The Importance of Bilingual Education

Chapter Four: “Languages planning and policy” in McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s book is about the ways in which the designation of an official language has consequences for language learning and teaching. The first is that the insight the designation provides into prevalent social attitudes toward particular languages. The second is that the effect of approved language policies on the stated language-in-education policy. Last is the setting of linguistic standards. It was also about the worldliness of language. One theme that was present is the relationship between language and social class. In parts of the world where English is used and taught, knowledge of the language results in benefits. However, not everyone has access to it. This is similar to the ongoing cycle of poverty. Wealth is kept among the top percentage of the population and education is similar. Children are born into rough neighbor hoods. They go to schools with low performance. They don’t get the education they need. The jobs that they can get don’t pay enough to get them out of the bad neighborhood to start their own family, so the cycle continues. Similarly, English is limited to certain people. Not everyone has access, causing education and the opportunity for economic increase to stay concentrated. In the chapter, English is presented as being neutral, devoid of any ethnic identity. I would choose to use a different word than “neutral” because I feel that it can raise controversy, especially for the reasons stated above. I can’t think of a word to replace it which I think raises a point in itself. There is no one way to describe the language and its effects of society in the United States and other countries. It can be a unifying language, like the book says, or a divisive language, like when it comes to class division.

The article Language Ideologies and Policies: Multilingualism and Education is about how difficult and complex it is to educate multilingual students in a society in which English is the dominant language in school and even communication in general.  It shows that common language beliefs (and misconceptions) are what govern policies. The part that rang true the most for me was about the negative effects that English-only policies can have on students. First of all, it deprives students of learning opportunities. English speaker students lose the chance to learn about the culture of the other students and ELLs risk the chance of not learning at a fast-enough rate. Some students need to hear explanations about concepts in their own languages to properly understand them. English-only policies also inhibit ELLs from developing their native language. With no exposure to it, they cannot continue to learn it. Lastly, it instills a contempt toward subordinate languages and dialects. It makes it seem that they are not worthy enough to use in the classroom and that English is superior to them. Is this the impression we want to give our students: that certain languages are “better” than others? Not only does it shine a bad light on the languages, but also the speakers of these languages. They are categorized as deficit. Students need to see each other as equals whose language and background are something to be celebrated, not discriminated against. These reasons seem so clear to me and others in the class, so why can’t policy makers see them in the same light?