi wa Thi ong' o,
Ah'kan language rights (OI1Cern self-regulation and self-determination, and not
just non-discriminatioll.
Kloss (1977, 1998) makes a distinction between r ights ancl
prornotion-oriented ri ght s. At a promotion-oriented language rights are
more positive and constructive, asserting the right to use a minori ty language
freely, including in all offici al contexts. Such rights flour ish particularly where there
is relatively greater indi vidual artel grollp self-determina tian (Kibbee, 1998; Mases,
2000). I-Iowever, language rights ca n sometimes be idealistic rather than realisti c.
l::;or example, if al l n1ajor.ity and minority European languages were used in the

I
,
,
,
i
, I
i
. !
I
I
I

\
.....

It tL
. .
ItJtL oc IL
"
A PROBLEM, A RIGHT ANO A RESOURCE 387
EUl'opean Parliament, translation and interpretation woulc\ be cost prohibitive. In
South Africa, it is costl)' lO produce the full ra nge of educational resources (for
different ages, cu rriculum areas, and abilily levels) for Ihe 11 official languages. Yet
lo privilege one or more languages over Ihe otbers will be al cosl lo the speakers (e.g.
less eelucational success) anel the languages themselves (e.g. language shift).
A 'non-rights', [aissez-faire approaeh to minority languages serves to strengthen
the already powerful and prest igious languages. Therefore, sonl.e form of linguistic
rights becomes important fol' protection and preservati an of minorily languages,
particularly in public domains. Governn1ents typically have less power in
economic activities, making fighlS in government-controlled areas (e.g. law, local
government, education) more possible.
Such language rights may be derived fram pers onal, human, legal and cons titu-
tional rights. Personal language ri ghts will draw on inelivielual liberties anel the
right to freeelom of inelivielual exp ression (May, 2001). It has also been argued tha t
there mal' be language rights in group rather than inelividual terms. Languages are
rarely spoken in solituel e but in pairs, groups and networks. The r ights of language
groups may be expressed in terms oE the importance of preservati on of heritage
language and culture communities and expressed as 'rights to protection' and
'rights ta participation'. This includes rights to SOl1le form of self-determination and
social justi ce (May, 2000). Ma)' (2001) argues the case for greater ethnocultural and
ethnolinguistic self-determination and democracy as nati on-states fragmento
, Grollp rights are likely lO be contested. What constitutes a group (or identi ty
with a group) for eollective linguisti c human rights, anel elefining who is, or is not, a
member af a language eommunity is problema tic (May, 2000). AIso, nation stales,
anel liberalism as a politieal ieleology are both built on Ihe notion of individual citi-
zenship rights and not group rights (Mal', 2000). Sueh eollective rights mal' at times
clash with inelivielual rights anel freeeloms (e.g. to bilingual eelueation or not; local
empl oyment when a person has the professional but not bilingual competence).
Hoffmann (2000) cites the case of Catalonia (Spain) ,where 'aeeess to white-eollar
jobs has beco me inereasingly res trieteel to those with fluency in Catalan ... amid
claims that this s ituation pushes disproportionately high numbers of non-Catalan
speakers into low-st atus oecupations' (p. 435).
A further level af language rights is intema tional (Del Va ll e, 2003). For example,
the 1993 Uni ted Nations Draft Oeclaration on the Rights al Ind igenous Peoples
sta tes in Articl e 3 tha t 'Ineligenous peoples ha ve the right to self-eletermination, By
virtue of that ri ght they freely determine, their politieal status and freely purSllO
their economic, social and development'. Such peoples are a150 accorded
the 'right to establish and control their edllcational sys tems 'and instituti ons
proviel ing eclucatian in their own languages (Article 15). The European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages (1992) tenel s to be more about stanelards than
rights with options (e. g. use of a minority language in educ<loon) from
which states can choose (Grin etal., 2003). Education is one oE the domains in which
the Contracting St a tes llnc\ertake to protect and prDlTIote minority languages in
thei r territori es. Such educat ion can range from being exclusively in the minority
It tt
388 FOUNDATIONS OF BILlNGUAL EDUCATION
language (heritage language educatian) to dual language educatian, to bilingual
educalioll where there is l demand and sufficient numbers. However, individual
countries ha ve often ignored such international declarations ar violaled the agree-
menl5 (Skulnabb-Kangas, 2(00). Nevertheless, a 5truggle over language rights is
important as it' constitutes efforts to legitimize the lninority group itself and to alter
its relationship to the stale' (Tollefson, 1991, p. 202). Non-recogni tion of language
human rights (as oflen Qccurs among immigrnnt language lni norities) is in itself a
form of oppressiol1, dominaban and injllstice (K. B aH, 2002).
The kind of right5, apart froll1 language rights, thal ethni c groups may claim
incl ude: protection, melnbershi p of their ethnic group and separate existence,
non- discrimination and eqll al treatme nt, educatio n and informati an in their ethntc
language, freedam to worship, l reedom al belieE, freedom of movement, employ-
rnent, peaceful assembly and association, political representat ion and involvement,
and admini s trative autOl1Oluy. Thus language rights are a component in a wider
constellation of rights for ll1inorities.
In the US, the rights oi the individual are a majar part of democracy (Del Valle,
1998) . FrolTl the expert perspective of a civil ri ghts lawyer, Sandra Del Valle (2003)
analyzes how language rights advocates in the US can take lTIuch heart from an
ea.-ly hi story of toleran ce, fram the absence of a history ol monolingualism in the
US, the growth and uses of the Fourteenth Ame ndment of the US Constitution (e.g.
equal protection elause), and supportive court cases (e.g. Meyer vs Nebraska). Del
Valle shows that English-onl y laws tenel lo be 'more symbolic Ihan restrictive' (p.
79) but that there has been a 'proliferation of English-only workplace rules enforced
by employers of bilingual ernployees. Unlike state-wide or public English-only
laws, these rules can be easily passed, expli citly, consciously, and in writing by an
employer w ithou t company-wicle discussion .... that nlay be challenged in court.
(p. 118). Del Vall e's (2003) wide-ranging examination of language ri gh ts in the US
includes interrogatioll, searches, interpreters, translation, uruairly
removing bilingual jurors and commercial label ing, and serves to demonstrate that
linguistic human l'ights goes much deeper than natibnal and internati onal laws and
charte rs, as such rights are enacted at a locall evel, in courts, workplaces and not
least classrooms
In the US, language rights ha ve ahistory ofbeing tested in US courtrooms. This is
significantly different fram European experience where language rights ha ve
rarely been tried in law. From the early 19205 to the present, there has been a cont in-
uous debate in US co urts o law regarding the legal status of tanguage minori ty
rights (Del Valle, 2003). To gai n short-t erm protection and a meelium-term guar-
antee fol' minority languages, legal chall enges ha ve become an in\portant part of the
language rights movement in the USo The legal baltles are not just couched in
minori ty language versus majority language l'ontests. The test cases also concern
children versus schools, parents versus sehool boards, state versus the federal
authority (Del Valle, 2003). Whereas minority langllage activists ambng the
Basqus in Spain and the Welsh in Britain ha ve been taken to court by the central

:' r
.:J
llJ
. .
lL
lb IL lb
A PROBLEM. A RIGHT AND A RESOURCE 389
gover nmen t [or lheir actions, US minority l anguage acti vi sts ha,:,e the central
and regional gover nment to court. Two connected examples wtllllluslrate. .
A crucial Supreme Court case in the US was Browl'l v . Board 01 Education in
1954. Block children were deliberately segregated in southern schools. The
Supreme Court ruled that equali ty in the US educational systern W1S denied to stlch
J31ack chi ldren due to segregation from their peers. Segregati on c1 enied equal edl1ca-
tional opportunity through a crucial element in classroom .Iearning: peer in te rac-
tan. 'fhe Cou rt decided tha t education mlls t be made available to al! children on
equal (enns, as guara nteed by the 14th Amendment. A segregationist doctrine of
separC'lte but egual education was inherently ll nequal.
A lanclmark in US bilingllal edllcation was a lawsllit. A cOllrt case was brought on
behalf of Chinese students against the San Francisco School District in 1970. The case
concerned whether or not non-English speaki.ng sludents received equal edllcational
opportun..ity when instructed in a langllage they could not understand. The failure to
provic!e bilingllal educabon was al legecl to violate both the equal protection clause oE
the 14th Amendl11ent ancl Title VI 01 the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case, known as
Ltw versus Nicllols, was rejected by the federal district court and a CQurt of appeals,
but was accepted by the Supreme Court in 1974. The verclict prohibited English
submersion progran\s and resulted in nation'v'.ide 'Lau remedies'. Such remedies
reflected a broadening of the goals of bil ingual edllcation to include the possible
maintenance oE lninority langllage and culture. The Lau ren1edies created sorne
expansion in the use of minori ty languages in schools, although they rarely res111ted
in true heritage language, enriclunent al' maintenance programs. For the p urposes of
this chapter, the Lall court case is sylnbolic of the dynamic and continuing contest to
establi sh language rights in the US partiClllarly through testing the law in the court-
room (Crawford, 2004; Del Valle, 2003; Dicker, 2003).
Language rights are not only expressed in lawsuits. Language rights are often
expressecl at the grassroots level by protests and pressure groups, by local aclon
and argLtment. For example, by sLlch means the Kohal1ga Reo (language nests) !nove-
ment in New Zealand provicles a grassroo ts-institu ted imn1ersion pre-school
experience for the Maori people (M ay, 1996). One exarnple of grass-roots express ion
01 ' language as a right' is the recent Cellc (rela nel, Scotland ami Woles) experience.
In these cOltntries, it is bottom-up (rather than top-down) 'grassroots' movements
that created pre-school playgrollps, 'motherancl toddler' groups and adLtlt
language learning classes for heritage language preservation (l.W. Will iams, 2003).
Strong activism anc! non-violent but ins istent demands led to the establishment oE
heri tage langll age elementary schools, PUl' ticlllarly in urban areas. Not without
strll ggle, opposit ion and antagonistic bureaucracy, parents the right for
educat ion in the indigenolls tongue. Such presslIre groups have contained parents
who speak the incl igenous langl1age, and those who speak only English, yet wish
their children to be taught in the heritage language of the area and become thor-
ollghly bil ingual.
in North American and British society, no formal recognition is usually made in
politics Or the legal system to ca tegories or groups 01 people based on their culture,
lL]
390 FOUNDATIONS OF BILlNGUAL EDUCATION
language or race. Rather the focus is 011 individual rights. The accent is an individual
equality of opportunity, individual rewards based on individual merit. roJicies of
non-discrimination, for example, tenclto be based 011 individual rather than group
J'ights. Lallguage n-unority groups wiil nevertheless argue fol' revvards and justice
based Gil their existence as a definable grollp in sociely. Sonletimes based 011 territo-
rial rights, often based on ethnic identity, such language group l'ights have been
regarded as El way of redressing injustices to language m1norities. This may be l
temporary step on the way to full individual citizenship fights as participative
denlOcracy tenc\s to favor the equality oE each individual rather than group privilege
(CH. Williams, 1998). Alterntively, Ingllage minorities may cJaim the right to so me
independent power, some measure oE decision-making and S0111e guarantee of
self-determination. This is typically seen by the lnZljority language group as a step on
the road to sellclctermination, even apartheicl (May, 1996).
VVhen language group rights are obtained, 'vvhat limited autonomy that is
granted thern is usually viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and often with
outright opposition, because it moY infringe on the individual rights of majority
grollp members' (May, 1996, p. 153). An example is when English monolingllals
cannot abtain teaching ar local gavernn1ent posts in a bilingual community, and the
feel their rights to employment have been infringecl.
A note of cautian about language rights neecls sounding. Liberal words Zlbout
indi vidual rights can hide preferences for coercian and confarmity
(SkutnabbKangas, 1991). Stllbbs (1991) talks of the experience in Englancl with
language minorities where governn1ent reports
use a rhetoric of language entitlement and language rights, and of freedorn and
delnocracy ... [which] makes the correct nloral noises, bul it has no legislative
basis, ancl is therefore empty. There is talk of entitlement, but not 01 the
discrimination which many children face; and talk of equality of opportunity,
but not of eguality of outcome. (pp. 220-221)
Similarly in the US, when sorne 5choo1 administrators express a 'language as right'
orientZltion, they tend to provide the legal Ininimum in support services for
languages rninority students.
language as a Resource
An alternative perspective to 'language as a probleln' and 'Ianguage as a right', is
the idea oE IZlnguage as ZI personal, community and regional resource. Bilingualism
can provide an intellectual (see chapter 7), cultural, econOluic (see chapter ]9),
social, commllnication (see chapter 19) ancl citizenship resourc;e (Lo Bianco, 2001).
Bilingualism is seen as an asset, bot11 tol' communities and for individuals.
Languages aid individual participaban in pllblic, leisllre and private Uves. For
example, public participation is aided when l persan can operate in the different
languages of varying groups, fostering inclusion by being able to debate and
persuade in the language of the group.
The mOVel?1ent in mainland Europe for increased n1ultilingualism (e.g. in Spain,
1" LL
lb
I

I
I
l
A PROBLEM, A RIGHT ANO A RESOURCE 391
ScandinaviC'l, Slovenia) fits into thi s orientatioll. Under the general heading oE 'lan-
guagc as a resollrce' al so comes regarding minorily cmd lesse r used lnnguages as a
cultural anc! social resource. \Nhile languages may be viewed in terms of their
economic bridge bui lding potontial (e.g. foreign trade), languages may also be
Sllpportod far their ability ta build social bridges acrOss difforent groups (e.g. where
there is religious conflict), and bridges for increasing inter- cultural understanding
pos t 9/1I.
The recent lrend in Europe and North America, for exan'ple, has been to attempt
to expand forejgn l anguage edu caLi oll. Second language study is increasingly
viewed as an essential resource to pr01110te foreign trade, worle! influence, even
peace. The paradox is that whil e bi lingual educatian to suppart minOli ty languages
has tended t be undervalued in the US, the currenl trend is to appreciate English
speakers who learil a second language to ellSUfe C\ cantinued major role far the US in
world politics and the world ecanamy. There is a tendency to value the acquisitian
01 languages while devaluing the langllage minorities who have them (e.g. Spanish,
Arabic, Mandarin and Karean speaker:;). Whil e integratian and assimilatioll is sUll
the dOIllinant ideology in US internal politics, external politics increasingly
demand bilingual citizens.
On the ono hand we encomago and promote the study of fareign languages for
Engl ish lnanolinguals, at great cost ,md with great inefficiency. At the same
timo we destroy the linguistic gifts that children from non-English language
backgrounds 'bring to our schools. (Ov"ndo, 1990, p. 35<1)
lt is ironie tha t many US and UK s tudents spend time in sehoollearning sorne of
the very languages that children of immigrants are pressurized to forget. The poli -
tics of immigration serve to deny bili.ngualism; the politics of global trade serve
increasingly to demancl bilingualism. ano result is that, .. along with the United
Kingelonl, the 'United States is a verit able cemetery of foreign Ianguages, in that
knowledge of mother tongues of h Lmdreds of immigrant groups h"5 rarely lasted
past the thircl generatian' (Portos & Hao, 1998, p. 269).
In the US, the idea of language as a reSOLll'ce not only refers to the development of
a second Ianguage in mono lingual speakers. It also refers to the p rese rva ti on of
languages other than English. For example, children whose honle language is
Spanish 01" German, Italian or Mandarin, Greek or J apanese, Hmong or French have
a hame language that can be-utilized as a resOllrce. One case is the Spanish speakers
in the US who togother mako the US the fourth largest Spanish sPNking country in
the world. Just as water in the reservoir and oil in the oil field are preserveel as basic
resources anel commodities, so a language sueh as Spanish, despite'being difficult ta
meaSllre and define as a [esouree, may be preserved far the conunon economic,
social and cultural gooel. Suppression of language minorities, particul arly by the
school system, may be seen as economic, social anel cul tural wastage. Ins tead, sll ch
languages are a natural resource that can be exploited for cultural, spiritual and
educa ti anal growth as well as for economic, com. mercial and political gain.
vVithin the 'Ianguage as a resource' orientatian, there tends to be the assumption
((,"
lb
392 FOUNDATIONS OF BILl NGUAL EDUCATION
that linguis tic diversity does no t cause separation nor less integ rati an in society.
Rat her, it is possible that national unity and linguistic diversi ty can co-exist. Unity
and divers it)' are not necessarily incompatibl e. Tolerance ane! cooperation between
groups mal' be as possible with Iinguistic e1iversity as they WOL1Ie1 be ""likely when
such linguistic diversity is repressed.
A frequent debate concerns which Ianguages are a resource? The favored
languages tencl lO be those that are both international and particularly valuable in
international trade. A 1mve r place i5 given n the status ran.kings to minurity
languC\ges that are small, regional and of less perceivecl value in the international
marketplace. For example, in Englanc!, French has traditionall y been placed in
schools at the top of the first division. Gel'man, Spanish, Danish, Dutch, Modern
Greek, ILet!inn and Portuguese tire the maj ar EUl'opean l anguages placed into the
second clivisian. Despite large nUlnbers of 1110ther tongue Bengali, Panjabi, Urdu,
Gllj erati, Hinel i anel Tllrkish speakers, the pol iti cs of English education had rele-
gated these Janguages to a lowly position in the school curriculun1. Thus a caste
system of languages can be created. In the UK, such a caste system 15 Eurocentric,
culturally discriminatory anel economically shortsighteel, 'all owing langllages
alreaely spoken in the home anel community to be eroeleel, whilst starting froOl
sera tch to teaeh other langllages in schools ancl colleges' (Stubbs, 1991, p. 225).
To conclude: while the three ori entations have differences, they al so share
ce rtain common aims: of national unity, oE indi vidual ri ghts, ancl of fluency in the
majority language (e.g. Engli sh) being import ant to economic opportunities. The
basic difference tends to be whether monolingualism in the majority langllage 01'
full bili ngll ali sm should be encouraged as a nleans ta achieving those ends. AH
three orientations connect language with politics, econoncs, society and culture,
Eaeh ori entati onTecognizes that language is not sin1ply a means of commllnication
but is also connected with socializaban into the local and wider society, as well as a
powerflll symbol of heritage ami identity. The c1ifferences belween the three ori en-
tations lie in the socializati on and identity to be fostered: assimilation OI pluralism,
integration or separatism, monocultural ism al' multi culturali sln.
UNITED STATES lANGUAGE ORIENTATIONS
That the tllree orientations have corrunon aims as weIl as vital differences is illustrated
in the case of the USo The US has long been a WiJIU1g receptade of peoples of many
langllages: German, French, Yielclish, Polish, Italian, rish, Greek, Russian, Welsh,
Arable, Nrandarin ill1d Cantonese Chinese, Korean, Japanese and particul arly Spanish
to name just a few examples. Bllil el al. (1992) porhayed the situatin as follows:
Cultural and lingui stic differences have been a so urce of shength and contro-
versy in the USA since its fOllneling. Ineleeel, this country' s lounding anel much
s ubseqllent US history can be seen as a continuing search for unity in diversity,
far e pltlrilnls W'lW71, especially among its res idents oE European extraction.
What couId unite the New York Dutch, the Pennsylvania German, and the
Virginia English; the Nlassachuse tts Puritan, the Pennsylvania Quaker, the
i
j,
~ r
I
!
I
I
I
I
e;.
.
I
I
l '
i
l
ID lb.--
. - .
A PROBLEfv\, A RIGHT AND A RESOURCE 393
l'v'l<l ry{and Catholic, and the Virginia Anglicrm; the Yankee trader, the northern
f,trlne!", and the southern plantatlon owner? How could the USA assi nlilate
ami capitalize upon its Norwegian, Iri s h, Russian, ltalian, Polish, and Jewish
irnmigrants? And mOfe recently, what rela tionship could white Anglo majad
ties estaulish with fonnerly disenfranchised and economically lnarginalized
African-Amerkan, ChinesE, Japanese, Native American, anc! Latino minori-
ties' (Bl1ll et al ., 1992, p. 1)
1'he j"eceptacIe of in-migration was transformed into a melting pot to assiIrlilate
and unify. The dream beca me an integrated United Stat"es with shared social, polt-
ical and economic ideals. Quotes from t"wo US Presidents illustrrtte t-his 'melting
pot' attitude. Roosevelt in 1917 urged all immigrants to adopt the English language:
lt would be not merely a misfortune but a crime to perpetuate differences of
language in this country ... We should provide for eve ry immigrant by day
schools for the young, and night schools for the adult, lhe chance to leam
English; and if after say five years he has not leamed English, he should be sent
back to the land from whence he came. (guoted in Gonzalez, 1979)
PresidentReagan's view in the late 1980s was that it is 'absolutely wrong and against
American concepts to have a bilingual educaton program that is now openly, admit-
tedly dedicated to preserving lheir native language and never getting them adeguate in
English so they can go out inlo the job market amI participa te' (guotecl in Crawford,
2004, p . 120; from the Democrat Chronicle, Rochester, 3 March, 1981, p. 2a). This melting
poI attitude has continuecl (e.g. the No Child Left Behind legislalion of 2001).
The Advance 01 English in the United States
Within the US, basic differences in 'language orientation' a r ~ especially exempl ifi ed
in the movemenl to make English the official rather than the defacto na tionallanguage
(Crawford, 2000, 2004; Dicker, 2000, 2003; Wiley & Ll1kes, 1996; McGroarty, 1997;
Sclunidt, 2000; Del Valle, 2003). The political dcbate over the place of English in the
US il!ustrates how tanguages can be altcrnatively seen as a problem, right oc reSOUIce.
At the federallevel, there is no reference to language in either the 1776 Deelara-
tion of Independence or the 1789 United States Constitution, the two founding
dOCUl11ents of the USo However, in the last 25 years, there ha ve been proposals to
add amendments to the Constitution that would name English as tile official
langl1age. Considerable debate about Oflicial Engl5h or English-only legislation
has occurred (Dieker, 2003).
In Apri l 1981, Sen.tar S.1. Hayakawa, a Californan Republi can, proposed an
English Language Amendment to the US Constitution. This aimed at making
English the official language of the US so, he said, to develop furlher participatve
dezllocrncy and unification. The An1endn1ent failed but it helped spawn the
' English-Only' or 'Offieial English' movement in the US (which ineludes the 'US
English' and the 'English First' organi zations). US English was founded in 1983 by
Senator Hayakawa and John Tanton who was pilrticulariy interested in restrictions
:},
394 FOUf\IDATIONS OF BILlNGUAL EDUCATION
on immigrati on and population control. In 1987, l more militant group - English
First - joined US Engli sh in lobbying for the tota l supremacy of English in educa-
tion, voting and administraban.
The English-only movement argues that Engli sh is the social glue thal bonds
diverse Amcricans and overCQmes differences. English is therefore best learnt early
(e.g. by mainstreaming) to counteract the tendenc)' for immigrants to reEuse to learn
Engli sh. If heritage languages are allowed to flouri sh, there will be conflict, sepa-
ra tisln anel inter-group hostility (Crawford, 2000).
As Ba rker and Gi les (2002) fOlmd in one of the few empirical s tudies of the
Engli sh-only movement. Anglo-Americans supporting the English-only position
bcl ieve that Lati no vi ta lity (e.g. economi c and poltical power and s tatus) is growing
in the US as Anglo vi tali ty is decrcasing. In thi s research, attachment to a t raditi onal
conccptlliJ lization oE I good Americans' was connecled to ao English-only position.
Less contact with the Spanish language was associated with greater support for the
Engl ish-only position. Those with lower levels of education were more likely to
support such a position as were those who were bllle-collar or unemployed. Such
grollps llla]' perceive Latinos as more of a threat to their chanees oE enhancement
anc1 improvement. This suggests that the roots of English-only may li e nol only in
personal il1security and intolerance of clifference but also in perceived threals lo
power, position and privil ege, p lus a fetlr af difference and competition fal"
perceived scare resources (Barker el ni., 2001).
For Engl ish-only advaca tes, bilingual educa tion is seen as p roll1oti ng separatist
language cOlnrnunities, a division in US society, an indifference to English, and
making English speakers strangers in their own locali ties (Crawford, 2003). l nstead,
the English language should unite and harmonize. Learning English ead y in school,
learn ing clIrriclllll ffi content through English would produce, it is claimed, inte-
grated neighborhoods. Thus, US English's preferred irnmi grant is someone who
learns English quickly as weH as acquiring US ClIstoms rnd cul ture, acquires skills
that are useful in the econon1ic prosperity of the country, works hard and achieves
the US dream. Far [moff (1990), bilingual education only serves to destroy rather
than deliver that drealn.
The movemenl for English as the proc1aimec1 US nationallanguage has not been
purely about English and na ti onal unily. Racism, bigotry, paranoia, xenophobia,
wl1ite superiority and dominance have 81so been present. A ivIemorandum by Dr
J ohn Tanton, when Chairman of US English, revealed the darker side: 'As Whites
see lheir power anc1 control over their lives c1 ecl in ing, will they simply go quietly
into the night? Or wiH lhere be an explosion?' (quoteel in Crawford, 200'1, p. 136).
This Memorandu111 went on further to pose perceived threa ts f[om Lati nos: bribery
as ao accepted culture, Roman Catholicism as cult ivating C h L l ~ T h authority rather
than nationaI authority, the non-use of birth control ancl fas t population g rowth of
Latinos, high drop-out rates in school and low educability. This hints at se'pe-
goating, the d isplacement of fea rs about social, poltica} and economic pasitioning
anta language, and using English as a means of asserting cultural and economic
superiority (Dicker, 2000, 2003).
U -.1Id
A PROBLEM, A RIGHT AND A RESOURCE 395
vVhle the debate about integrat ion and pl urnlism vvill be examined in the next
chapter, there is httle disagreement about certa in desirable outcomes between the
positions al' the English-only group and the 'Engli s h-pl us' pro-bilingual response
in the US (e.g. both agree about children becoming fluent in English). The difference
is in the raute to its achievement. For the English-only group, English language
skill, are best acquired through Engli sh monolingual education. For the English-
plus group, skills in the English language can be successfll lly fstered thraugh
'strang' forms of bilingual education (Feinberg, 2002). Both graups appear to
acknowledge that full English proficiency is important in opening doors to higher
educatian, the econorny and the occupa ti onal market. Full prondeney in the
majority language is usually equated with a rOtlte to equali ty of educabanal and
vocati ona l opportunity.
I-1owever, as Crawford (2003, p. 7) sllggests, the danger 01 English-plus is 'plus
what'? If 'plus what' 111eans 'the priority of bilingllal education was not to teach
English bu t to n1ainta in other languages', it fails to captu re the asplrations of chil-
c\ren and parents, and is a red rag lo the poli tical English-only bulL The goal 01
bilingualism must be strongly identifiec\ as meallillg high competence in English
and not just in a heritage language. Strong forms oE bilingual education can cl el iver
that agenda .
As chapter 12 shows, there is considerable evidence to support 'strong' versions of
bilingllal educat ion and hence for the 'English plus' position. 5uch evidence
supports the use al the home minority lang1.lage in the classraom at no cost to
majority language competence. Achievement across the curriculum, achievelnent in
subjccts as diverse as science and social studies, ma thematics and foreign language
learning would not seem to suffe!' but be enhanced by 'strang' forms 01 bilingual
educaLian. Research on the cognitive effects Df bilingualisnl supports the ownership
of tWQ languages to enhance rather than impoverish intellectual functioning.
However, the dominant majority cHen see bi lingual as creating
natlonal disunity rather than unity, di sintegra tion r.').ther than integration. The
freqLlent criticis m of bilingual education is that it serves to promote differences
rnther tha n similarities, to separa te rather than int egl'ate. In the US, the expressed
publi c viewpoint tends to be for unity, integration and assilnilation of immigrant,
language minority communities. Indeed, the strongest argun1ellts for bilingual
educatian on cognitive ancl"educational grounds'D1ay well fail unless a stl' ong argu-
ment can be advanced fol' li nguistic and cultural plul'alis111.
CONCLUSION
Far 5chools, vvhether the surrounding community and 50ciety sees language as a
problem, right or reSQuree affects the role of languages in the sehoo1. When a
language as a problem attit'llde is domi nant, bilingual educa tion is likely to be
discouraged. Language rights may give bilingual education a protected enti tlement
to exist. The language as a resource or ientation may more nlaxinlally allow bil in-
396 FOUNDATIONS OF BILlNGUAL EDUCATION
gual education to flouri sh. Thus these three Qrientations have d ifferent outcomes
for bilingulls and bilingual educat ioil.
But politica! debotes abollt bilingual education go deeper into politics and
personal arguments. Does bi li nguai educatian lead to greater 01' lesser tolerance, a
COIlUnOl1 or l separate identity, a sense of anone 01' an ability to belong to two
cultures simultoneously7 Are IHnguoge minority chi!dren taught (rightly or
wrongly) to be in confli ct 01' at peace \ovith the majority? Is bilingual educalion the
arena f OI" a power struggle between majority and minority? These questions are
examined in the chap ter tlu ough the cent ral debate on assiInilation and
pluralismo
--------_._ ---
KEY POINTS IN THE CHAPTER
(1 Three perspectives on languages depict variatlons CllTIOng peopIe: Ianguage as
a problem, right 01' resoll rce.
C> The 'language as a problem' is currently a prevalent political and mass media
viewpoint in the US where the cult ural assiInilation of immigrants is sought,
but not necessarily the economic assimilation.
It Language rights can be individual, group ane! international. In lhe US, rights
are tested in law cour ts.
, The pleee af English in the US is frequently contested, with English-only
grouP" asking for English as the solo officiallonguage and the romoval of
bilingual educaban.
SUGGEST!:D FURTHER READING
eRA WFORD, J., 2000, At Wnr With Diversify. Clevedon: Mult ilingl.lal Matters.
CRAWFORD, J., 2004, Educatil1g Ellglisl! Lmlguage Diuersity in the Classroom. Los Angeles:
BilLngual EdLlcntion Services.
DEL VALLE, S., 2003, Lnltg!utge Rights o,-d the l..aw in the 11lted Sta!es: Finding Our Vaice;;. CJ evedon:
Multilingual Matters.
DICKER S.)., 2003, LOllguages ir! America: A Pluralis! View (2nd edn). Clevedon: Multi lingual
Matters.
HALL, J.K. & ECGTNGTON, \N.C. (cds), 2000, The Sociopolitics 01 ElIglish Lal1guage Teacl!illg.
Clevcdon: f.lultilingllal Maltcrs.
MAY, S., 2001, L(!Ilguage {!lId Mil10rity Rigllts: EtJmicity, Natioflalisll1 alld the Polit ics 01 Langunge.
Lonclon: Longmln.
SKUTNA8BKANGAS, T., 2000, Linguistic Genocicle in Edllcalion - or Worldwide Diuersity {!lid
Hlllwm Rights. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
STUDY ACTIVITIES
(1) Among student groups, teachers in 5chools or il1languago communities, find
out about different political viewpoints on language. Are there differences
bctween different grollps? Ol" are there more differences within those groups
than between those groups?
(2) Follo!"\' one particular event rega rding language in eclucation. If possible,
.
~ ,
A PROBLEM, A RIGHT ANO A RESOURCE 397
exrtrn ine h O\-I/ that event is treated in two different Janguages (e.g. n Spanish
newspnper and in (In Engli sh language newspaper). What differences are there
of interpretaban and perception?
(3) Wi lhin a speeifie colmnunity, loeate di fferenl interest groups and different
sociocultural ar socioeconomic groups of peopl e. Far e x a m p l e ~ compare work-
ing-c1ass and o1iddle-c1 lss viewpoints on bili ngual education. How mueh do
yau think these varying viewpoints, iE they exis t, relate te home, soci al,
economic, po1itical and educat ional clifferences between the groups? Are the re
simi! arit ies as well as differences?
CHAPTEf, 18
-_ .. .. -----
SmnguaUsrn and Smngua!
EChJcc1tion:
orad
. IntniductiOli.
.,.,.
Assimilation ...... '
. '., " ' . ,;' . ... , . ' ....
-: ,)'
.;; _ ,l .-.- " ' / ',"" ' -, "-, ... : -' " ,' ': . ::-,:}'; .. - j- "
..' ,
j'.' " ,,?,ss.iIl1patioh :
'< :;::,;: ';, .
'" "f; Mail]tai'ningMin oiityId,enfity,:":' .T'
. ;' .' :). :. . ",:,' : j' ::.. :.;...:/" ':1 ':{ " ." :;;:.,0;:
Qf'.lI1ge:
, -. '::'" Conf1ict? ," , , ", : ,... ",
' .... ' '.. ." , ':
. f.,' '-. . ,_ '. ;._, 'o' - ,;.. .", . ".' .'
Achieving Change for'Minori ty ,:
.. ," " ' . Sti.lderits,', . ' .. . ...
. ',- "', -; . .' .: . . , " . .- ;.: '
. Empowerment 'an d Pedagogy
, ... , ... ". ..
, Conclusioil
I
" I
'. I
;; ":J