Language segregation divides AZ students
Question & Answer
By Vivian Po
New America Media,
Aug 09, 2010
Arizona schools have separated English learners from their
English-speaking classmate in four-hour daily stretches since the state
legislature mandated this process in 2007.
But although the statute (known as HB 2064) called on students to
under go these “language immersion” sessions for one year, a new report
reveals that such segregation is often extended beyond one year and
frequently causes rifts between students.
Patricia Gandara, coauthor of the report, titled, “A Return to the
‘Mexican Room’: The Segregation of Arizona’s English Learners,” is a
professor of education and codirector of the Civil Rights Project at the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
She spoke with New America Media’s Vivian Po on the negative
consequences of marginalizing English learners from mainstream
classrooms and other options for promoting language fluency.
Po: How are English learners segregated in Arizona’s
classrooms?
Gandara: What’s disturbing about this program is that they actually
set out to segregate these student for at least four hours of separate
instruction in English language acquisition, where children have no
contact with actual English speakers.
It is not right and certainly not consistent with research done in
the last couple decades about exposing students to good models of the
language you want them to learn, and exposing them to peers, who can
interact with them in that language.
While the state of Arizona is convinced that this is only a four-hour
block and that the children will mix with other children during lunch or
recess, we found evidence that they never mix with others.
It is hard to reintegrate these children into the classroom after
that experience because of the schedule of classes. The children will
never return to a mainstream setting where they could make friends with
English speakers.
Plus, you can’t put kids in a classroom for four-hour segregation and
expect them to gravitate to children they have never met or have no
contact with before on the playground. They are going to the playground
with the same children they were segregated with.
It is a mistake to assume children will form friendships among kids
who speak English whom they have never had contact with.
Po: Kids are supposed to be segregated for one year, but that’s not
what you found, right?
Gandara: The law says the program should not last more than one year.
Supporters argued that separating the children is really for a one-year
intensive that will results in them being reclassified as
English-proficient. But in reality the majority is not reclassified in
one year.
In fact, a majority of children have to continue in the program for
two years or more. If they are released, they are released without the
benefit of being reclassified as an “English speaker.” It is clear that
this is an extraordinary measure that is not meeting its own goal of one
year.
Po: Is there a disadvantage to this kind of instruction separation
for English Learners?
Gandara: Research tells us that some separation of students for an
hour or for a maximum of two hours per day can be productive where they
receive very specific, targeted intervention around a language. But
anything beyond that can be counterproductive, because you cannot drill
kids for four hours a day and expect them to be engaged. It is just too
much.
As a result, children are missing out on other things that they
desperately need, such as instruction in social studies, math, history
and science, and interactions with other children.
One of the reasons why Asian children have done better across the
board on all kind of tests is because they tend to be the least
segregated as English learners. They tend to go to schools where there
are lots of English speakers and they are not left in an isolated
community.
However, for those who are isolated with other low-income children
who don’t speak English, they tend to produce not great results,
contrary to the great stereotypes.
Po: What are the consequences of the segregation?
Gandara: There are two great concerns that are not even been
addressed in Arizona. One is stigma. There is considerable evidence that
when children are kept away from their peers, they become stigmatized.
They are the “EL-ers.” Other children are not anxious to get to know
them. Children who are marginalized in school are at greater risk of
dropping out. It is very important to feel welcome and that you belong.
Over time, those kids who feel they are not wanted there have a greater
tendency to drop out of school.
Second, when these children are segregated in secondary schools, they
are not accumulating credits for the courses they need to graduate or go
to college. Unless very big changes are made, even after one year in
this program, they cannot graduate from high schools. It is putting
these kids at risk for life.
We think the stakes are highest at the secondary-school level,
because it really jeopardizes their chances of graduating. At the lower
grades, the stigmatization seems to be the bigger issue for children,
because there are fewer opportunities for them to mix with other kids,
unlike at the secondary level, where after the four-hour block, they are
then released and allowed to move into other classes.
Elementary school kids are going to see the same group of children
all day, and all day, they are viewed as a kid who is at the back of the
classroom.
Po: Why has Arizona refused to adopt other language programs, such as
bilingual or immersion programs, which have proven to be effective in
other states?
Gandara: They argue that those programs have not been effective,
which I think is a poor reading of the research. I think there are lots
of ideologies going on in Arizona.
We are seeing this in a number of fronts, such as their advocating
for legislation against ethnic studies classes, fighting battles at the
borders and criminalizing undocumented workers.
I think this is part of the same kind of ideology that prevails in
Arizona right now -- that they really don’t want these people here and
aren’t going to invest in them. This four-hour program was the result of
a lawsuit in 1992, for failing to invest in the education of English
learners. And Arizona has been fighting for 20 years now in the courts
to not provide any more funding or services for English learners.
Po: What do you think of the ethnic studies legislation in Arizona?
Gandara: It sounds to me like a paranoid attack on schools that have
been providing instruction in Mexican American history, which is culture
and art. Those are very legitimate things for children to study.
There is reasonable evidence that studying these things is good for
students, who come from this background. This is the same reason why we
instituted black history. We have courses that point to the
contributions of other major minority groups in this country because it
is easy to overlook those contributions and the values of these
individuals in our society.
Po: What kind of recommendations would you give to Arizona about
educating English learners?
Gandara: We believe the real mistake in Arizona is to require all
English-learning children to either be placed into such a program or go
without any instruction. Those are currently their options, but there is
lots of literature and research that suggest many other options, which
would be preferable and beneficial to children in those classrooms.
Arizona should stop restricting children to these programs. We
believe children who come with another language have a huge asset. It
makes sense for Arizona and these children to build on those assets and
allow them to become confident in dual languages. That will serve
Arizona and the nation--and certainly serve the interests of those kids.
Po: Are we doing a better job with English learners in California?
Gandara: No. We also have a lot of weak programming and restrictions
against the use of primary languages, although those begin to break down
in many places because people realized that an English-only regime is
not working.
The only thing I can say for California over Arizona is: At least
they have not forced children to be segregated for four hours per day.
Also, we have an increasing number of dual-immersion programs all round
the state because people want those options for their kids.
Po: Are we seeing any innovative English learning programs or models
emerging?
Gandara: We have been in a period of drought—and, in very large part,
by the politics around language.
Whenever immigration is a big issue, when employment is a problem and
the economy is weak, we have historically turned to immigrants as
scapegoats. It is very hard for people to put forward good innovation in
this environment.
However, the working group on English learners has been meeting
regularly in person and by conference calls that go on virtually nonstop
over the last year in trying to rethink and reshape--and help Congress
to rewrite--the policy for English learners in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which is overdue to be reauthorized.
Po: Why is it important to invest in English learners?
Gandara:Historically, various groups have not only joined the U.S.,
but changed it. I believe the diversity of this nation is what makes it
unique and exceptional, but when there is this kind of negative
treatment of individuals from specific groups, whether they are English
learners or people based on their ethnicity, it tears apart the fabric
of our society, which is the best of what we have.
|
