Running head: ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

English-Only Debate Paper

Amy McGrew

Grand Canyon University

ESL 523N

Rachel J. Holmes, M.Ed.

July, 31, 2010

1

ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

Abstract

The best way to teach American’s English language learners is an issue that has been widely

debated and even voted upon in five states. This paper aims to look at both sides of the debate,

looking at the English-only movement which advocates structured English immersion and the

other side which advocates bilingual education. There are benefits and challenges to each. My

personal opinion closes the paper.

2

ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

English-Only Debate Paper

Introduction

There has been much debate over the last twenty or so years about how best to teach

America’s English Language (EL) learners. Some people believe it is best to use bilingual

education to allow students time to learn English, while still learning core curriculum in their

own language. Others believe Structured English Immersion (SEI) is the best way to teach our

EL learners. There have been initiatives on the ballots in five states, California, Arizona,

Massachusetts, Colorado, and Oregon, regarding EL learners. One wonders if voters should be

making these decisions when it comes to educating EL learners.

English-Only

Laws have been passed by voters in three states, California, Arizona, and Massachusetts,

which “mandate that English language learners (ELLs) be placed in temporary, English-only,

structured English immersion (SEI) programs.” (de Jong, 2008, p. 351) These voter-driven

initiatives were placed on the ballots by English-only groups that are against bilingual education.

“Before 1998, California had mandated bilingual education for all of its students.” (ProEnglish

webpage) California’s Proposition 227 was titled “English for the Children,” and was funded by

software millionaire Ron Unz who was “[d]isgusted at the failure of bilingual education.”

(ProEnglish webpage) Arizona followed suit in 2000, and most recently, Massachusetts passed a

measure ending bilingual education in 2002.

Proponents of the English-only movement “believe that policies designed to force

children to adopt English as their dominant or only language will promote rapid assimilation and

increase students’ academic achievement.” (Mora, 2009) In addition, they believe “that bilingual

3

ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

education is the reason for low levels of English proficiency among immigrant students—

especially Latinos, the group served by the vast majority of the bilingual programs.” (Mora,

2009) Critics of bilingual education insist that it slows down English acquisition by keeping

them in a cycle of native-language dependency, which in turn leads to the high dropout rates

among Latinos. ("English-Language learners," 2004) In their opinion, bilingual education is the

problem, so getting rid of it is the solution.

Bilingual Education

Ballot initiatives to end bilingual education in two states, Colorado and Oregon, were

voted down. Proponents of bilingual education believe “that if students first learn to read in the

language they are fluent in and then transfer the skills over to English—their second language—

they will develop stronger literacy skills in the long term.” (August & Hakuta, 1997, as quoted in

Education Week article, 2004) Furthermore, they claim in an ever increasing global society, it is

advantageous to be fluent in more than one language.

Proponents also believe that bilingualism is beneficial to the individual student because

of “the positive role that a student’s native language plays in second language acquisition,

academic achievement, and identity development.” (de Jong, 2008, p. 353) “In fact, sociological

and educational research supports the notion that immigrant students who retain their bilingual

skills and their ties to their parents’ culture of origin are more academically successful and

socially well-adapted in the long term than their peers who become English monolinguals.”

(Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, as cited in Mora, 2009)

Benefits and Challenges

4

ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

The English-only movement believes that is beneficial for EL learners to be assimilated

into American culture and learn English as quickly as possible to help them succeed. Proponents

of bilingual education “believe that students who study and learn in two languages and become

fully proficient and literate in their home language and in English can enjoy the richness and

values of two linguistic systems and two cultural traditions that complement and enhance each

other.” (Mora, 2009) “People on both sides of the debate point out that there is a shortage of

teachers who are qualified to teach using the primary language of many students.” (Gandara,

1999, as cited in Education Week article, 2004) Another challenge that is faced by people on

both sides of the debate is the requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. “The law

requires states to develop English-language-proficiency standards and implement English-

language-proficiency tests. Those standards must be linked to state academic standards to ensure

that student improvement in English-language proficiency also results in a better understanding

of academic content.” (Midcontinent research for Education and Learning, 2003, as cited in

Education Week article, 2004)

My Position

I believe that there is no one correct way to teach our nation’s EL learners. For some

students the bilingual approach is the best approach, for others structured English immersion

may be best. In fact, I read that “bilingual programs are appropriate and effective in schools that

serve concentrations of students who use a common native language.” (Mora, 2009) It would not

be feasible to have bilingual classes in some schools where there are not enough students who

speak the same foreign language. I strongly believe that it is more beneficial to be fluent in two

or more languages than just one. Being bilingual opens up more job opportunities, I know this

5

ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

from personal experience. When I worked as a medical assistant it took me a few months to be

hired because I was not bilingual. I was told on more than one occasion that if I could speak

Spanish, then I would be offered a job. Even now when I am conducting parent-teacher

conferences, I wish that I was fluent in Spanish because I often have several parents who only

speak Spanish. Of course, I am also thankful that I teach in California where SEI is the norm

because I am only required to teach in English. I think that the decision on whether schools

should be bilingual or not should be left up to school officials, parents, and sometimes even the

students themselves. I have an issue with “voters who have very little information or technical

expertise about education programs for immigrant students…deciding on their fate.” (Mora,

2009) I am also concerned that structured English immersion does not have a set program to

teach English. As discussed in one of the articles I read during my research, of course English

proficiency is necessary for academic success in U.S. schools; the problem is finding “the

optimal pathway for helping language minority students master English.” (Clark, 2009)

Conclusion

This is a debate that will probably continue on for many years to come especially during

the times when political power is shifted in the states and the country. Bilingual education and

structured English immersion each has its benefits and challenges. Three states have banned

bilingual education, while two states voted to keep it. This issue will be discussed for more years

to come, but as educators we need to do what is best for each and every one of the students in our

classrooms. I know that I will continue to advocate for my students’ best interests whether it is a

need for bilingual education or structured English immersion. The decision is best left in the

hands of those in the educational system, not the voters.

6

ENGLISH-ONLY DEBATE

References

Clark, K. (2009, April 1). The case for structured Engligh immersion. Educational Leadership,

42-46. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from GCU elibrary.

de Jong, E. J. (2008). Contextualizing policy appropriation: teachers' perspectives, local

responses, and Englilsh-only ballot intiatives [Urban Rev]. Retrieved from GCU elibrary.

English-Language learners. (2004, September 21). Education Week. Retrieved July 28, 2010,

from www.edweek.org/ew/issues/english-language-learners/.

Mora, J. K. (2009, April 1). From the ballot box to the classroom [Electronic version].

Educational Leadership, 66(7), 14-19. .

ProEnglish. Teach our childern English! [Bilingual education, state-by state policy review].

Retrieved July 28, 2010, from www.proenglish.org/issues/education/bestatus.html.

7