Friday, December 3, 2010
Response to today's town meeting: A policy of bilingualism or English-only
I just wanted to take this moment to share some of my thoughts that I didn't share in class on our discussion today. Most of you probably don't know that all of these discussions that we've been having about immigration concern me since I am an immigrant myself. Today I went for the English-only side because I believe that if you want to learn English, you have to place yourself in an English environment. I think that the more contact that you have with the foreign language, the faster you are going to learn it. Nevertheless, I think we should look at everybody's circumstances before we decide, because in my case for example, when I first came to this country, I barely knew how to say the word "HI". If I was put in an only-English speaking school when I first came, I wouldn't be here at BYU right now because I would have done terribly not understanding what was going on. Instead, I was placed on a bilingual school where translation was provided if needed. I didn't take any other foreign language classes because English was my foreign language. This way I was able to learn English while learning about math, history, and science. So, this is one of the benefits that bilingual schools provide. I am not saying that all schools should become bilingual because I believe that if we make the decision to come to this country, or any other country, we should become a part of that country, even if we still hold our traditions and our culture. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have very similiar experience with you because English is also not my first language. I agree that at the beginning of language learning process, it is important to have translation. especially for teenagers or adults.However, for little children, translation is not very neccessary because their language ability is still developing.I think that for learning a second language, the younger the better. Thus, immigrant children can learn English faster when they are in an English-only environment
ReplyDeleteI have been to many schools, but the most relevant to this situation I attended in 5th grade. Woodin Elementary struggled because of the number of students who spoke English as a second language. My brother's kindergarten class was divided in half: half the students spoke almost no English, and half spoke almost no Spanish. The teacher did not speak Spanish. My class fared a bit better as most all of the Spanish speakers had learned English, though to different degrees.
ReplyDeleteEventually, after we moved and attended another school, Woodin developed a bilingual program as an option for the younger students. I really do feel as this was the best option for the school, but for a reason I don't feel we touched on in class.
Frankly, I think there is incredible evidence to suggest that the best way to learn a language is immersion in that language. This point of debate does not seem productive to me. The question of bilingual programs in schools is another matter.
When I attended Woodin, we were renting a house, so when our lease was up, we moved to another house that was purposely in a different school's boundaries. Woodin was behind in reading, writing, math, history, and science. So much time was spent trying to communicate through a language barrier, education was not happening. My family fortunately had the means to place me in a different school, but not all families do.
The principle purpose of a school is to teach individuals how to function successfully in a particular society. In the United States, this does involve speaking English. However, it also involves all the general subjects. The solution to the language barrier in school cannot be all about how to teach the Spanish speakers English or how to help them retain their own language. Instead, it must be about how to help each student (English speaking or otherwise) learn how to function in society to the best of the school's ability.
Woodin needed their students to move forward as a whole more than they needed their ESL students to learn English. A program that taught English in the morning and Spanish in the afternoon allowed for this, though it, truthfully, probably slowed English acquisition, made finding a suitable teacher difficult, and didn't make it so a class could move as fast as a class that all spoke one language.
I agree that it is important for people to learn English and the best way to learn is to be totally immersed in it. It brings us back to that missionary comment made in class. In the MTC the language was taught but it was not fully learned or understood until out in the field. I think it is important to have bilingualism though. I think it should be up to the parents whether they want their child in the class or not and it would be great if the parents to continue the language and culture learning in the home but it can be provided by schools but not necessarily as effective. I think it would be a great idea to have some sort of optional voluntary program for any who need it. Although it is difficult to appease everyone of every language within the United States. It is important to keep bilingualism alive but it is essential to learn and understand English as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be some bilingualism to an extent. It is important to have translators for those who absolutely need them, but it is also important to push towards an English-only program. I liked the suggestion of a class on Saturday that these non-English speaking kids can go to so that they can develop their first language and learn their culture. This would be entirely optional but I think it would help push away some of the controversy and lead towards and English-only society.
ReplyDeleteI went with the English-only side because the way it was presented in class made it, ironically, seem like the most viable way of achieving bilingualism. By that I mean for those who speak a foreign language in the home, full English immersion seems the best way for them to gain proficiency in a second language.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, however, I feel both types of schools should exist and it should be up to the parents to decide. Forcing children into bilingual programs when they want to be fully immersed with English makes no sense to me.
I sympathize with the bilingual side in their desire to preserve native languages, but I don't think you can do that by applying the same policy to everyone equally. For example, those third or fourth generation immigrants who speak English fluently at home might very well find a bilingual school an effective way of preserving their culture. But, as mentioned above, for those who speak a foreign language at home and need help with English, immersion may be a much better option.