[NIFL-ESL:1484] English Only Discussion

From: Andres Muro (AndresM@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU)
Date: Mon Nov 10 1997 - 18:18:02 EST


Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01671; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <s4673410.088@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU>
Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Andres Muro <AndresM@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1484] English Only Discussion
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2482
Lines: 46

The English Only movement is a movement of scapegoatism, designed to
promote fear among uneducated voters. The rhetoric of the movement is
similar to Hitler's "My Struggle". This movement, or variations of it,
become popular with politicians who want to get votes based on a
"reduction in spending" agenda. The argument is that we spent too much
money on immigrants who are lazy, do not want to assimilate and refuse
to learn English. If we vote for these politicians, they will reduce our
taxes by not paying for bilingual education and other programs designed
to aid immigrants and blah, blah, blah. 

The English Only movement is not based on any well researched 
pedagogical approach, nor it is based on sound cultural studies. It is, as I
said before, a movement designed to promote xenophobia. California's
Pete Wilson, has been one of the masters at effectvely promoting
xenophobia among voters. 

Regarding the pedagogical value of multilingual education vs. total
immersion programs, the merits of these approaches depend on context
and ideology. Street argues that literacy practices are rooted in ideology;
and acquisition of literacies are often mediated by power struggles.
Therefore, the effect of an immersion program, vs. a multilingual program
can have different sociocultural and psychological effects, and may be
received differently depending on the particular context. 

Populations who are resisting assimilation and acculturation efforts from
a dominant culture will respond differently to pedagogical approaches
from those populations who are not. Overall, Lambert argues that an
"additive" pedagogical approach (one that adds to the existing cultural
experience) is favorable to a "subtractive" approach (one that favors
one cultural experience while trying to subtract another one). For
oppressed immigrants with poor self esteem, a subtractive approach can
be culturally devastating. This type of approach often can lead to
passive resistance. 

In the anthology "Literacy as Praxis" Ogbu makes an analysis of
minorities' status and the school experience. Ogbu identifies voluntary
vs. involuntary minorities.  Voluntary minorities are those who came to
the US voluntarily seeking economic well-being. Minorities who acquired
such status by slavery, conquest or colonization are involuntary
minorities. Involuntary minorities may see an immersion approach as a
cultural threat while voluntary minorities may not perceive this. 

Good discussion,

Andres



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:40 EDT