English-Only Movement

Abstract

Language is a strong tool that has been used in the past to socialize immigrant populations to American culture. After the civil rights movement, school law and policy began to support the use of native languages in the public school setting. However, when a large influx of immigrants was coupled with large budget cuts to educational programs, many states began to legislate English-only policies. Educators working under English-only policies can avail themselves of several alternatives to teach English-language learners.

Overview

The second-grade classroom is deeply engrossed in learning. The teacher has asked the students to add letters to the word ice to create new words. Students are providing letters as the teacher helps them to learn spelling and vocabulary: nice, rice, lice, etc. Carlos is vigorously waving his arm, begging for the teacher to call on him. The teacher smiles and asks Carlos for his letters.

"P and r. The word will be price!" exclaims Carlos.

"Yes! And can you use the word in a sentence Carlos?"

"Oh, yes!" exclaims Carlos using his thick Spanish accent. "If your parents give you a dollar you can try to get a price from the price machine!"

As the teacher provides a gentle correction, the classroom atmosphere changes. The children, mostly Latino, cannot differentiate the sounds between "price" and "prize" and the teacher, speaking only English as mandated by law, struggles to explain the difference between the two words; how they sound and what they mean confuses the children. The learning moment quickly ends and the children who speak English as their second language largely disconnect from the lesson.

Would the lesson continue to be compelling and engaging if the teacher could have provided the Spanish words for "price" and "prize," quickly described (in Spanish if necessary) the hard s sound as how one differentiates the words, and then moved on? Would more effective learning have occurred for her students? The teacher works in one of the thirty-two states that, as of 2021, had declared English as the official language and her school's policies preclude her from finding out if mixing Spanish and English in the classroom would be a more effective teaching technique for her students (80 percent of whom are Latinos).

There is a large controversy in America regarding how to properly educate non-English-speaking children in the public school arena. There appear to be two major questions driving this controversy:

• As the majority of the states have formally recognized English as the official language of America, how should children who speak English as a second language be allowed to utilize their heritage language in the public schoolhouse; and
• How should non-English-speaking children be taught the English language?

English as the Official Language of America. Past generations were taught that America is a "melting pot." The people who immigrated to the United States were eager to take on its customs, ideologies, and language as they sought opportunities and advancement within American society (Citrin, Reingold, Walters, & Green, 1990). In the 1960s, civil rights issues challenged the notion of a national melting pot. People began to wonder how diverse people were supposed to take on a singularized identity without losing large portions of their cultural identities. People of color began to rebel against what they believed to be the colonization of minority populations in the United States. Many people of color began to fight to create public spaces in which they could cultivate and carry on their culture (or the culture of their ancestors). Language was identified as one of the areas in which they sought change. They claimed a constitutional entitlement to language rights and began to insist on public information being available in their native language (often, but not always, Spanish). For approximately a decade, the English-speaking majority appeared to be amenable to the changes; laws, regulations, and judicial decisions appeared sympathetic to the language rights cause.

The Bilingual Education Act & Lau v. Nichols. In 1968, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was enacted. The BEA became the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act in 2004, as Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. BEA was the first federal recognition of the differentiated needs of children with limited English speaking ability. It provided federal funds to offer bilingual education and to develop classes promoting an appreciation of culture and ancestral language for students from low-income families who were non-English or limited English speakers. However, it did not explicitly require students to be taught in their native language in school. The monies were disbursed via competitive grants and could be used for:

• Teacher training, development, and dissemination of educational materials;
• Projects that promoted meaningful parental involvement, and
• Resources for educational programs (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

Its objective was to support children who spoke a predominant language other than English in becoming fully literate in English while preserving an appreciation for their cultural identities.

Although the original BEA went far in recognizing the needs of bilingual students, it remained a bit ambiguous as to how to create equal educational opportunities. Additionally, program participation was voluntary; the program was inconsistent in the provision of services for limited English speaking students. Lau v. Nichols was a class-action suit alleging the San Francisco school district was denying equal educational opportunity to its Chinese students because of their limited English proficiency. The lower courts ruled for the school district, but in 1974 the Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Court wrote that, just as "separate but equal" does not constitute educational equality (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) providing students of vastly differing language abilities the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curricula did not automatically provide equality of educational opportunity (Crawford, 1994; Lau v. Nichols, 1974). This decision appeared to influence the BEA amendment.

Hence, the 1974 amendment to the BEA specified that educational instruction was to be provided in both English and the native language of the student to prepare the student to eventually succeed in mainstream classrooms. The low-income rule was eliminated, giving all students of limited English proficiency a chance to participate. Time-limited funding was provided to allow school districts the opportunity to research, staff, and develop the new programs. A national clearinghouse was established to collect and disseminate information regarding bilingual education (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

The Lau Remedies. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare prepared a set of guidelines (known as the Lau Remedies) to provide guidance in the development of educational plans that would remedy civil rights violations. The Lau Remedies specifically provided for native language instruction, and the population to be served was expanded to include any student population that had twenty or more students speaking the same language as their primary language, regardless of proficiency and income. Racial segregation was strictly prohibited, which created more complexity in providing meaningful services without creating isolation of the students from their English-speaking peers (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

Soon after the 1974 reauthorization, social and economic pressures began to create public resistance to the bilingual programs. The United States was experiencing a recession; federal and local funds were being cut as a result. The public became aware that the expenses of the bilingual programs (coupled with large budget cuts) were limiting educational opportunities for the other students in their schools. Additionally, the public began to object to the use of federal funds to promote language maintenance among non-English-speaking students.

New Amendments. The amendments made to the BEA in 1978 reflected these growing public concerns. They expanded the scope of service to include all students of limited English proficiency and mandated that programs were to be utilized as transitional vehicles in which the goal was to move the students to regular classroom instruction as quickly as possible. Any programs designed to maintain native language were prohibited, and the amendment clearly required that native language only be used in ways that were necessary to assist the students in becoming proficient in English. Accountability issues were addressed by funding an evaluative piece that would measure the effectiveness of the BEA programs.

Removal of the Lau Remedies. Another lawsuit in 1979, Northwest Arctic v. Department of Health Education and Welfare, created the need for the rules set forth in the Lau Remedies (and all future proposed regulations) to be subject to the laws of rulemaking. After a long year of public comment, debate, and argument (and an effort by Congress to stop implementation by claiming educational instruction in any language other than English was inappropriate), the Lau Remedy regulations were withdrawn (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). The subsequent two decades experienced a decline in funding and support for bilingual education programs and dissension regarding how to most appropriately educate children who are not proficient in English.

A National Classroom Identity?. Similar to a period between 1910 and1920, the 1990s experienced a wave of immigration that appeared to threaten the homogeneity inherent in American culture, and people in the majority began to worry about the loss of a unifying national identity. The opinions of the masses began to be voiced via state initiatives, which clearly stated their desire for English to be the official language of the United States (Citrin, Reingold, Walters, & Green, 1990). Having noted undercurrents of division and suspicion when students spoke a language other than English in class, some teachers started to create and promote English-only policies in their classrooms. They have argued that these rules are implemented to maintain classroom control, to ensure safety of all students, and help to prevent bullying in a foreign language. These rules have been upheld by school administration (Zehr, 2007). Proponents of civil rights continue to remind the public how past actions to punish students for speaking their native language in school had been denounced as discriminatory and abusive. They often remind the public of the Navajos’ contribution to America's success in World War II. Their native language, the same language for which they had been prohibited from using in school, was used to transmit coded, undecipherable messages (Reyhner, 2001).

There have been many discussions about what feelings and sentiments motivate the movement to make English the official language. Some researchers believe the driving force is a "pervasive public desire to reaffirm an attachment to a traditional image of Americanism that now seems vulnerable" (Citrin, Reingold, Walters, & Green, 1990, p. 536). Regardless of the conflicts of attitudes and opinions, school administration must identify the most effective means of educating non-English-speaking children in the public school system.

Applications

How Should Children Learn English?. There are several schools of thought regarding how English can be taught to children who speak another language. However, the bulk of the theories fall into one of the following categories:

• Transitional,
• Native Language,
• Immersion, or
• Two-Way Bilingual.

Transitional Bilingual Method. The transitional bilingual school of thought places children in classes in which their native language is used to teach core curriculum, while the children are also being taught English (Berriz, 2006). This program asserts that children cannot learn in mainstream classrooms until they have mastered English. Children are transitioned into English-speaking classrooms once they become functionally literate in English. There is some debate surrounding how long it should take children to become literate when participating in a program of this type. Most research states it will take three to seven years. However, most school policies only allow for two to three years because the federal government mandated accountability in the requirement to demonstrate that non-English- speaking children are progressing in English fluency as demonstrated by their inclusion in mainstream classes. Some argue this is why schools often limit the time allowed in transitional bilingual programs to one year, rather than extending them to meet the needs of each individual student (Berriz, 2006). It is often seen as divisive; immigrant children are placed in sheltered classes within a school that encourages the use of their native language, isolates them from students who would model appropriate English usage, and creates a separate culture that can be difficult to bridge in later years.

One of the benefits to a program of this type is that non-English-speaking parents can still help their children with homework, which provides an opportunity for parents to connect to the educational system in a meaningful way. English-only supporters note that most teachers hired to teach a transitional bilingual program are not fluent English speakers and often choose to teach only in their primary language. As a result, the students never become proficient in English even though they are still placed in mainstream classrooms after a specified period of time.

Native Language Method. The native language philosophy is often used to prepare under-educated children for eventual participation in some type of transitional or bilingual program. Many immigrant children have taken a circuitous route to America and have not had the opportunity to enjoy regular school attendance. They may have missed portions of their formal schooling due to multiple moves made by the families as they try to locate employment and affordable housing. When they enter the American public school system, it is a return to a school environment in which they are already behind academically when compared to their same-age peers. The children often lack grade-appropriate knowledge in English, math, science, and a variety of other subjects. These students must work to catch up scholastically while learning English and trying to adapt to a new country and culture. Some researchers suggest it may be expecting too much of these children when they are asked to catch up using a foreign language (English). They have found that students who are not proficient in English language rarely participate in mainstream classes, stunting their ability to master the new language (Rubenstein-Avila, 2006).

Programs based on the native-language precepts provide enrichment in subject matter knowledge in the native language in an effort to help the student acquire the basic knowledge needed to succeed in school at grade level. Some resistors of the English-only educational movement claim a student's literacy in a different language can become a solid bridge to English literacy. A student who already excels in utilizing literary skills, such as skimming and contextual clues, when reading in any language will be more successful in shifting those skills when learning a second language (Rubenstein-Avila, 2006). At least one study has suggested that students allowed to read a book in their native language and then discuss the content in class in English will help the students to better comprehend the text while integrating their knowledge with their new language (Moll & Dias, 1987). So, the argument goes, continue teaching the children in their primary language until they have learned these skills and then facilitate the shifting of good reading practices to the learning of English. Indeed, an analysis of multiple longitudinal studies by Collier and Thomas found that native-language or dual-language instruction could completely close the academic achievement gap within about five to six years, as compared to English-only or brief transitional programs, which narrowed the gap by about half (cited in Lam & Richards, 2020).

Immersion. Using immersion, students are enrolled in mainstream classrooms on their first day of school and are expected to learn the language as they master the coursework. The students are provided enrichment classes one or more periods a day in which they are taught the English language. Each teacher is expected (yet sometimes ill-prepared) to accommodate the language needs of the student by altering lesson plans and modifying text so that non-English speaking children are provided the opportunity to learn the curriculum. Non-English textbooks are not allowed; the children are tested for achievement utilizing English-only tests.

Research in California (after the passage of Proposition 227, which mandated English-only instruction in public schools) showed that limited-English students who were placed in immersion programs from the start showed huge gains in their English-speaking abilities when compared to children who participated in bilingual programs for the same period of time (Salinas, 2006). In 2003, 10 percent of English learners scored in the proficient or advanced categories. That number rose to 20 percent by 2009. Similarly, the English proficiency test given to non-English-speaking students showed that test takers who scored in the early advanced or advanced categories rose from 25 percent in 2001 (when the test was first administered) to 39 percent in 2009 (MacDonald, 2009). Proposition 227 was replaced by Proposition 58, the California Multilingual Education Act of 2016, which reversed the English-only mandate and allowed native-language, transitional, or two-way immersion programs.

Proponents of English-only instruction argue that it costs less to administer and is more effective in teaching English to students; therefore it is the best way to educate immigrant children. However, opponents counter with a meta-analysis conducted using four studies that suggests bilingual instruction is most successful (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005). They believe bilingual education is the only way to create a welcome school environment that is respectful and can effectively teach children the contents of the curriculum (Berriz, 2006). They view the act of mainstreaming children into the regular school program, while providing English language enrichment as a separate class or program, as "unwelcoming and disempowering" and claim that academic achievement will suffer because of the program configuration (Berriz, 2006). They note the irony that students are required to be proficient in two languages to graduate from high school while, at the same time, students already proficient in another language are discouraged from using it in the classroom. This method of separate English-language learning classes combined with immersed mainstream classes was also scrutinized more heavily during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in which schools were compelled to close and transition abruptly to virtual instruction due to public health concerns. Some teachers of classes for English-language learners expressed concern that this exclusive virtual learning highlighted a gap in resources for English-language learners and their teachers, including technological resources and aid, and emphasized some of the program's shortcomings when English-language learners seemed to lack the confidence to engage during their mainstream virtual classes and exhibited diminished progress in their overall education (Cardoza, 2021).

Two-Way Bilingual Program. The two-way (dual) bilingual program forms classes consisting of both English-speaking students and students who speak another language (usually Spanish) as their primary language. All students are instructed in both English and the other language, and students support each other in proper use and pronunciation. According to the National Association for Bilingual Education, there were three thousand dual-immersion programs in 2015 (cited in Lam & Richards, 2020). Shortages of qualified bilingual teachers in over thirty states and Washington, DC, raised concerns about the future of bilingual education and stoked fears about native English speakers potentially dominating dual-immersion programs in gentrifying urban areas (Lam & Richards, 2020).

Author's Viewpoint. This author observed a class of thirty first-grade students as part of a reading research project. Although we lived in a very white, homogeneous school district, the children in this classroom were predominantly Latino. The teacher taught in English; the children appeared to be able to understand and follow her instructions. The children were allowed to play in a general area once they had completed their desk work. A group of five Latina children were chatting amicably in Spanish while playing with some plastic farm animals. A shy, blonde girl sidled up to the group and watched them play and chat. The Latina girls scooted around to make room for the White girl and easily switched their chatter from Spanish to English and the cooperative play continued.

A White female student attends the junior high school in the same area. While discussing diversity, the student joined the conversation to assert the Mexican kids at her school are "mean." When probed for more information, the girl described how the kids at her school speak perfect English in class yet "pretend" they don't understand English when they are in the halls. She asserted the Mexican kids spoke only Spanish in the halls as a way to exclude the white kids from their social groups. She noted an incident in which a White girl had worked to become friends with the Mexican girls only to be beaten up after school. These older students are most likely siblings and neighbors of the children in the elementary school class.

Conclusion

Language can be used to include or exclude others in society. As children grow up in contemporary American culture, they note the tensions that arise between people from diverse backgrounds. They learn how to use language to include others as a gesture of acceptance and openness; they also learn how to exclude others by being subjected to incidents of exclusion themselves. When legislation unilaterally dictates how newly immigrated children are to be taught in the public school system (while ignoring the different abilities and knowledge of those children), they rob the individual schools of the ability to ensure all students are being taught in a welcoming, safe environment. Principals and teachers lose the ability to meet the diverse needs of their students; some of whom may be best served by placing them in mainstream English-speaking classes and some of whom may be best served in a course that allows them to master curriculum material in a familiar language.

When segregated schools are created within schools to deliver instruction in languages other than English, all students are divested of an opportunity to become acquainted with different cultures; students often begin to harbor prejudices against other students who are viewed as "the other." There are a variety of means to introduce non-English speaking students into this American society via its school system. Tailoring programs to meet the needs of each student (whether the student needs to learn to speak English quickly or speak another language for a few years) could help to create opportunities for academic rigor for all students while helping everyone learn how to redesign the melting pot in a manner that encourages an inclusive, welcoming society in the long term.

Terms & Concepts

Class Action: A lawsuit brought by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a larger group of others who have the same grounds for action (Webster, 2001).

Colonization: A theory that people with cultures differing from the majority culture are oppressed and used to the benefit of the major culture. The oppression takes place as the minority groups are stripped of their languages, stories, and pasts.

Constitutional Entitlement: A right to benefits or privilege guaranteed to the people covered by the Constitution.

Cultural Identity: Cultural identity is the feeling of belongingness/identification to a group or culture. In American society the minority cultures are generally learned by children at home and the dominant one at school. The dominant culture generally has more prestige in the society than the minority ones.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The federal law that funds the basic public school programs such as Title I and Title VII and must be reauthorized every six years. It was amended as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and later as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015.

Limited English Proficiency: Students with sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language to deny them the opportunity to succeed in classrooms where the language of instruction is English (Public Law 95-561)

Rulemaking: Rulemaking is the process used by an administrative agency to formulate, amend, or repeal a rule or regulation. Congress usually enacts ambiguous laws expecting that public administrators will create policies and rules based on interpretations of the laws. The process ensures a specific period of time is allowed for public comment before the rule will be enacted.

State Initiative: A movement most often initiated by a private citizen or interest group to put a specific issue up for a vote. If the initiator gathers enough signatures in support of putting the issue to a vote, it will appear on the ballot in the next state general election.

Bibliography

Ballester, E. (2012). Child L2 English acquisition of subject properties in an immersion bilingual context. Second Language Research, 28, 217–241. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=76331843

Berriz, B. R. (2006). Unz got your tongue; What have we lost with the English-only mandates?. Radical Teacher, 75, 10–15. Retrieved September 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20970863&site=ehost-live

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (E.D. 1954)

Cardoza, K. (2021, February 24). Millions of kids learn English at school. Teaching them remotely hasn't been easy. NPR. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2021/02/24/964420443/millions-of-kids-learn-english-at-school-teaching-them-remotely-hasnt-been-easy

Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. (2012). Language legislation in the USA. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/langleg.htm

Crawford, J. (1994). Revisiting the Lau Decision - 20 Years After. Paper presented at the National Commemorative Symposium Held in San Francisco, California. Oakland, Calif.: ARC Associates, 1996

Lam, K., & Richards, E. (2020, May 24). More US schools teach in English and Spanish, but not enough to help Latino kids. USA Today. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/education/2020/01/06/english-language-learners-benefit-from-dual-language-immersion-bilingual-education/4058632002/ ‌

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (E.D. 1974)

MacDonald, H. (2009). The bilingual ban that worked. City Journal, 19. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19%5F4%5Fbilingual-education.html

Menken, K. (2013). Restrictive language education policies and emergent bilingual youth: A perfect storm with imperfect outcomes. Theory into Practice, 52, 160–168. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89432530

Orelus, P. W. (2011). Linguistic apartheid and the English-only movement. Encounter, 24, 15–22.Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83540909

Reyhner, J. (2001). Cultural survival vs. forced assimilation: The renewed war on diversity. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 25 .

Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. S., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29 , 43–67.

Rubenstein-Avila, E. (2006). Connecting with Latino learners. Educational Leadership, 63 , 38–43. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/aspz?direct=tru&db=eric&AN=EJ745490&site=ehost-live .

Salinas, R. A. (2006). All children can learn . . . to speak English. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 23 , 20–24. Retrieved September 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED491994&site=ehost-live.

Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty years later. New Focus, 6.

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. (2001).

Zehr, M. A. (2003). Classroom ban on Spanish protested. Education Week, 23 . Retrieved on August 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11379485&site=ehost-live .

Suggested Reading

Barbosa, A. (2013). Bilingual education in the United States: Possible moral transition toward global citizenship. Educacao E Pesquisa, 39, 673–688. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91607724

Barker, V. & Giles, H. (2002). Who supports the English-only movement? Evidence for misconceptions about Latino group vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23 , 353–370.

Burns, M. (2007). A community divided. Quill, 95 , 20–25.

Dowling, J. A., Ellison, C. G., & Leal, D. L. (2012). Who doesn't value English? Debunking myths about Mexican immigrants' attitudes toward the English language*. Social Science Quarterly , 93, 356–378. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85974107

Hunter, S. H. (1996). The Unbreakable Code. Flagstaff, AZ: Rising Moon.

Garcia, C. & Bass, L. E. (2007). American identity and attitudes toward English language policy initiatives. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 34 , 63–82.