Bilingual education. It sounded like a great idea to me for a while--especially since I have friends who moved to the U.S. at a young age and described what it was like for them going to school when no one speaks your language, and being forced to learn it really quickly.
Imagine if you were suddenly relocated to China or something, and had to learn their language by taking classes in that language. With no help at all. It would be miserable and scary, right? No one around you understands what you say, and you can't understand them--you can't make friends, much less do well in your classes.
This is basically what life is like for Mexican, Brazilian, etc. immigrants when they first move to the U.S. without knowing the language. It's really difficult for them and they tend to be ostracized (You know how mean little kids are, right? They can be seriously cruel.) So when I heard about bilingual education, I thought this was a great idea. There's no reason we can't act like human beings and try to make things a little easier for these kids.
However, I recently heard some compelling arguments against bilingual education. For instance, I've heard that it actually cripples students in the program by not making it as essential that they learn English as soon as possible--therefore lengthening the process and hindering their performance. Even two-way bilingual education (English and Spanish speakers take some classes in English and some in Spanish) --which sounds like a great idea to me. I am always for helping educate kids in foreign languages, and it keeps Spanish-speaking students from being ostracized, right? Well apparently this is great for helping English speakers learn Spanish, but not so great for helping Spanish speakers learn English.
According to these arguments (which do make sense and have actually been proven in many cases), "immersion" (just putting the Spanish-speaking kids in all-English classes and forcing them to learn English) seems to be the most effective method. My Mexican and Brazilian friends do speak perfect, accent-less English now, despite their difficult experiences at the beginning.
What bothers me about this set-up, however, is the definition of "effective" here. Sure, immersion is effective--for forcing immigrants into the homogenous "melting pot" of American society. Or "assimilation" as one proponent of immersion called it--without a trace of irony. Resistance is futile, kids. What we're essentially saying with this definition is that we, as Americans, hate other cultures and will force anyone coming to our country to learn English because it's the only language that matters.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT U.S. CITIZENS SHOULD NOT LEARN ENGLISH. Having a national language is essential for unity. Countries like Spain (Basque and Spanish) and Yugoslavia are either at risk or have already disintegrated by divisions caused by speaking different languages. Not having a national language and culture means that we cease to be a country. Really, English has become part of our national identity.
But historically, the United States is not composed only of English people. After all, we're not England (not anymore, anyway--check out a history textbook if you don't believe me). In fact America has been known as a "nation of immigrants": Give me your tired, your poor, you know? Why does America have to be a melting pot? Why can't we go for more of a "patchwork" effect, where we are a united, strong nation but we also respect and care about the identities of our immigrants? Maybe this "patchwork", not a grey stew of hotdogs and baseball, should be our national identity.
My proposition is this: two-way immersion education. Interesting, no? Basically, Spanish-speaking students would still take all-English classes...but English-speaking students would also be immersed in classes in another foreign language--maybe Spanish, maybe Mandarin Chinese. That way they would both be going through the same experience--everyone would be experiencing similar difficulties, and there would be no ostracizing. Maybe students would even be able to help each other.
Of course, Spanish speakers and English speakers would still be separated for a while. But in a few years Spanish speakers will be fluent in English and can take classes in English, and English speakers can reduce their immersion classes to half of their classes or even one class. Eventually everyone will be on the same page--and everyone will be better for the experience.
The effects of this? The number of students graduating fluent in at least one other language would increase dramatically. America as a whole would become a more diplomatically conscious and effective player on the world stage. And the difficult experience of acclimating to U.S. culture would be accomplished with less stress and more sensitivity to the significance of the other cultures that comprise our national identity.
The immersion technique for teaching a language sounds like throwing a kid into a pond in order to force him to learn how to swim. Cruel, perhaps, but it works. And, like you said, after a rough start, things get easier and better as one moves forward.
I like the idea of dual immersion, but I think it would totally lose its effectiveness if it were forced. When dual immersion is forced, students might become resentful and seek a way to get around speaking another language (which is not difficult at all to do anywhere in English-speaking America). Dual immersion would only work if it were voluntary. For example, I am applying for a scholarship this summer to study Chinese in a no-English environment. But, I want to do that. If the Department of Education tried to force everyone to do that, the situation could get nasty. Perhaps what we need is more encouragement (and you're definitely on the right track) for Americans to learn a new language.
Also, I agree that English is America's de facto official language. There is no need for people to feel that English as a nationally cohesive language is being threatened.
One question: dual immersion would help a student learn a foreign language, but would they suffer in all their other subjects for awhile? Would that in turn lead to lower graduation rates and a lower quality of education in general?
You're right, voluntary immersion would probably be better. I guess we would just have to hope that students would want to take advantage of the opportunity.
That's a good point you make about performance in other subjects suffering. There would definitely have to be some adjustments to account for the fact that they're taking their classes in a language they are only starting to learn. But since the idea is to get them started young, theoretically it will be very easy for them to pick up a new language and they should be fluent relatively quickly.
As in duel immersion do you mean that core subjects and electives will be taught in other languages besides English? ( because i don't see how a student would be able to get out of that)
that sounds like a great idea , and probable considering the increasing Hispanic population. High Schools are already require students to take at least two years of a foreign language.
i definitely know what it means to go to school where everyone is speaking a different language. it is not fun. in most of me subjects i took i just zoned out. it was too much. i think if i had classes only spoken in englished mixed with spanish classes it would have been easier.
Yes, I was thinking core subjects and electives would be taught in another language. My point with this was that two years of a foreign language in high school is not nearly enough to be fluent, and besides, it's really difficult that way--it's easier to start learning a new language when you're young.
4 years is not enough !!!!!!
unless we start introducing the language into ofher core courses. I know that is what they do in Germany for English
Europe is better in the education department in general. I wish the U.S. would just go ahead and follow their example.