English Only Debate Paper

English Only Debate 1

Running head: ENGLISH ONLY DEBATE PAPER

Josefina (Josie) Mancias

Grand Canyon University

SEI English Language Teaching: Foundation & Methodologies

ESL-223

Whitney Johnson

January 22, 2012

English Only Debate 1

English Only Debate Paper

Introduction

English-only initiatives and proposed legislations have been the subject of many propositions since America’s colonial era (Baron, 1996; Westlaw, 2008). Extending from fear, from perceptions of disparate rights and power and engaged to disenfranchise and extinguish minority and minority languages in many states and localities, English-only policies project xenophobia and deny America’s multi-ethnic, multilingual, and multiracial heritage (Westlaw, 2008). Accordingly, English-only calls for policy illustrate false ideas about America, its sources of strength and unity (2008). In fact, these types of ideas serve as legal measures to separate, segregate and subjugate the types of individuals that have helped make America what is it today. Much more than this, English only policies in the education system delimit learning; lessen self-esteem and academic desire (U.S. Department of education, 2005; Adesope, Lavin & Thompson, 2008, p. 20). For these reasons, English immersion classroom do not promote comprehensive education.

English-Only Policies: A History

Even before the American colonies realized their independence, residents fought for rights and power. Each group of immigrants sought some advantage, some ways to distinguish their ethnicity, their cultural ideals and weave them within the fabric of the New World. To this end, Baron (1996) details how English-only policies in the 1750s swiftly emerged when the British settlers realized one-third of their fellow Pennsylvanian settlers spoke German. Although no votes were recorded on the issue, (Baron, 1996) “[…] language became a political and emotional issue” and English became the language of choice for official documents and education.

Native American Forced Assimilation: Boarding School Policies

The Native Americans in the colonies quickly learned to communicate with the English and the French. They did not need policies to interact with the settlers, to acquire language and cultural competency. In fact, the Cherokee People developed a government system and a Supreme Court mirroring that of the American government, its own newspaper, and school. Literacy was much higher among Cherokee than the Anglo-American settlers (Bonvillain, 2001) were. This helped the Cherokee people maintain a sense of control over their environment, their identity and promoted cultural continuity.

Displaced and marginalized by the Indian Removal Act and the Indian policies of the 1800s, many U.S. officials believed the Indians would “disappear” (Adams, 2006, p. 3; Brave heart & DeBruyn, 2007). When they did not die out or disappear, the U.S. government enacted Indian boarding schools. Accordingly, Native American children were either educated by Anglo-Americans and missionaries on the reservations or forcibly removed from their native homes, sent to Indian boarding schools where native ways, beliefs and languages were forbidden (Adams, 2006). Corporal punishment was commonplace for violations.

Although assimilation aimed to integrate Native Americans within U.S. society, boarding schools and English-only policies ultimately coauthored more tragic and lasting consequences (Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 2007; Nickdao, 2005; Penland, 2010). They produced lost generations, fragmented identities, and lasting socioeconomic conditions. Unable to communicate with elders, relate to the symbols and stories, unfamiliar with norms, language and worldview, these children lost much more than a sense of self. They lost a heritage and a sense of connection to the land, the world and to each other. Of course, it also lessened chances of higher education. Is this what America touts?

The 1995 English-Only Turning Point

According to the West's Encyclopedia of American Law (2008), in 1995, English-only mandates graced legislative offices, dockets and state offices. In places where American nativists felt especially threatened by people with much deeper ties to regions, had different relationships with the land and each other, calls for English-only and a type of forced assimilation in the schools once more arose (2008). U.S. Senator Richard C Shelby sponsored the Language of Government Act of 1995. Contending that preserving English as the official language would promote unity and help immigrants learn the language to more fully participate as citizens and attain greater vocational success, Shelby (1995) failed to disclose the hidden agenda. President Bill Clinton reveled the Act was directed toward segregating people and eliminating immigrant voices from the vote (2008).

(Westlaw, 2008) Nonetheless, 26 states passed some sort of English-only acts in 1995. Although each of them has rarely been enforced, most of them prohibited making any other law that ignored English-only recognition in government documents. Yet, this yielded several problems for the education system. For public school systems, funding was tied to these policies (2008). In fact, educators in Arizona sued the state of Arizona over such policies. Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 69 F.3d 920 (1995) overturned the law demonstrating how it violated the First Amendment, free speech clause (2008). However, a subsequent ballot-based rule was passed in Arizona in 1998 (2008). Though many persons questioned the laws legitimacy, the Supreme Court passed on its review (2008).

Citizenship, English Literacy and ESL Pedagogy

(Westlaw, 2008) Citizenship in the U.S does not mandate English literacy. In fact, there are many exceptions to English literacy including immigrants over 50 years of age, those in the country less than twenty years and others (2008). Why then should English-only mandates dictate how children learn, what they learn and lessen the quality of learning?

Several studies have demonstrated the importance of English as a Second language pedagogy and instruction using English whenever possible and the native language as the vehicle for greater comprehension, skill attainment and language acquisition (Adesope, Lavin & Thompson, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2005). In fact, the 2008 Canadian study demonstrated that immigrants, dependent on region, require more or less native language during English language learning (Adesope, Lavin & Thompson, 2008, p. 19-21). Among those that benefitted most from this type of instruction were those from Spanish speaking countries and those whose first language were mixed or languages other than French (p. 20). Therefore, English-only or English immersion classrooms not only challenge the accepted ESL pedagogy in which English is used whenever possible, but also engender holes in learning, false or misleading perceptions about intelligence and knowledge acquisition (Brave heart & DeBruyn, 2007; U.S. Department of education, 2005; “ESL Controversy,” 2012).

Much more than this, English-only classrooms without any additional assistance prove detrimental to one’s social life. After all, immigrant students and those from mixed or ethnic backgrounds straddle two worlds or more. Accordingly, they may struggle with the cultural aspects of English language, the ways the language focuses their attention, classifies objects and events, and describes processes. Therefore, providing bilingual instruction helps students establish connections and parallels between their native and second language-English (U.S. Department of Education, 2005; Westlaw, 2008).

Conclusion

While many states understandably felt pressured by immigration, the rise in multi-ethnic and multiracial students in the U.S., English only policies deprive America of the elements upon which America was built. They negate American ideals and delimit participation within a democratic society. For young children and immigrant children, English-only policies prove especially daunting. The effects can yield consequences for generations. For these reasons, ESL pedagogy utilizing native language and English whenever possible provides the best advantages for ESL learners and society, by extension. After all, the U.S. Department of Education (2005) contends, “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.”

References

Adams, D.W. (2006 Jan. 16). Fundamental Considerations: The deep meaning of Native

American Schooling, 1880-1900. Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 58 (1) 1-28.

Retrieved from http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/meiners/eladedfn305/fundamental.pdf

Adesope, O.O., Lavin, T., & Thompson, T. (2008). Best practices for fostering English literacy

among ESL immigrant students. Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved January 19

2012 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/artman2/uploads/1/

Education_Adesope.pdf

Baron, D. (1996). The Legendary English-Only Vote of 1795. Public Broadcasting System.

Retrieved January 19 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/official

american/englishonly/

Bonvillain, N. (2001). Native nations: Cultures and histories of Native North America. Upper

Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Brave Heart, M.Y. and DeBruyn, L. (2007). The American holocaust: Healing historical

unresolved grief. American Indian and Native American Health Journal. Retrieved

January 19 2012 from http://aianp.uchsc.edu/journal/pdf/8%282%29_4_

YellowHorseBraveHeart_American_Indian_holocaust.pdf

ESL Controversy: Native Speaker vs. Non-Native Speaker (2011). Busy Teacher. Retrieved

January 19 2012 from http://busyteacher.org/4570-esl-controversy-native-speaker-vs-

non-native.html

Nicdao, E. (2005). American Indian boarding schools and their effect on assimilation and

biculturalism: A review of the literature and an empirical test. American Sociological

Association; 2005 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 1-17. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18614431&site=ehost-live

Penland, J.L. (2010 March). Voices of Native resiliency: Educational experiences from the 1950s

and 1960s. The Qualitative Report Volume 15 Number 2 March 2010 430-454. Retrieved

from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-2/penland.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2005). Developing Programs for English Language Learners:

Glossary. Retrieved January 19 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/

ell/index.html

[Westlaw] (2008). English-Only Laws. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

(2008). Retrieved January 20 2012 from http://legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/English-Only+Laws

Undergraduate Writing Rubric

Criteria / 1: Unsatisfactory / 2: Less than Satisfactory / 3: Satisfactory / 4: Good / 5: Excellent
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar) / Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. / Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors that distract the reader. / Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. / Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. / Writer is clearly in control of standard, written American English.
Evaluating and Documenting Sources (includes use of appropriate style, correct in-text and citation format, etc) / Plagiarism;
rarely follows any documentation format correctly; uses noncredible sources / Uses documentation, but frequent formatting/citation errors are present; some sources have questionable credibility / Sources used are credible and documented appropriately to the discipline; formatting and citation is usually correct, but some lack of control is apparent. / Documentation is appropriate and formatting/citation is correct, although a few errors/typos may be present; most sources are authoritative. / There are virtually no errors in documentation format or citation; all sources are authoritative.
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc) / Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction, lack of variety in language use. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of “primer prose” indicates writer either doesn’t apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. / Some distracting and/or inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure may be sporadic. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. / Sentence structure is correct and occasionally varies. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. / The writer is clearly aware of audience; uses a variety of sentence structures and appropriate vocabulary for the target audience; uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. / The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in unique and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
Paragraph Development and Transitions / Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. / Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. / Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other / A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are used as appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. / There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The writer has been careful to use paragraph and transition construction to guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. Individually and collectively, paragraphs are coherent and cohesive -- they “sparkle.”
Thesis Development and Purpose / Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. / Thesis and/or main claim is insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. / Thesis and/or main claim is apparent and appropriate to purpose. / Thesis and/or main claim is clear, forecasting development of paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. / Thesis and/or main claim is comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction / Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is in part or wholly incoherent. / Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. / Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. / Argument is strong, showing logical progressions. Firm control of the technique of argumentation is evident.
Smooth progression of claims / Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a unique and compelling manner.
Evidence / Evidence is absent, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. / Weak, marginal evidence. Large gaps in the presentation of evidence, resulting from inconsistent connections with the argument. / Evidence, such as textual sources, personal experience and observation, is appropriate to audience and rhetorical situation The evidence is the minimum in quantity and quality acceptable to support the argument / A diversity of types of evidence is present. The evidence extends beyond what is needed to support the argument effectively. / The type, quantity, and/or quality of evidence resonates with the claims, argument and the structure of the paper. Irrefutable evidence from theoretical, academic, and practical sources is convincingly presented.