Bilingual Education

Bilingual Education

Should children from minority immigrant families be given an opportunity to learn their native language in the schools of their host country?

Although the migration of humans between countries has always existed, in the last few decades, factors including globalization have resulted in a steady increase in the number of people crossing borders in search of a better life (Duvell 2003). In its statement for International Migrants’ Day on December 18th 2004, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) revealed that at the start of the 21st Century, more than 175 million people (or one in every 35 people in the world) were international migrants. An increase in the rate of migration has inevitably led to the expansion of various diasporic communities around the world and many government departments and divisions in several nations and territories are now being faced with new issues and policy planning decisions due to an increasing presence of immigrant populations in their midst. The education sector is of no exception and in recent years, the rise in multiracialism has led to immense efforts in affected countries to implement curriculums in schools which are inclusive and accommodate multicultural classrooms. Among these efforts include initiatives which integrate foreign languages into the school syllabus and promote bilingual and multilingual programs.
However, in recent times, there have been much debate and controversy over the need of a bilingual educational system and its impact on both local children and those from ethnic minorities and immigrant communities. Many opponents of a bilingual or multilingual educational system are blaming it for ethnic minority children’s underachievement at schools and in intelligence tests and claim that it is a root cause for the lack of assimilation of children from immigrant families into ‘mainstream society’. In the United States of America, the opponents of a bilingual education in California managed to garner enough support to pass a legislation in 1998 that promoted a ‘mainstreaming’ early-years English education system. Those who helped to push for the amendment of the existing educational policy argued that Californian schools were doing a poor job of educating immigrant children and were “…wasting financial resources on costly experimental language programs whose failure over the past two decades is demonstrated by the current high drop-out rates and low English literacy levels…” (Unz and Tuchman, 1997). This is not an isolated case and such a reversal of previously established bilingual education policies have come about in other American states and nations across the world as well. Nonetheless, proponents of bilingual education continue to fight these proposals for amendments. They refute the claims of their opponents by arguing that it is easier for children from immigrant communities to learn the language of their host country if they are fluent in their native language and insist that a good bilingual educational system would strive to achieve proficiency in both the secondary and primary languages of the students. Furthermore, they state that denying a child’s linguistic identity is equivalent to rejecting a part of the child’s identity itself and may affect his/her confidence, self-esteem and ability to participate actively in class instruction. In the course of this paper, we will examine literature written on this topic by various writers and evaluate the arguments which have been presented by both factions of this recent controversy.

My Personal Stand

Coming from a mixed ethnic background and growing up in a multilingual country, being bilingual was not an option for me. When I started school, I had to choose to learn a second language under Singapore’s compulsory bilingual educational system and my parents opted for me to do Tamil - the language of my South Indian maternal grandmother. I am truly grateful for having gotten a bilingual educational experience because I believe it has helped me to maintain my cultural ties in India and hold on to some of the ways of my ancestors. Learning Tamil for me was not just about speaking or writing the language - it goes a lot deeper than that. I describe it as my passport into experiencing the history, culture, spirituality, psyche and soul of the Tamil people.
From personal experience, I can vouch that my bilingual education has not affected my competency in English. It has also not affected my ability to assimilate into ‘mainstream’ Singaporean society, nor has it isolated me from non-Tamil speaking Singaporeans. In fact, having a bilingual educational experience has only served to deepen my understanding and appreciation for languages and has heightened my sense of cultural awareness and taught me to celebrate the beauty in cultural diversity. Belonging to an ethnic minority community and being of mixed descent, learning a language other than English also gave me a sense of identity and provided me with affirmation that it was perfectly fine to be different.
Researching what academics in education, psychology and linguistics have said about the issue of bilingual education is indeed a topic which is of close interest to my heart and I acknowledge that my decision to examine and analyze this much debated topic was largely motivated by the fact that I consider myself as a positive living outcome of a bilingual education system. Through this inquiry, I have gotten an opportunity to reaffirm and revisit my beliefs and attitudes towards bilingual classrooms.

The Argument in Favour of Bilingual Education

Preserves the Cultural Identity of an Immigrant Ethno-Linguistic Community

Several cultural studies theorists and anthropologists have agreed that language is an integral component of culture and have proven that knowing one’s mother-tongue plays a vital part in preserving an immigrant community’s cultural identity and lifestyle in the environment of its host country (Taylor, Bassili and Aboud 1973; Sotomayer 1977). Some have even gone on to argue that language is at the very heart of a culture and that a culture dies if its language dies (Fishman 1989). This is especially so when the cultural group is ethno-linguistically oriented. I believe that many people from diasporic communities are innately aware of this which is the reason why they take immense efforts in trying to ensure that their children have opportunities to learn their native language either in their regular schools as a LOTE (Language Other Than English) subject or in after-school community language centres. This is especially the case when the immigrant community forms a minority population in its host country.
Research on immigration and bilingual education has also shown that there could be other potential problems when children from an immigrant community begin to loss their native language and linguistic identity. A degeneration and collapse of family relationships between members from various generation groups due to a linguistic and cultural distance is one of them. In a case study analysis conducted by Tosi (1984) on the bilingualism and language change of Italian natives living in the United Kingdom, it was noted that “the conflicts that were originally developed by tensions between the two generations’ experiences and differences in education, values and world outlook become exasperated by the frustration of being unable to identify and associate with cultural identities” (Tosi, 1984 p.113). I believe that such conflicts which could have a devastating impact on the family institutions of the immigrant community can be minimised when immigrant children learn their native language.

Promotes Inclusiveness and Multicultural Education for all Students

When a bilingual educational program is implemented in a school, it is not only immigrant children who benefit. In many instances, children who speak the native language or the lingua franca of the host country who attend a school with a bilingual curriculum are also given an opportunity to participate in a ‘two-way immersion’ (TWI) bilingual educational system and become fluent in two languages. Several studies conducted on TWI systems have reported that they have a positive effect on all students’ awareness and understanding of cross-cultural issues. Furthermore, it better equips students for a world where the force of globalisation is shrinking geographical spaces and bringing about an increased amount of frequent interactions between people who speak different languages and come from vastly differing cultural backgrounds (Crabbe, 2005).

Affirms Immigrant Child and shows respect to his/her Linguistic Identity

According to Freeman (1994, pp. 7-8), the ‘mainstream’ view of students belonging to ethnic minorities is that “…the native language and culture is seen as a problem to be overcome, and as a handicap to full participation opportunities.” Sadly, many developed countries with large diasporic communities have a classroom culture which is hostile towards the use of non-host languages and as mentioned earlier, the psychological consequences of preventing an immigrant child from being allowed to use his/her native language as a mode of expression may have detrimental effects on the child’s level of self confidence and esteem and should be viewed nothing more than a subtle form of tyranny (Lambert, 1997). Reversely, children who are placed in a bilingual education program and in particular, a classroom where there is a mix of both local and immigrant children who are a part of a two-way immersion curriculum structure, feel encouraged to maintain their language and heritage, show higher levels of self-esteem and are more empowered and motivated to learn and participate in class discussions and activities (Cazabon, Lambert and Hall, 1993).

Minimizing Psychological Trauma

In citing linguistically disadvantaged monolingual children, the Plowden Report (1967) acknowledged that “the trauma of placing a child without adequate powers of communication in a new social situation can be serious”. Providing students with a bilingual education would indeed help minimise and eliminate this mental distress which a child faces when entering a foreign classroom. Some studies also claim that teaching in the mother-tongue language has a therapeutic effect on the child’s linguistic-cognitive development and counters the stress of being placed in a learning environment with an unfamiliar language (Tosi, 1984).

Learning the Native Language Improves Overall Academic Performance

Long term research has shown that children who are educated under a bilingual educational system often perform better academically and make faster progress with mastering the language of their host country (Collier and Thomas, 1999) and by contrast, when bilingual children have difficulties with their literacy levels or grasping various concepts being taught in school, it is often on outcome of inadequate instructional support and their inability to understand complex instructions in their non-native language (Cummins, 1998).
Like many other African countries, the majority of children in Kenya go through an education system that fails to provide instruction in the language the children speak at home and understand best. This has been cited as one of the main contributors of high illiteracy rates and experts maintain that children are better placed to be literate when they start learning in their own language first before moving on to another language (Mulama, 2006). Known as ‘additive bilingualism’ or “the form of bilingualism that results when students add a second language to their intellectual tool kit while continuing to develop conceptually and academically in their first language” (Cummins 1998), many writers claim that those who are bilingual have more developed meta-linguistic abilities and children who are allowed to continue learning their mother tongue language would find it easier to learn the new second language. This claim is also reiterated in a study conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2003 which showed that children who receive basic education in their own language perform better than those only educated in English and that 476 million of the world’s illiterate population live in countries where children are not taught in their mother tongue language.
A faster rate of general intellectual development, better developed divergent thinking abilities and a higher level of sensitivity to feedback cues and non-linguistic communication were other academically-related positive learning outcomes which were cited by researchers who observed a positive cognitive development among children who were put through a bilingual education system (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981).

The Argument Against Bilingual Education

However, there have been some alternate views by other writers who oppose the integration of a bilingual or multilingual curriculum in schools. Some dismiss the need of language to preserve cultural identity and claim that immigrant children do not necessarily have to learn their native language in order to understand, appreciate or identify with their cultural origins since they can rely on a whole array of other cultural components such as religion, modes of thinking, clothing and expression of various ethnic art forms such as dance and music (Fishman, 1985). While the previously popular language relativity hypothesis by Whorf (1942) argues that a person’s thoughts, behaviours and attitudes are influenced or even determined by the language the person speaks, recent studies do not support this claim (Joseph, 1996). A more modified hypothesis that is currently being supported states that language does not determine our ability to sense the physical world nor does it create modes of thinking from which there is no escape. Rather, language reflects and highlights what one knows or needs to know about his/her environment and how he/she talks about it (Hutton 1998). Hence, the loss of a person’s mother tongue would not necessarily lead to the destruction of the person’s sense of cultural or ethnic identity.
Other opponents of bilingual education are of the viewpoint that it works against a country’s aim to assimilate immigrant populations and deters people from ethno-linguistic minority communities from mastering English or the language of the host country. They also feel that it is not cost-effective to cater to a bilingual or multilingual program since a lot of money has to be channelled towards the preparation of materials and training teachers. These were two of the main points which were mentioned in the proposals which called for an end of bilingual education in American states such as Arizona and California (Unz and Tuchman, 1997).
From a linguistic perspective, some authors have expressed concern that children who are raised bilingually will be confused by the conflicting inherent structural elements in the two differing languages and this may in turn affect their ability to speak the host country’s language ‘properly’. Linguists who have observed bilingual speech have noted that ‘interference’ or the transfer of elements from the native language to the new learnt language may occur in a number of areas including spelling, phonology, lexicology and grammar (Hoffman, 1991).

Afterthoughts

While I do not dispute the role of other cultural elements in upholding the cultural lifestyle of a minority community, I feel that it would not be fair to undermine the importance of language in the preservation of a group’s cultural identity – this is especially so when the community is ethno-linguistically oriented. As the term mother-tongue implies, language and identity are inherently linked and I feel that denying a community to express its identity by hampering its opportunities to learn and teach in its native tongue is a breach of human rights.
As far as evaluating the impact of bilingual education on an immigrant community’s ability to assimilate goes, I think that we have to be very careful when discussing the term ‘assimilation’. What exactly are we trying to promote here? The term has implications of conformity and complete homogenization and in the English-speaking world, this type of assimilation has been termed as ‘Anglo-conformity’ (Edwards, 1985). While I am an ardent proponent of unity and cohesiveness among multicultural communities, I feel that stripping off cultural components from a community may not necessarily be the best option. Furthermore, many conclusive studies have shown that with a good education system in place, children can be effectively bilingual and learning one’s native language does not deter or prevent a child from a migrant community from wanting or being able to learn the language of the host country (Collier and Thomas, 1999; Cummins 1998; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981).
While I acknowledge the concern some linguists may have about the possibility of interfering negative effects of learning differing languages, I feel that the detrimental psychological outcome of denying an immigrant child from not learning his/her native language could be far worse. Many of the linguists have conceded that in most cases, these ‘interferences’ are nominal and do not have an adverse impact on the individual’s ability to learn or communicate effectively. On the other hand, being taught in an unfamiliar language may severely hamper the child’s ability to develop basic literacy skills and will impede the child’s ability to reach his/her optimum learning potential (Hoffman, 1991).

Conclusion

Based on the literature that I have read and reviewed and my subsequent reevaluation of the issues that were discussed by writers with viewpoints that represented both factions of the argument, I have come to the conclusion that immigrant children should be allowed to learn their native language in the schools of their host country due to the following summarized reasons:
Bilingual education systems promote multiculturalism and inclusiveness in schools. It fosters cultural awareness and understanding among all members of the school’s community regardless of whether they are from host or immigrant backgrounds.
Learning one’s native tongue does not negatively impact an immigrant child’s ability to assimilate into the culture of the host country.
Bilingual education plays a crucial part in maintaining high literacy standards among immigrant children and facilitates or even compliments the learning of the host country or community’s language.
Rejecting an immigrant child’s linguistic identity by denying him/her the right to learn his/her native language can be detrimental to a child’s level of confidence and self-esteem.


REFERENCES

Collier, V. and Thomas, W. (1999). Making US Schools Effective for English Language Learners, Part 2. TESOL Matters. 9 (5), 1-6.

Crabbe, D.A. (2003). The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 9-34.

Cazabon, M., Lambert, W., and Hall, G. (1993). Two-Way Bilingual Education: A Progress Report on the Amigos Program. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Cummins, J. (1998). Beyond Adversarial Discourse: Searching for Common Ground in the Education of Bilingual Students. Retrieved on July 10, 2006, from <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/cummins.htm>.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy. UK: Multilingual Matters.

Duvell, F. (2003). The globalisation of migration control. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from <http://www.noborder.org/item_fresh.php?id=244>.

Edwards, J. (1985). Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fishman, J.A. (1989). Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hoffman, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman.

Hutton, C. (1998). Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother Tongue Fascism, Race and the Science of Language. London: Routledge.

Joseph, J. (1996). The immediate sources of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’. Historiographia Linguistica, 23, 365 – 404.

Mulama, J. (2006). Kenya: Mother Tongue Education both Effective and Elusive. Retrieved on July 7, 2006, from <http://www.ipsterraviva.net/Africa/viewstory.asp?idnews=628>.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Sotomayer, M. (1977). Language, Culture and Ethnicity in Development Self-Concept. Social Case Work, 58, 195-203.

Taylor, D.M, Bassili, J. and Aboud, F.E. (1973). Dimensions from Ethnic Identity: An Example from Quebec. Journal of Social Psychology, 89, 185-192.

Tosi, A. (1984). Immigration and Bilingual Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2003). The Mother-Tongue Dilemma. Education Today. 6, 5-7.

Unz, R.K. and Tuchman, G.M. (1997). English Language Education for Children in Public Schools. Retrieved July 8, 2006, from <http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html>.

Whorf, B.L. (1942). Language, Mind and Reality. The Theosophist, 63(1), 281-291.

Wilkinson, A. (1987). Aspects of Communication and the Plowden Report. Retrieved on July 12, 2006, from <http://www.dg.dial.pipex.com/documents/plowdenore08.shtml>.