English Only Debate

Should Americans who enjoy summer barbecues give them a different name because the word comes from barbacoa, the word used by the Taino Indians who inhabited Caribbean islands like Puerto Rico and Cuba?

Many Americans consider that this influx of new cultures has greatly

enriched American society, bringing both skilled and unskilled workers into

expanding industries, revitalizing decaying urban centers across the country,

and re-energizing our political establishment with new visions for the future.

In this view, the culture, values, and language of the newcomers contribute to

cultural diversity within the country. Other Americans, however, see diversity

as a cause of disunity, not a source of national enrichment. They speak of the

costs inherent in the new wave of immigration -- labor market competition

with native workers and the demands for social services. They hold to a

nativist view, believing that the nation is divided and its common history

diluted by strangers. They see the myth of the melting pot -- the assimilation

of immigrants into the American culture -- being challenged by an influx of

foreigners who are not interested in maintaining the ties to American culture

based on Anglo Protestant history and the English language.

The most visible and influential anti-bilingual education movement in recent

years has been "English Only," headed by California millionaire Ron Unz. Its

platform argues that bilingual programs take resources away from public

school budgets. The movement equates bilingualism with "cultural separatism,"

especially among Spanish speaking immigrants. The anti-bilingual

advocates argue that these non-English speakers may be evading the process of

assimilation that earlier immigrant groups followed. In short, for "English

only" proponents, bilingual education in public schools threatens to divide us

along language lines. Response to this negative trend has been an energetic

national campaign that has been successful in passing anti-bilingual education

legislation in California, Arizona, and more recently, in Massachusetts.

To better understand the complexity of this issue we broke down the many

themes arising from the focus group study into motivational categories: (1)

instrumental/pragmatic and (2) emotional/ideological.

The following instrumental/pragmatic reasons for specific votes by focus

group participants were identified:

a. Funding Although there was no consensus that funding and taxes were the

dominant reason for votes for or against the referendum, there was a

feeling that bilingual education needs more funds to be effective.

b. Teacher training Some felt that finding bilingual teachers for so many

languages is especially difficult. Consequently, many school systems may

use teachers not adequately fluent in the language they are using to teach

their subjects.

c. Tenure Another major criticism was that students were kept in the programs

too long, becoming dependent on the system and unable to transition

into mainstream education.

d. Selection Some participants questioned the procedures for student placement,

claiming that some students are able to argue in English quite

effectively while others who had recently arrived are unable to do so.

Other participants felt that students with learning disabilities or disciplinary

problems might have been placed into bilingual education to keep the

"problem" students together.

e. English as a vehicle of success Almost all participants shared, as a rationale

or pragmatic motivation, the expectation that speaking English is

necessary for success in American society.

The second category of reasons for votes by focus group participants --

emotional/ideological motivations -- are defined as the adoption of positions

based on values informed by popular conventional wisdom, myths, and unsubstantiated

beliefs, independent of the likelihood of their benefit to a specific

community or of success. We identified six of these motivational categories:

a. Nostalgic optimism Many participants mused that their grandparents

would have viewed bilingual education as a luxury. Such a feeling is not

necessarily anti-immigrant as many who hold it also hold a romanticized

version of their ancestors' immigration to the United States and the way in

which they "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps." The feeling was

that newcomers should go through the same initiation process that past

waves of immigrants had gone through to become successful.

b. Language of the Land This sentiment was expressed by many participants.

Whether this was an anti-immigrant