THE POLICY AND POLITICS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING IN THE

UNITED STATES

A Thesis Presented to

The College of Arts and Sciences

Ohio University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for Graduation

with Honors in Political Science

By

Paige C. Wilson

April 2019

1

Introduction

The United States has always been a country composed of immigrants, who bring with them their unique cultures, traditions, and languages. It has long been customary that these immigrants assimilate, or shed aspects of their own culture in order to become more like the dominant group. This is especially true for language.

Many believe that in order to be an American, you should learn to speak English. This sentiment can be seen in the recent comments of long time journalist for NBC News,

Tom Brokaw. During a panel discussion on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, Brokaw argued for the importance of Hispanic Americans to learn English. “I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation. That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time. You know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel comfortable in the communities.” Brokaw’s comments showed his belief that newly arriving Latino immigrants are not learning English. After a backlash grew among many citizens that his comments were offensive, Brokaw apologized stating that "I am sorry — I never intended to disparage any segment of our rich, diverse society which defines who we are… Finally, I am sorry I failed to convey my strong belief that diversity, dynamic and inclusive is what makes America."

Brokaw’s comments and the backlash that followed, help to reveal a prominent debate happening in the United States between those who argue in favor of assimilation and those who argue for multiculturalism, where many cultures are embraced and able to coexist in one unified country. Brokaw’s comments also show 2

how much of this debate centers on language. The assertion of many citizens that immigrants should learn to speak English has led to campaigns for English-only policies that seek to maintain English as the dominant language in the U.S. Language education policies are no exception to this movement. Around the turn of the 21st century, many movements emerged to only teach English in the classroom to immigrant children. Many rallied behind these language education policies that made it onto the ballot and were eventually passed in multiple states.

The movement that started it all began in California, with the passage of

Proposition 227 in 1998, a policy that mandated all public schools in California teach

English language learners (ELLs) using Structured English Immersion (SEI). The proposition was successfully passed on June 2nd, 1998 and then implemented throughout the state. This thesis will examine the movement of English-only education policies through a case approach analysis of California’s Proposition 227. The passage of California’s Proposition 227 was the first of its kind in the U.S., and being so it sparked a large debate. This policy inspired similar legislation in other states, where some went on to be successfully passed as well.

In Chapter One, this thesis provides an overview of the major policies in the

United States that have affected the education of ELLs. Federal policies, state policies, and multiple court cases, all have played a role in determining how to educate ELLs.

Chapter Two provides an examination of the various instructional methods for second language teaching. Two major methods for teaching English as a Second Language

(ESL) have characterized the policy debate in the U.S.: bilingual education programs, 3

and English immersion programs. Chapter Two provides a description of the two competing teaching methods and the background research that seeks to prove the effectiveness of each model. Finally, Chapter Three examines the ballot initiative,

California’s Proposition 227 and the different language ideologies used by the policy advocates who were for or against the proposition.

4

Chapter One: The Policy Landscape of U.S. Language Education Policy

Prior to the 1960s, the federal government paid little to no attention to ESL education. The federal government remained relatively quiet on all matters of education, leaving policy-making largely up to state and local governments. In fact, the Department of Education was not made a Cabinet level agency until 1980. Prior to then, it operated as the Office of Education, collecting information and statistics about the nation's schools and teaching practices (U.S. Department of Education). Political and social changes in the 1950s led to increased federal funding and involvement in education. Word War II and the Cold War led to the need for highly trained individuals to compete on a global scale in areas such as science, technology, mathematics, and foreign language. Then, in the 1960s and 70s, anti-poverty and discrimination laws led to an even more increased involvement of the federal government in education. The right to an equal education became important, and with that emerged a focus on English language learners (ELLs). The landscape for language education policy in the U.S. has been largely shaped by legislation that emerged from this era.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965

After his landslide win in the 1964 election, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “War on Poverty”. His aim was to reduce poverty rates by expanding the federal government’s role in education and healthcare. The Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 did just that by becoming the most far-reaching federal education policy ever passed by Congress. President Johnson recognized that student 5

achievement was considerably affected by poverty levels. Therefore, the ESEA sought to address the needs of impoverished children by shortening achievement gaps and emphasizing equal access to education (Carmichael 354). The act pledged a billion dollars every year to K–12 public schools in order to do this. Money was allotted to fund state and local educational agencies, school library resources, educational research, and state departments of education. Later, further amendments were added to provide funding for bilingual education and students with disabilities (Nelson 359).

Originally authorized in 1965, the act has been reauthorized every five years. Notable reauthorizations include the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act and the 2015 Every

Student Succeeds Act.

Title I accounts for a majority of funding that comes from the ESEA. Title I provides Federal aid to state educational agencies (SEAs), who then allocate the funds to local educational agencies (LEAs). Funds are provided to public schools in poor urban and rural areas that have high percentages of children in low-income families. In order to be eligible, at least 40% of students enrolled have to come from low-income families (National Center for Education Statistics). Title I also includes the allocation of funds to improve the number of dropouts and the schools overall, as well as to help children who are migrants, neglected, or at risk of abuse (Carmichael).

Title II was created to provide money for library resources, textbooks, and other materials, while Title III provided funds for supplementary education centers, services, and innovations. This included additional out of school programs and special education. Out of Title III, the National Diffusion network was created in 1974 to 6

federally fund innovative education projects. However, in 1995 the program was dissolved as part of a cost-cutting initiative. Titles IV, V, and VI outlined the allocation of funding to teachers and principals, research and training, grants to better state departments of education, and general provisions.

In 1968, Title VI and Title VII were added as amendments to the ESEA to aid students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency respectively.

Title VI provided federal aid to centers providing testing and evaluations, developing special programs, and assisting schools and other appropriate agencies. An emphasis was placed on providing funds to centers that assisted in the education and achievement of children with hearing and visual impairments. Furthermore, grants were authorized for encouraging individuals to become educators of disabled children, spreading information about educational programs and services for disabled children, carrying out these programs and services, and researching the education of disabled children. The amendment, titled the “Education of the Handicapped Act” sought to address the needs of children with every disability or health impairment. Title VII, titled the “Bilingual Education Act (BEA)” followed.

Bilingual Education Act

The BEA addressed the needs of students learning English as a second language for the first time, giving funds to schools directly and through competitive grants. The act recognized that a large number of students with limited English proficiency existed in the United States, and were in need of new and “imaginative” programs (Bilingual Education Act 34). Aid would be given for the training and 7

materials necessary to bilingual education programs. This included programs designed to bestow on students “a knowledge of the history and culture associated with their languages” (35). Also, efforts to establish a close cooperation between the home and the school of ELLs were made. Funds were included for adult education programs for the parents of children in bilingual education programs.

Although the act varied throughout the years, it always made room for bilingual education: two-way bilingual programs or dual language immersion programs. These programs offered support for the English language learners’ native language. The BEA reflected changes in political ideology towards diversity and immigration. It recognized the federal government’s responsibility to educate immigrant children, and did so by opening doors for bilingual education. These programs promoted linguistic and cultural diversity, rather than assimilation, by offering support in the student’s native language.

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

In the 1970s, matters of bilingual education were brought to court in landmark cases such as Lau v. Nichols of 1974, which was foundational in ensuring ELLs the right to equal education. The case originally began as part of a desegregation case, but became a case about English language instruction as a last resort for a Chinese-

American community that had been fighting for this for years. Almost 3,000 Chinese students had been integrated into the San Francisco Unified School District, but only about 1000 were offered supplemental English instruction. Only about 400 of the students who did receive assistance did so on a full-time basis (Del Valle 236). 8

Although the BEA was passed in 1968, funding for students with limited English proficiency was low. Parents of Kinney Kinmon Lau and other Chinese students filed a lawsuit against the school district and its president, Alan. H. Nichols. Students argued that they were not receiving an adequate education due to their limited English proficiency and that they were entitled to assistance under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Lau, relying on section 601 of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" in all programs that receive federal funding. It was decided that the inability to provide English assistance to the Chinese students denied them an equal opportunity to a meaningful education.

This court decision had an immense impact on bilingual education. It increased funding to the BEA and mandated additional English instruction. The Lau ruling was effectively extended to all public schools. Although the decision did not explicitly define bilingual education programs as the endorsed method of teaching for ELLs, many lower courts interpreted the Court’s decision this way. The federal government developed what became known as the Lau Guidelines, also referred to as the Lau

Remedies, to help school districts determine their compliance with the Lau v. Nichols decision. The guidelines outlined how to properly assess ELLs and meet their needs and did so by promoting transitional bilingual-education programs. Elementary school students who were monolingual speakers of another language other than English were to receive bilingual instruction, rather than English-only instruction (Del Valle 237).

Serna v. Portales (1974) 9

Just six months after Lau, the court case Serna v. Portales (1974) was decided.

The case addressed the needs of “Spanish-surnamed students” at Lindsey School, a white-majority school in New Mexico. This was the first case to raise the issue of bilingual education outside of the context of desegregation (Del Valle 235). It was again argued that, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ELLs were not provided with an adequate education. It was declared that the school and others create bilingual programs to address the needs of these students.

Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974

These court decisions were passed the same year as the Equal Educational

Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) passed to amend the ESEA. This became an important piece of legislation regarding the education of ELLs. Extending the trend of anti-discrimination and equal rights laws, the EEOA went s a step to further to solidify the right that every student has to an equal education. It prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin, and declared that the neighborhood in which a student lives should be what determines his or her school assignment. This was to prohibit intentional segregation and a forced school assignment to any school other than the one closest to the student. EEOA also included stipulations for the education of ELLs. The act declared as a denial of access to equal education “the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” While, the terminology was vague, “appropriate action” was viewed as the legal right for students to receive bilingual education, following the guidelines outlined by Lau. 10

For many years, bilingual education programs remained the norm. However, at the turn of the 21st century, we began to see a shift in political ideology. In the late

1980s and early 1990s, there was an increase in immigration. In fact, it was the largest increase since the early 1900s. Between 1980 and 1989, approximately 6.2 million individuals obtained lawful permanent residence in the U.S., and almost 1 million more came into the country as refugees. Between 1990 and 1999, another 9.8 million obtained lawful permanent residence, while another 1 million came as refugees (2016

Yearbook of Immigration Statistics). These numbers do not take into account the several immigrants that came not within the legal measures. Soon a debate began on how the country should respond to this large increase in immigration. Anti- immigration organizations emerged on the public stage calling for stricter immigration restrictions and border-control.

Legislation began reflecting this sentiment and a growing trend of English- only policies gained traction, often referred to as the “English Only Movement.” This political movement has sought to make English the official language of the United

States, and therefore the official language of all government operations. This trend can be characterized by legislation such as House Resolution 123, also referred to as the

English Language Empowerment Act of 1996. The resolution sought to make English the official language of the U.S. government, stating that representatives of the federal government must preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language by conducting all official business in English. The resolution also called for repeals of the

Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlined anti-discriminatory provisions for bilingual 11

voters. However, House Resolution 123 did not pass in the Senate and failed to become law. Federal and state education policies were greatly affected by the English- only movement. The nature of the ESEA began changing to favor English immersion programs, which started to force out bilingual education programs.

No Child Left Behind

As a reauthorization of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. NCLB was received with bipartisan support (Brenchley, par. 5). As the name would suggest, the intent of NCLB was to increase academic performance for all students and decrease existing achievement gaps. The Act sought to improve students’ performances by setting high standards and creating measurable goals. Emphasis was on annual testing and basic skills assessments given by states in order to receive federal school funding. These schools were expected to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), or in other words, have improved standardized test scores each year (Library of Congress).

For ELLs, NCLB emphasized a quick development of English proficiency through immersion and little support for the language learner’s native language.

Before, under the BEA, students typically had four to five years to transition into

English proficiency. Under NCLB, students were expected to gain English proficiency and take the same standardized tests as their native English peers within a period of three years. This period could be extended for two years on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, ELLs could receive special accommodations on tests, such as extra time, the explanation of directions in the student’s native language, and allowing students to 12

use an English or bilingual dictionary (Manna 127). Once a student was required to take their standardized tests in English, their scores would be counted in the ELL subgroup for up to two years to help schools avoid AYP failure. These testing and

AYP guidelines incentivized schools to identify students as ELLs for as long as possible, so to improve that subgroup’s performance. However, Title III of NCLB outlined provisions and incentives to help ELLs reclassify as proficient in English as soon as possible (Manna 129). These two parts of the law created a dilemma for educators.

NCLB emphasized accountability and was able to push state and local education officials to give attention to the achievement gap and disadvantaged groups.

However, results were not significant, and there were some key problems seen with

NCLB. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that improvements in student performance were only seen in 4th grade math, and both reading and math scores across whites, blacks, and Hispanics flattened out between 2007 and 2009

(Manna 135). Furthermore, achievement gaps hardly budged between subgroups.

Black and Hispanic students were still underperforming significantly compared to their white counterparts. As for the criteria of NCLB, it incentivized state and local school districts to alter their practices in order to meet AYP. Academic quality was sometimes compromised as school districts lowered their expectations in order to avoid AYP failures. One way this may have occurred was through the way the structure favored students scoring just below proficiency levels on state tests. Students near proficiency were easiest to move to the next level, and it would be strategic to 13

give more attention to these students to help meet AYP requirements. Students already ahead or extremely far behind would receive less attention (Manna 138).

Although the federal government has increased its role in more recent years with policies such as the ESEA, BEA, and EEOA, the states still play the primary role in creating and implementing education policy. Around the same time that NCLB was implemented, the country saw an emergence of state policies mandating similar

English-immersion programs for ELLs. Emphasizing a quick transition to English, these policies were a great contrast to the policies seen before, with bilingual education programs that allowed for significant support in the student’s native language.

Proposition 227

In 1998, California’s Proposition 227 banned instruction in any language other than English in California public schools. The proposition was largely promoted by conservative author and activist, Ron Unz, whose campaign was called “English for the Children.” Under the new law, schools were mandated to use English immersion to educate ELLs and to transfer students out of specialized language classes as quickly as possible. Students were to be transferred to the regular classroom as soon as they had acquired a working knowledge of English, which was expected to be in a time period of one year. The passage of proposition 227 reflected that popular opinion had moved towards assimilation and away from multiculturalism.

The parent or guardian of an ELL could obtain a waiver from the school to transfer their child to classes using bilingual education procedures or other methods 14

permitted by law. A parent could only do so under three circumstances. First, a waiver could be obtained if the student already possessed a good working knowledge of

English as measured by standardized tests. Second, the student was allowed if it were believed by school officials that an alternate method be better and he/she were 10 years of age or older. Finally, a waiver could be granted if the student was identified as having special needs. Proposition 227 was amended in September, 2014 to remove

English immersion requirements and waiver provisions. Under the amendments, parents and legal guardians of ELLs were now allowed to choose the language acquisition program they believed to be best for their child.

Proposition 203

Just a few years after the passage of California’s Proposition 227, Arizona followed suit with Proposition 203, also known as “English for the Children.” Similar to Proposition 227, Ron Unz was again a major supporter. Before, schools were free to decide between bilingual or immersion methods, but Proposition 203 eliminated bilingual education programs and limited ELL’s instruction to Structured English

Immersion (SEI). The SEI model claimed to be based on sound educational theory and research, as required by law.

The model required that students in their first year who were classified as

ELLs participate in English language development (ELD) for a minimum of four hours per day. During this time of ELD, teachers were to devote time only to the development of English language skills. This included work on pronunciation, forming sentence structures, learning vocabulary, and other language skills (Arizona 15

Department of Education). During these four hours students were separated from their native English speaking peers and taken away from the teaching of core subjects such as social studies, math and science. All teachers conducting instruction for SEI were required to have endorsements to do so, and middle and high school teachers were required to have a strong background as English or Language Arts teachers. The entirety of the class was to be taught in English.

The language education policies of California and Arizona set a trend for other states to follow. Many other states, such as Massachusetts and Colorado, for example, placed English-only education policies on the ballot as well. Both initiatives were on the ballot in 2002, and the initiative was successful in Massachusetts, but not in

Colorado.

Proposition 58

Proposition 227 was repealed by Proposition 58 on November 8, 2016, passing by a wide margin, with almost 61% in favor. Under Proposition 58, the public school systems were given the right to choose the way their students acquired English.

Students are still required to obtain English language proficiency, but they now have the option to be taught in an English-only environment or a bilingual environment.

Also, school districts are required to solicit more input from parents and the community in developing the language acquisition programs.

Horne v. Flores

In the 2009 court case Horne v. Flores, ELL students and parents, including

Miriam Flores, fought against the Arizona board of education and state superintendent, 16

Thomas Horne. They argued that the Nogales Unified School District failed to teach its students English. The district court ruled in favor of Flores stating that the amount of funding being allocated for the special needs of ELLs was arbitrary and not related to the actual funding needed to cover the costs of adequate ELL instruction. The

Arizona district court held that the state was violating the Equal Educational

Opportunity Act. However, Horne and other representatives argued that increases in state funding, changes in the management of the school district, and passage of NCLB had sufficiently altered the foundations of the district court's original ruling. The

Supreme Court overturned the decision in favor of Horne, agreeing that these factors had altered the foundations of the prior court ruling. States were allowed to determine their own requirements for ELL instruction. This concludes the discussion of the broader policy landscape. The next chapter will examine the different approaches to second language teaching.

17

Chapter Two: Approaches to Second Language Teaching

Embedded within the federal and state public policies are different instructional methods for second language learning. All of these policies impose a given specific instructional method of teaching into the schools for local educators to implement. Although education policies in the 1960s and 70s allowed for bilingual education programs, policies at the turn of the 21st century, such as NCLB,

California’s Proposition 227, and Arizona’s Proposition 203, demanded that schools implement English immersion programs. To better understand the two overarching sides of this policy debate, those who argue for bilingual education and those who argue for English immersion, it is important to examine the actual teaching methods used to implement these policies in more depth along with their respective rationales.

Bilingual Education

Prior to the emergence of alternative teaching methods, bilingual education dominated the schools in the United States. Bilingual education programs offer support in the student’s native language and encourage the use of both the student’s first language (L1) and second language (L2) in the classroom. The passage of the

1968 Bilingual Education Act (BEA) paved the way for the domination of these programs and always made room for bilingual education. In 1974, the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols further upheld this policy by declaring that the failure to provide supplemental language instruction in schools to ELLs violated the Civil Rights Act of

1964. 18

Bilingual education programs exist in multiple forms, including transitional/early-exit programs, maintenance/late-exit programs, and two-way bilingual education/dual language immersion. Early-exit programs combine the teaching of core content in the students’ native language with specialized English instruction. Students are transitioned into standard all-English classes as quickly as possible. This method has been the most commonly used in the United States.

In late-exit programs, students continue to learn a portion of their subject matter in their native language for several years. The goal is to provide confidence in the content areas in both languages as well as advantageous biliteracy skills. These programs do not emphasize acquiring English as soon as possible, but instead see this as a gradual learning process. The mastery of both L1 and L2 are seen as beneficial in the long run for students.

Similarly, two-way bilingual programs emphasize bilingual proficiency. This method of bilingual education is the most generous, as it embraces the student’s native language. Content instruction is mostly taught in the native language through early years, and then gradually reduced until the curriculum is divided into half and half, native and majority language. ELLs are paired in the classroom with native English speakers, and both groups benefit from the end goal of creating enriched bilingual individuals.

Arguments for bilingual education come from language theorists such as

Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell who argue for the Natural Approach. This methodology emphasizes the goal of basic personal communication skills through 19

activities that foster acquisition rather than implicit learning. In other words, a second language is most successfully learned naturally like one acquires a first language. In the Natural Approach, input, or the exposure learners have to the language being acquired, is placed at the center of the classroom (Krashen and Terrell 55). This is essential for all language learning. However, in the Natural Approach, teachers should allow students to make errors without explicit correction and “allow the natural order to take its course” (Krashen and Terrell 59). Students are not expected to consciously think of grammar when communicating but only when the focus is on form, such as in written work. This varies from the SEI model, wherein grammatical structure and form are actively incorporated into the classroom. Also important to the Natural

Approach, is the belief that student anxieties should be as low as possible. According to the Affective Filter Hypothesis, there is an affective filter between the speaker and listener who is learning the language. Emotions such as anxiety, self-doubt, or boredom can lower the amount of input that the listener is able to understand. If a learner experiences negative emotions, such as embarrassment, their affective filter is

“up” and their ability to successfully acquire the L2 is compromised (Krashen and

Terrell 59).

Krashen has long been a prominent voice in the bilingual education debate. He argues that developing literacy in the first language is beneficial to developing literacy in English. Children can learn to read more easily in their native language and then transfer these skills into English. Krashen strongly opposed Proposition 227 and similar policies that followed, becoming a political advocate for his approach. He 20

campaigned aggressively against the passage of this legislation by speaking at public forums and talk shows, giving interviews, and writing numerous letters against the proposition.

English Immersion/SEI

In English immersion programs, there is little or no support for the student’s native language, because the minority language is viewed as an obstacle to overcome in the overall learning process. Immersion is not to be confused with submersion, where nonnative speakers are placed into content-area classrooms with no special instruction and then are expected to “absorb” the target language. Immersion models of language teaching typically have been utilized in the teaching of foreign languages

(Brown and Lee 171). Unlike the submersion method, classes are specially designed for students to learn the subject-matter in the target language.

An increase in these kinds of immersion programs has been seen in the past 50 years, such as with the intensive French immersion programs in Canada (Brown and

Lee 58). These programs were designed to encourage bilingualism in Canada by immersing native-English speaking children into the minority language, French. The goal was to replace several English-only laws. The success of these French immersion programs influenced the development and implementation of new education policies in the United States at the turn of the 21st century. However, these education policies sought to do the opposite of the Canadian approach: force minority speakers to speak

English. Often referred to as English-only policies, California’s Proposition 227 and 21

Arizona’s Proposition 203 were passed in 1998 and 2000 respectively to implement what is known as Structured English Immersion (SEI).

The call for SEI was largely introduced by Keith Baker and Adriana de Kanter who laid out their argument for structured immersion in 1983. The purpose of their research was to question the effectiveness of the transitional bilingual education programs that were dominant in education at the time. The goal of structured immersion is for students to learn English as rapidly as possible. Instruction is in the

L2, but the immersion teacher understands the students’ L1. Students may address the teacher in the L1, but the teacher will primarily respond in the L2. The idea is that content is presented in a comprehensible manner to the students, and they are able to learn English and the content simultaneously (Baker and de Kanter 34). Unlike in transitional bilingual programs, the L1 is rarely used by the teacher and subject-matter is taught in English from the beginning of the program. The rationale for this method is that, in order to develop English proficiency and progress in other subjects, it is necessary to teach these subjects in English. Students learn English as they learn the subject-matter, and they learn the subject-matter through a level of English instruction that is compatible with their English proficiency. Baker and de Kanter believe the best way to learn English is by using it as much as possible, because for them, practice makes perfect.

Baker and de Kanter concluded that, while more research was needed, special programs, such as structured immersion, could improve achievement in ELLs. They believed that there was too much emphasis on transitional bilingual education, and no 22

consistent evidence to support it. Further, federal policy should be more flexible and allow for local schools to choose the effective instructional method best suited for their students (Baker and de Kanter 50-51). Structured immersion could be the best method if carried out effectively. Subject-matter and English must be taught simultaneously so that the subject-matter never gets ahead of language. Baker and

Kanter, however, maintain that more attention and research should be given to immersion methods (Baker and de Kanter 52-53).

In 2003, educator Johanna J. Haver published a guide to SEI for teachers and

Administrators wherein she claimed SEI to be the ideal format for teaching ELLs. She argued bilingual education was far too unstructured and claimed that SEI could offer a more structured approach to learning English. Submersion methods are too overwhelming and unreasonable. By contrast, SEI offers an organized plan of instruction in which children gain English fluency as quickly as possible (Haver xiv- xv). Haver cited research done on the French immersion programs in Canadian elementary schools as evidence to support the SEI model’s effectiveness. She also spoke of her own experience teaching both foreign languages and English as a second language (ESL) (Haver xii-xiii). While she agreed with some elements of the Natural

Approach, she also argued that teaching explicit grammar and language structure from the beginning was helpful.

Attempts to Prove Program Effectiveness

Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to determine which instructional method is most effective. The first notable study came from Baker and de 23

Kanter. Their argument in favor of SEI came as a result of an extensive study conducted for the U.S. Department of Education. In 1981, Baker and de Kanter produced a review of existing literature in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of bilingual education. After reviewing over 300 documents, they made conclusions based on 28 studies that they found to be methodologically sound. A few important conclusions were made regarding the effectiveness of early-exit bilingual programs.

First, there was not sufficient evidence to say that bilingual education was the best method. Therefore, the federal government could not justify the imposition of any specific instructional model. Rather, local schools should determine what model is best. Second, there was not enough evidence to show that learning core subjects in the students’ L1 was necessary for making academic progress. However, if core subjects were to be taught in English, it was necessary that the subject content be structured differently from that of their native-English speaking peers. Finally, they concluded that English immersion programs showed promising results and should be given more attention (Baker and de Kanter 159-162). This study led to their published book, wherein they outlined the findings of their study and further recommendations for the

SEI model.

In another attempt to determine the effectiveness of the different programs, another longitudinal study was published by the U.S. Department of Education in

1991. Often referred to as “The Ramirez Report”, this study examined the outcomes of three different methods of second language learning: structured English immersion and early-exit and late-exit bilingual education programs. They concluded their study 24

with four major findings (Ramirez 655). First, there was no significant difference in achievement rates between the immersion strategy and early-exit bilingual education programs. Second, in late-exit programs, substantial amounts of primary language instruction did not impede the students’ English acquisition in language and reading skills. Also, achievement growth in mathematics happened faster when substantial instruction was in the primary language, rather than a quick transition to English-only instruction. Finally, students in the late-exit programs experienced greater growth from first grade to third grade than from third grade to sixth grade. This growth pattern was like that of the mainstream student population. In the end, both structured immersion programs and late-exit bilingual programs were stated as viable alternatives to the more common early-exit bilingual programs (Ramirez 664-665).

Although the conclusions drawn from this study may seem neutral, many bilingual advocates used them to defend bilingual education. Bilingual education programs were certainly not shown as less effective by this report. Authors stated that students receiving instruction in their L1 should not be abruptly placed into English- only programs (Ramirez 668). There was also some suggestion from their research that students in late-exit bilingual experienced faster academic growth. A further benefit was that parents’ involvement in their child’s education was shown to be higher in these programs as well.

More studies were conducted, such as one published by Christine H. Rossell and Keith Baker in 1996. After examining 72 acceptable studies, they found that transitional bilingual education programs were never found to be superior to English 25

immersion. There was not enough research to support one program over the other.

Rossell and Baker concluded that the case for the widely accepted transitional bilingual programs was too shallow, and they suggested English immersion was the best program available, based on the evidence to date (Baker and Rossell). However, in a 2005 study review, Robert E. Slavin and Alan Cheung concluded that existing evidence showed bilingual education to be superior. Out of 13 studies that met their inclusion standards and focused on elementary reading for native Spanish speakers, nine favored bilingual teaching methods, while four showed no difference. A few other studies they examined showed bilingual approaches as being more effective as well (Slavin and Cheung).

Further studies and meta-analyses conducted by authors such as Virginia P.

Collier and Kellie Rolstad further argued that bilingual education programs were most effective. Collier and Thomas published the findings of their longitudinal study in

2004 entitled “The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All.”

They concluded that the two-way bilingual program model, or dual language immersion, had numerous benefits and was the most effective of all programs. Across the 23 different school districts they examined over 18 years, two-way bilingual programs proved their effectiveness. ELLs in two-way bilingual programs outscored their peers in early-exit and late-exit bilingual programs on both Spanish and English reading comprehension tests. The authors also argued that two-way bilingual programs had the ability to make the school community more supportive and inclusive for all

(Collier and Thomas). In 2005, Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass concluded that early-exit 26

bilingual programs were better than SEI programs, and that late-exit bilingual programs were best (Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass). The same year, these authors also released a smaller-scale study conducted in the state of Arizona. The study’s purpose was to address the recent implementation of SEI, put into place by Proposition 203.

They concluded that the SEI model in place was at odds with evidence shown by research. They suggested that it be replaced with a policy allowing local educators to choose the approach they prefer (Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass).

Moving Back to Local Choice

Legislation like Arizona’s Proposition 203 imposed the statewide implementation of English immersion programs, taking away the right of local school districts to decide for themselves which programs should be implemented. The same concern was raised with respect to California’s Proposition 227. However, since the implementation of these policies, states have returned to local choice. California’s

Proposition 58, in 2016, repealed previous restrictions on bilingual education. It returned the power to local schools, allowing them to decide whether ELLs should be taught through SEI or bilingual programs. Supporters of the SEI model viewed the passage of Proposition 58 as a huge mistake. They suggested that the language of

Proposition 58 was deceptive, and that many voters did not know they were voting to repeal Proposition 227. Voters simply thought they were supporting the continued commitment of public schools to ensure ELLs obtain English proficiency (Miller 20).

For starters, there was much less media coverage for Proposition 58 then there had been for Proposition 227. For example, The Los Angeles Times only mentioned 27

Proposition 58 in a dozen articles in 2016, while it mentioned Proposition 227 in nearly 400 articles in 1998 (Miller 21). Then, what voters read in their ballots on election day did not clearly state Proposition 58 as a repeal of Proposition 227. A field poll points toward this sentiment. When the ballot language was first read to them, 69 percent of California voters said they favored Proposition 58. When they were read a version that mentioned the repeal of Proposition 227, support fell by 30 percent, and a small majority of 51 percent said they opposed the ballot measure (Miller 21).

There was further suggestion that neoliberal policy discourse was used to promote the passage of Proposition 58. Neoliberalism in education policy supports reducing the role of the states in education policy and introducing public school privatization when possible. Indeed, there should be competition among schools for students and resources because, as neoliberals argue, it will improve the quality of education overall. Noah Katznelson and Katie A. Bernstein suggest that the proposition marketed multilingual education as key to the success and advantage of students, the state of California, and the nation as a whole (Katznelson and Bernstein

11). By using the term “multilingual” as opposed to “bilingual”, the authors of

Proposition 58 avoided the stigma of bilingual education, and appealed to a larger population of voters. This would suggest individuals did not vote in favor of the proposition because they were unhappy with the mandated SEI model, but that they were swayed by neoliberal policy discourse. For example, the text stated that

California employers “are actively recruiting multilingual employees because of their ability to forge stronger bonds with customers, clients, and business partners” 28

(Katzenelson and Bernstein 16). The text also pointed to multilingualism as

“necessary for our country's national security and essential to conducting diplomacy and international programs” (Katzenelson and Bernstein 16). The first quote points to the language as an economic resource, while the second points to language as a resource for national security. Framing multilingualism in primarily economic terms suggests the influence of neoliberal views in the text.

In 2018, an attempt was made in Arizona to repeal Proposition 203 with HB

2435. The bipartisan bill initially sought to eliminate the statewide requirement of SEI, and return power back to local schools. Upon compromise, it was amended to require students participate in a four hour block of SEI for one year and then be allowed to reduce the required hours (Stephenson). However, the bill died in the chamber at the hands of Arizona Senate President Steve Yarbrough. Senate president Yarbrough believed in the effectiveness of the four hour block, and therefore held the bill, not allowing it to move to the Senate floor for a vote (Arizona Education Association 2).

There has not been another bill of this kind proposed since the failure of HB 2435.

Every Student Succeeds Act

In the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), President Barack Obama replaced NCLB by signing into law the Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The final version of ESSA was passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support in 2015. The greatest change made between NCLB and

ESSA was that ESSA returned greater control to states and local school districts to set standards for student achievement. States are asked to set their own standards and 29

goals for student achievement that are then approved by the U.S. Department of

Education. Annual testing is still required in grades 3 to 8 and grade 11 to determine the success of the plans’ implementation, but states have to keep low-performing schools accountable. States are responsible for deciding what intervention is necessary to improve such schools. Another significant part of ESSA is its commitment to high academic standards that prepare students for success in college and careers. Schools are required to provide college and career counseling and advanced coursework to all students, and not just a select few (Darrow).

A lot of research has been done in an attempt to determine what model is best for second language teaching. The research is broad and extensive, but has shown varying results. Many advocates of English immersion and the SEI model pointed to studies that showed its promise, while advocates of bilingual education pointed to different studies that validated the existence of bilingual education programs. The reality is that neither model has been proven undeniably superior. Many of the researchers concluded that more research needed to be done in the area of second language teaching in the U.S. Furthermore, results vary because the needs of ELLs vary. A given model may work better for some students in one context, but not in another.

These inconclusive findings raise the question of what then leads to the strong advocacy of one program over another in forming public policy. If neither program has strong validation of being superior, why do movements arise that lead the public to 30

believe otherwise? As will be seen through the analysis of California’s Proposition

227, political ideology plays a role in enhancing the arguments of both sides.

31

Chapter Three: Language Ideologies and Second Language Teaching: A Case

Analysis

There are several different ways to define language ideologies. Emphasizing the social aspect, Judith T. Irvine defines language ideologies as "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests” (Woolard, Schieffelin, and Kroskrity 4). Shirley B. Heath defines them as “self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of the group.” Another definition, given by Michael Silverstein, is that language ideologies are "sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Woolard, Schieffelin, and

Kroskrity 4). More broadly, Alan Rumsey defines them as "shared bodies of common sense notions about the nature of language in the world” (Woolard, Schieffelin, and

Kroskrity 4). Regardless of how language ideologies are defined, the significance is that language affects the social and political worlds. For the purpose of my thesis, I will use the definition of language ideologies set forth by Irvine.

Two studies of language ideologies appear widely in disciplines such as anthropology and linguistics: neutral and critical. In neutral studies of ideology, all cultural systems are represented by a single shared ideology. People’s beliefs or ideas about language are said to be shaped by the culture they live in, so every person in a shared community or culture possesses the same ideology. For example, a nation-state 32

would be examined as having one shared language ideology that differs from that over other nation-states and people groups.

By contrast, critical studies of language ideology focus on the role that language plays in social domination. Critical studies examine language politics, language and power structure, and language and social class. This approach focuses on the power differences that emerge from the language hierarchies embedded in a particular society. This thesis will draw on the critical study of language ideology.

This will be useful in examining the United States, where a power structure exists based on linguistic differences. English-Only policies can be seen as the result of a traditional power structure, where the dominant group, native speakers of English, maintains its power over minority groups, non-native English speakers (Cummins).

According to Jim Cummins, elements of intimidation, racism, and xenophobia cannot be ignored as elements within that structure. These linguistic differences and the power structures they create have led to political debates about the speaking and teaching of second languages. This chapter will examine how shifts in language education policy are shaped by different language ideologies.

Richard Ruiz established a foundation for understanding the common orientations found in language planning and policy in 1984. Orientations are defined as attitudes toward languages and their speakers, and toward language and the roles language plays in society. Ruiz proposes three prominent orientations found in the

United States and elsewhere: language as a right, language as a problem, and language as a resource (Ruiz). 33

With the first orientation, language as a problem, monolingualism is valued because it reinforces the need to learn the dominant language. Speaking a non- dominant language “is a problem” and should not be encouraged through teaching approaches. Moreover, policies should be in place to eliminate multilingualism. In this view minority languages are seen as a threat to national unity and the status of the dominant majority language. Therefore, speaking a minority language is defined as a communicative disability or an obstacle to overcome. Maintaining fluency in the minority language is seen as unnecessary, because the only aim is to transition into a speaker of the majority language. Those who see minority languages as a problem are more likely to support English-only education policies. They believe that bilingual education programs increase social divisiveness as well as hinder the development of learning the majority language. Bilingualism will only lead to greater cognitive difficulties and academic deficit for the students involved. Consequently, mainstream immersion programs are favored over bilingual education (Hultz 33).

Those who possess the language as a right orientation emphasize language’s ability to mediate access to society, such as in employment, healthcare, education, and media. There is concern that linguistic inequality leads to social inequality, because speaking and maintaining one’s own language is a human right. Those who recognize language as a right assert that language is a personal freedom, and civil rights may not be denied to individuals because of their linguistic abilities. Focus can be on both an individual's right to attain proficiency in the dominant majority language and creating opportunities to maintain proficiency in one’s native language. Those with the view 34

that language is a right emphasize equal access to education, and plural approaches to the teaching of a second language. They would defend a student’s right to bilingual education programs (Hultz 33).

Under the language as a resource orientation, multilingualism and cultural diversity are the most deeply valued. Here, there is space for linguistic diversity within national unity. Languages are seen as resources for everyone, not just those who speak a minority language. Those aligned with this orientation believe that those who can speak a minority language have unique expertise that can enhance a society extrinsically through their linguistic contributions. These contributions include national security, diplomacy, business, media, public relations, and more. Alongside these extrinsic values, the intrinsic values of language are recognized, such as cultural reproduction, community relations, building self-esteem, civic participation, and more.

Because of these benefits, bilingualism or multilingualism can enhance academic achievement and citizenship. Thus, academic programs suggested by this orientation focus on creating bilingual or multilingual individuals. Programs may be designed for minority language students, or both minority language students and students proficient in the dominant majority language (Hultz 33). The proposal of two-way bilingual programs would be mostly likely under this orientation. All three orientations, language as a problem, language as a right, and language as a resource, can be seen in the debate that surrounds California’s Proposition 227.

The History of Language in California 35

Language has long been a contested topic in California, ever since the state was ceded from Mexico in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty officially ended the Mexican-American War and left over half of Mexico’s territory to the U.S., including present day California (U.S. National Archives). The approximately 80,000 Mexican natives (Noel 435) living within the new boundaries of the U.S. were offered citizenship and promised basic rights under Article VIII and IX of the treaty. These individuals were given a year to decide whether they wanted to remain Mexican citizens or become citizens of the U.S. They were promised the right to keep their property and to be incorporated into the union of the United States, obtaining all the rights of a U.S. citizen (U.S. National Archives). The Mexican natives who decided to stay kept their own unique culture and traditions, and of course, their language. Spanish speakers have been a large part of California communities for over 150 years. Increased immigration in the 1980s and 1990s to the

U.S. only increased the number of Spanish speakers in the state. By 2018, it was estimated that nearly 29% of people in California speak Spanish in the household

(Statistical Atlas).

Over the years there has been growing sentiment from many citizens and policy-makers that all Californians should learn to speak English, as can be seen by the passage of Proposition 63. In California’s 1986 midterm election, Proposition 63 was passed as a state constitutional amendment that made English the official language of California. The amendment stated that the legislature would “take all steps necessary to ensure that the role of English as the common language of the state of 36

California is preserved and enhanced” and to “make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of California” (Dyste

314).

The leading advocate of California’s English Language Amendment (ELA) was Republican Senator S.I. Hayakawa of California. Born to Japanese immigrant parents in 1906 in Vancouver, Canada, Hayakawa later became a naturalized citizen of the U.S. in the 1950s (U.S. English). Before becoming a politician, Hayakawa was an academic scholar, specializing in the fields of English, linguistics, and semantics. He was a lecturer or professor at several universities, including San Francisco State

College, where he eventually became the president in 1968. Advocating for English as an official language, Hayakawa sought policy change beyond California and founded

“U.S. English” in 1983, “the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States” (U.S.

English). “U.S. English” still exists today, with over 2 million members nationwide.

Through the passage of California’s ELA, Hayakawa wanted to ensure that no other language could ever be named the second official language for the state. He stated

“I'm not thinking of today, but of the 21st century” (Dyste 316). He feared a future in which there would no longer be a majority dominant language of English. In response to counter arguments that Proposition 63 was racist, Hayakawa wrote “Proposition 63 is a measure to strengthen the ties that bind together all of us, of whatever national origin or race, through the magical bond of a common language” (Dyste 316). He claimed that linguistic differences would only lead to greater division and conflict and 37

that an official language could prevent, or at least reduce, this inevitable conflict. His arguments appealed to American patriotism and the idealized vision of an indivisible nation (Dyste 316).

Further arguments for Proposition 63 emphasized assimilation. Assembly

Member, Republican Frank Hill, asserted that bilingual education and bilingual public services were harmful to national unity and would only lead to the further separation of immigrants. Hill opposed measures that allowed non-native speakers of English access to public services in their first language, and thought that ELLs should learn

English as quickly as possible. Arguing against bilingual education he stated “'If we don't transition children as quickly as possible into English speaking classrooms, bilingual education will become a guilty party in the growing trend to isolate immigrants into language barrios” (Dyste 316). Hill saw Proposition 63 as a starting point for ultimately ending bilingual education.

Hayakawa and Hill’s arguments for the California English Language

Amendment fit under Ruiz’s language as a problem orientation. Minority languages are a problem because linguistic differences threaten assimilation and national unity.

In Hayakawa’s argument, a common language forms a “special bond” among a nation and minority languages have the potential to disrupt this bond. This is characteristic of

Ruiz’s language as a problem orientation in which monolingualism is valued and minority languages threaten the status of the dominant majority language. Hill further argued for the importance of assimilation and national unity through a dominant majority language, asserting that bilingual education programs were detrimental to 38

assimilation. Those who identify with the language as a problem orientation would assert that bilingual language development leads to social divisiveness. Hill went as far to argue that immigrants who could not speak English would remain isolated from everyday social life. Hill’s assumption can be traced back to the common idea of the

U.S. as a melting pot. In his common catch-phrase he stated “The melting pot has served this nation for two hundred years. The ingredients may have varied, but this is no time to change the recipe” (Dyste 317).

Proposition 63 would not be the last piece of legislation to affect immigrants in the state of California. In November 1994, California’s Proposition 187, an initiative known as “Save Our State” (SOS) was passed with approval of nearly 60 percent. The legislation would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving public services and benefits from the state, including health care and public education. Additionally, public service workers were required to report any persons they suspected to be undocumented to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The initiative was promoted by former INS agents and politicians, including Republican

Governor Pete Wilson (Neumann). Wilson and his supporters pointed to the high cost of illegal immigration as their reason for the policy. Leading up to Proposition 187,

Wilson filed a lawsuit against the federal government requesting to be reimbursed for the money spent incarcerating and providing education and emergency medical care for illegal immigrants (Neumann). Opponents argued that the policy was discriminatory against Latinos and other immigrants, and, immediately after its passage, they filed a lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer ruled 39

Proposition 187 unconstitutional on the grounds that regulations to immigration were solely a responsibility of the federal government. The state never appealed, and the proposition was never implemented.

Just two years later, another piece of legislation concerning Latinos and other minorities was introduced in California. In November 1996, Proposition 209, an anti- affirmative-action measure known as the “California Civil Rights Initiative”, was on the ballot. Proposition 209 would prohibit any state institution from giving preferential treatment based on sex, race, or national origin in public education, employment, and contracting. Governor Wilson was again a supporter of the initiative. Professor Erwin

Chemerinsky, wrote a leading article opposing Proposition 209. He concluded that the initiative would have a devastating effect on the progress already achieved in the fight against the discrimination of women and minorities (Hadley 106). However, a majority of Californians supported the measure, and it passed by an 8% margin.

Support came overwhelmingly from white voters, with 63% of white voters in favor of the measure. Only 26% of black voters, 24% of Latino voters, and 39% of Asian voters were in favor of the measure (Hadley 105). These numbers show the deep divide that existed between whites and minorities on this initiative. An executive order was quickly issued after the passage of Proposition 209 by Governor Wilson and

Attorney General Dan Lungren, instructing all state agencies to comply immediately with the proposition.

California's Proposition 227 40

In 1998, California’s state legislature passed Proposition 227, known as the

“English for the Children” initiative, winning over 61 percent of the vote (California

Secretary of State). Briefly, Proposition 227 banned instruction in any other language other than English in public schools, mandating all schools to use English immersion programs to teach ELLs. The initiative was created by California native, Ron Unz, a financial software entrepreneur and former political candidate for the Republican

Party. Unz established the English for the Children movement after hearing about a boycott led by Las Familias del Pueblo, a community program based in downtown Los

Angeles. Latino parents were boycotting Ninth Street School because they were unhappy that their students were not learning English (Haver 11). Although many members of the Latino community may have supported Unz’s Proposition 227, several prominent groups, including Latino organizations, opposed the measure. Some of these groups included the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the California Bilingual Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Latino Civil Rights Network, the Educational Alliance for the

California School Boards Association, the California Association of School

Administrators, and both teachers unions: the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association (Haver 13).

To many, the initiative was an ideological battle. Opponents of Proposition 227 argued that the initiative was another part of the English Only Movement, harming the language rights of linguistic minorities and the value of cultural diversity by reinforcing English as the dominant language. Opposition existed among both 41

Democrats and Republicans and many advocates, such as linguist scholars Jim

Cummins and Stephen Krashen.

Krashen was a major voice in the bilingual education debate. Given his background in linguistics and second language acquisition, much of his work argued for the effectiveness of bilingual education. Krashen argued that developing literacy skills first in a student’s native language was beneficial to their reading development in the second language. Therefore, ELLs in the U.S. would be better off to develop literacy skills in their first language and then transfer these skills to English (Krashen).

In his 1996 monograph Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education,

Krashen addressed the rising sentiment against bilingual education by offering counter arguments that supported bilingual education. Krashen argued that most individuals’ opposition to bilingual education was misinformed. First, a person’s objection to bilingual education was often based on the implementation of bilingual education and not the theory itself. When asked if they supported bilingual education at the expense of successful English language development and school success, parents understandably said “no.” If they were asked whether they supported bilingual education or asked about the underlying principles of bilingual education, a large majority agreed (Krashen 49). Krashen also contested the idea that English is in trouble in the United States and suggested the presence of intergenerational shift. This is the finding that the use of English is more common among children than their parents, who use the first language more often than their children (Krashen 51). This 42

would suggest that it was not English that was in trouble, but rather the native language.

Finally, Krashen concluded that the best way to overcome the opposition to bilingual education is to improve it: “Make bilingual education so successful that there is simply no doubt to its effectiveness” (Krashen 65). The biggest change that should take place, Krashen argued, was more reading. Reading in both the native language and target language, especially voluntary reading, causes literacy development.

However, ELLs have little access to books at home and in their schools (Krashen 69).

In one study done throughout three school districts in Southern California, it was found that eight out of nine schools averaged less than 6 books per child in their school libraries. The national average at the time for elementary school libraries was about 18. As for books in their native language, they were even more drastically understocked. For Spanish speakers, there was only one book or less in their native language available per student (Pucci 1994). Krashen’s findings suggest that the methodology behind bilingual education is not the issue, but rather the implementation. With some minor changes, according to Krashen, bilingual education would undeniably be the best method for second language teaching in the U.S.

Proponents of California’s Proposition 227 were quick to criticize Krashen and the methodology used in his study. Reporter Jill Stewart published an article, titled

“Krashen Burn” just days before the vote on the initiative. The article criticized

California’s bilingual programs and accused Krashen of being motivated by personal gain. An architect of California’s bilingual programs, Krashen had profited immensely 43

from the implementation of his theories. According to Stewart’s article, public records indicated that Krashen charges $250 an hour to train teachers and public officials in his bilingual methods (par. 56). By way of these services and many published books,

Krashen has become a very wealthy man, able to purchase a $700,000 home in Malibu in 1995 (Stewart, par. 59). Stewart asserted that Krashen’s campaign against

California’s Proposition 227 was motivated by his “mini-empire, which relies upon school districts, curriculum companies, and universities who embrace his theories as fact” (par. 55). Those in favor of bilingual education, such as Krashen and Cummins, would have a lot to lose from the passage of Proposition 227.

Stewart criticized the foundations of Krashen’s theories and arguments for bilingual education by looking to other academic scholars, such as Christine Rossell.

In her research, Rossell found the studies proving the effectiveness of bilingual programs to be few. She criticized Krashen for not having enough valid research to support his claims. According to Rossell, most of the hundreds of studies done on bilingual education did not use scientifically accepted methods and were done by bilingual supporters who skewed their research (Stewart, par. 9). Only a small number of studies conducted with sound research showed modestly positive results for transitional bilingual programs, and Krashen referred to these studies tirelessly throughout the campaign.

Critics of Krashen also claimed that he used leftist ideology to advance his arguments in favor of bilingual education. Krashen often cited the research of David

Ramirez, professor and head of the Center for Language Minority Education and 44

Research at California State University, Long Beach, to prove the effectiveness of bilingual education. However, Stewart claimed that Ramirez was motivated by his political ideology, because he views the continuation of bilingual education as a way to resist the oppressive aspects of English-only policies. When speaking to the New

Times, Ramirez said “Women and people of color and many language groups don't enjoy the same socio-political economic resources that white males do, and language has been used in the U.S. throughout its history to disenfranchise such people. The idea that you need English to succeed in America is a crock.” (Stewart, par. 69).

Ramirez’s statements were in line with the argument of Cummins: that a power structure exists in the U.S. that favors the dominant language, English, over any other language. Those who speak English hold power in American society in the form of greater access to socio-political economic resources. Because English is the dominant language in the U.S., a monolingual society, they have easier access to public services, education, and higher-paying jobs. Those who do not speak English are deprived of these same opportunities. According to Cummins, unless individuals in the majority group (those who speak English) challenge the system, they are maintaining its continuation and power over minority language speakers. Maintaining English as the dominant language is advantageous to them, because they continue to experience greater access to resources in the society. The SEI model of Proposition 227 makes no room for the advancement of an ELL’s native language. This enforces English as the dominant language, and as such, supports the continuation of a power structure where 45

speakers of English are superior to those who do not speak English as their first language.

Ramirez felt strongly about fighting against this power structure. Ramirez stated that his fight against Proposition 227 "is just a first rung in our effort to get

California kids going multilingual and not relying on English as we are today, which makes no economic sense" (Stewart, par. 68). Ramirez envisioned an American society in which multilingualism is embraced fully. He also argued that there are economic benefits to multilingualism. Ramirez’s assertions align with both language as a right and language as a resource orientations.

Those who identify with the language as a right orientation are most concerned with how linguistic inequality contributes to social inequality. Language mediates one’s access to society in areas such as education, employment, voting, healthcare, and other public services. Ramirez identifies with this orientation because he is concerned about minority speakers’ ability to access these critical resources in society. It is a person’s human right to maintain their native language, and access to civil rights should not be denied based on a person’s linguistic ability. Those who identify with the language as a right orientation argue in favor of educational programs that allow for the development of multiple languages. This is also characteristic of Ramirez, who argues for the continuation of bilingual education.

Ramirez also aligns with the language as a resource orientation because he asserts that relying on English as we do today “makes no economic sense.” In his fight against Proposition 227, Ramirez recognized the continuing effects of globalization 46

and the benefits that exist in multilingualism. Under the language as a resource orientation, multilingualism and cultural diversity are valued, because languages hold intrinsic and extrinsic values. These include but are not limited to national security, diplomacy, business, media, community relations, and civic relations. Ramirez argued that the U.S. would be better off to accept and promote multilingualism because of these many values.

In contrast to Ramirez, Linda Chavez views minority languages as a barrier to the process of assimilation, which is something she believes every American immigrant must do. Chavez is the chairman for the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank that focuses on issues of race and ethnicity such as immigration, affirmative action, voting, and bilingual education (Center of Equal

Opportunity). Chavez views assimilation as a natural and essential part of becoming an American, and she states that immigrants have been doing this for centuries.

Hispanic immigrants are no exception. In Out of the Barrio: Toward a New Politics of

Hispanic Assimilation, Chavez presents research that shows how hispanic immigrants are successfully assimilating just as immigrants did in the centuries before.

In line with her view of assimilation, Chavez does not support bilingual education programs, because the only goal of minority language students should be to learn English. She was a supporter of Proposition 227 and fought against its eventual repeal, Proposition 58. Chavez wrote that “The proponents of reinstating bilingual education in California seem far more interested in expanding the use of Spanish in

American life than they do in helping children learn English. And that’s a problem, 47

especially for those who want to encourage a change in our immigration laws that would make it easier for people to come here legally” (Chavez 51). Chavez does not want to expand the use of minority languages in society, but instead hopes that the

U.S. remain a monolingual nation where English is dominant. Minority languages are seen as a problem to Chavez because they are a barrier to successful assimilation.

Chavez’s opposition to bilingual education can be seen as the result of her language as a problem orientation. Those who see language as a problem view multilingualism as a threat to assimilation and national unity. Under this orientation of language planning, monolingualism is valued and policies seek to eliminate multilingualism. The maintenance of minority languages is unnecessary, and language education should seek to transition students into the majority language as soon as possible. This orientation also relies strongly on the skepticism that bilingual programs focus on the acquisition of minority languages at the expense of acquiring the dominant majority language. In the case of the U.S. this would be English. Therefore, individuals who view language as a problem favor English immersion programs.

While Chavez strongly supporters assimilation, she also asserts that she is pro- legal immigration. She argues that immigrants have always been a vital part of the

United States economy, contributing to the workforce in a positive way by taking several necessary jobs that many Americans are unwilling to (“Linda Chavez on

Immigration and American Identity”). She believes that it is in the best interests of immigrants entering the U.S. to learn English. Therefore, they will be able to 48

assimilate and become a part of the American people. Chavez pointed out that not all groups were as willing to welcome immigrants into American society.

Both Chavez and Unz identify as politically conservative, but neither want to be associated with the emergence of white nationalists and alt-conservative groups.

Some of the strongest anti-immigration groups argue against legal immigration altogether, because they believe that newly arriving immigrants will not learn English.

By sheer force of numbers, Spanish will become the dominant language, and “we will all be forced” to speak Spanish (Chavez 51). Many of these same groups claim to support bilingual education, but their support stems from their view that bilingual education actually helps to maintain segregation. Leading ultra-right groups were in support of bilingual education programs and voiced their support for Proposition 58, which repealed Proposition 227 in 2016. These groups were against assimilation and consequently believed bilingual education was good because it kept white children and latino children apart in the classroom.

Similar to Chavez, Unz strongly asserted that he was pro-legal immigration.

Unz, the mastermind behind “English for the Children” made it a big point on his platform that he was an outspoken critic of Proposition 187, legislation that would have prevented undocumented immigrants from accessing public services and education. In responses to claims of anti-Latino racism, Unz brought up that he was a featured speaker at a huge anti-187 rally in downtown Los Angeles (Havar 13). This was as if to say that his opposition to an anti-immigration bill proved that he could never write a bill that was discriminatory against Latinos. Unz identified Proposition 49

227 as a pro-immigration bill, because the legislation would increase funding for the education of immigrant children by $50 million a year (“English Isn’t Racism” par. 5).

Unz also made mention of the ultra-right groups that were in favor of bilingual education.

One of America’s leading white nationalists, Richard Spencer, voiced his support for bilingual education in a tweet: “Contra Ron Unz, I oppose forcing

Hispanic children to learn English; I encourage them to maintain their culture”

(“English and Meritocracy…” par. 6). Spencer is president of the National Policy

Institute, a white nationalist think tank that advocates for the unity and advancement of “people of European descent in America and around the world” (NPI). He was featured as a speaker at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and coined the term “alt-right” or alternative right. When Spencer says that he wants

Hispanics to maintain their culture, he is asserting that he wants them to maintain their culture separate from American culture, so that they remain on the margins of society.

Spencer is against assimilation, and believes there should be no space for non-whites in the future of America. Because he is against assimilation, he opposes English immersion programs under the assumption that they are better for teaching immigrant children English.

Unz also points out the support for bilingual education that comes from Jared

Taylor and his supporters. Taylor is the executive editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine that focuses on white identity and defines itself as “race-realist.” This is to say that there are real differences and problems related to race that cannot be 50

ignored and racial separatism should be a welcomed freedom (American Renaissance).

In response to an article by Unz, many commenters on Taylor’s website, American

Renaissance, voiced their opposition to Proposition 227. Many of the comments were offensive and racially charged. One comment read “I'm in favor of anything that discourages integration/assimilation. Do you want blacks to assimilate into your neighborhood? When Mexicans and blacks have their own teachers and police and neighborhoods that means we'll have ours” (“California Republicans Vote…”). This comment shows how Taylor and his followers are against assimilation and support the de facto segregation of immigrant and minority groups.

Unz and Chavez wanted to make citizens aware of ultra-right groups in an attempt to bolster their arguments in favor of Proposition 227 and English immersion programs. They wanted citizens to believe that favoring Proposition 227 did not mean they or others were racist or anti-immigrant. They defended themselves by asserting that they were pro-legal immigration, and that they wanted only what was best for immigrant and Latino interests. In one of his articles, Unz defended Proposition 227 as a pro-immigration bill and even titled it “English Isn’t Racism.” Unz felt he had to be aggressive in defending his policy. By separating themselves from these alt- conservative groups, Unz and Chavez sought to gain credibility for their own beliefs about bilingual education, while also criticizing all advocates of the English immersion model.

Voices on both sides of the bilingual education debate align with one or more of Ruiz’s orientations in language planning: language as a right, language as a 51

resource, or language as a problem. Supporters and critics use these orientations to bolster their arguments and convince constituents that one teaching method is better than the other. Proponents such as Cummins, Krashen, and Ramirez see language as a right and language as a resource. Critics of bilingual education such as Unz and

Chavez see language as a problem.

Cummins argues that native-English speakers maintain power over minority language speakers by enforcing English as the dominant language. The SEI model rejects the advancement of ELLs’ native languages, and therefore perpetuates the power structure that favors those who speak English. Ramirez and advocates argue that this power structure violates a person’s natural right to maintain his/her native language. Forcing out bilingual education programs from schools that allow for the development of an ELL’s native language denies students this right. Additionally, it requires that everyone learn to speak English through the implementation of English- only policies, thereby limiting the access of public resources to minority language speakers. Restricted access to education, healthcare, and political participation, no doubt, contributes to social inequality.

Unz and Chavez see language as a problem because it is a barrier to assimilation. They believe that ensuring English as the dominant language leads to national unity. They assume that bilingual education in the U.S. is a barrier to an

ELL’s acquisition of the majority language, English, which they believe students should learn as quickly as possible. The maintenance of minority languages in unnecessary, and they believe it can hinder this process of assimilation. Unz and 52

Chavez also assert that language is a problem by citing alt-conservative groups who believe that bilingual education helps to maintain the de facto segregation of immigrants in American society. Although, Unz and Chavez do not align with the ideals of such groups, they do believe bilingual education programs are not advantageous for ELLs and immigrant families. By pointing out that alt-conservative groups support bilingual education, they hope to convince citizens that that ought to oppose bilingual education.

53

Conclusion

In Chapter One, this thesis examined the policy landscape of language education policy in the United States. Federal and state policies, as well as courtroom decisions, have all played a role in the education of ELLs. Federal education policies, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Equal

Educational opportunities Act of 1974, declared it the responsibility of the U.S. to provide ELLs with a quality education. Additionally, decisions have been made in the courtroom to address the needs of ELLs: Lau v. Nichols, Serna v. Portales, and Horne v. Flores. Finally, states have implemented policies that mandate how ELLs should be instructed, such as California’s Proposition 227.

Chapter Two discussed the different approaches to second language teaching and their respective rationales. The two prominent approaches to teaching ESL in U.S. schools are bilingual education and English immersion. Many scholarly studies have been conducted in an attempt to determine which teaching approach is most effective, but the results have been mixed. Many researchers have found that bilingual education programs are more effective for educating ELLs, while others point out research that concludes the opposite. With mixed findings, policy makers and advocates cite the studies that tend to support their political ideologies.

Chapter Three of this thesis discussed the presence of language ideologies in the U.S. policy debates regarding second language teaching. By examining

California’s Proposition 227, the thesis suggests that policy advocates align with different orientations in language planning. Three prominent orientations exist in the 54

United States: language as a right, language as a problem, and language as a resource. Critics of bilingual education such as Unz and Chavez see language as a problem, while proponents such as Cummins, Krashen, and Ramirez see language as a right and language as a resource. These orientations in language planning and policy have shaped their arguments and the positions that they take in debates over

ELL education.

These policy debates, characterized by language ideologies, emerge because the studies that have been conducted produce mixed findings in regards to the effectiveness of bilingual education. Although many prominent linguists and educators claim that bilingual education is the superior method, there is not strong evidence to denounce English immersion strategies. There is a continued need for more extensive research to be done regarding second language teaching in the United States, for ELLs are entitled to an equal and quality education, and they should be given more attention.

While the existing studies may show mixed findings in regards to program effectiveness, the values of bilingual education programs cannot be ignored. Bilingual education allows room for the development of an ELL’s native language. Furthermore, two-way bilingual programs, or dual language education, provide an opportunity for dominant language speakers to develop another language in addition to English. The many intrinsic and extrinsic values of multilingualism should be given more attention in the United States. In the reality of our global world, language is an important resource that allows for better communication and intercultural understanding. Both of 55

these matter more than ever in a political moment that is as politically divided as ours currently is.

56

Works Cited

American Renaissance. “About Us.” American Renaissance. New Century

Foundation. n.d. Web. https://www.amren.com/about/

Arizona Department of Education. Office of English Language Acquisition Services

(OELAS). “Structured English Immersion (SEI) Models.” Arizona Department

of Education. 2019 Dept. of Education. Dec. 2014. Pdf. https://cms.azed.gov/

home/GetDocumentFile?id=55257a8f1130c008a0c55ce3

Arizona Education Association. “2018 Legislative Wrap Up: A Historic Session for

Arizona Educators Fifty-third Arizona Legislature- Second Regular Session.”

10 May 2018. 1-7. Pdf. http://www.arizonaea.org/assets/document/AZ/

AEALEGISLATIVEWRAP2018.pdf

Baker, A. Keith and Adriana de Kanter. Bilingual Education. D.C. Heath and

Company. 1983. Print.

Baker, A. Keith and Adriana de Kanter. “Effectiveness of Bilingual Education: A

Review of the Literature. Final Draft Report.” Department of Education. Office

of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, 25 Sep 1981. Pdf. https://

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED215010.pdf

Brenchley, Cameron. “What is ESEA?” Homeroom: The Official Blog of the U.S.

Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education, 8 Apr. 2015. Web.

https://blog.ed.gov/2015/04/what-is-esea/

Brown, H. Douglas, and Heekyeong Lee. Teaching by principles: An interactive

approach to language pedagogy. 4th ed. Pearson Education. 2015. Print. 57

Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Pub. L. 90-247. 81 Stat. 783-820. 2 Jan. 1968. Pdf.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-81/pdf/STATUTE-81-Pg783.pdf

Blakely, Jason. “How School Choice Turns Education Into a Commodity.” The

Atlantic. The Atlantic. 17 Apr. 2017. Web. https://www.theatlantic.com/

education/archive/2017/04/ is-school-choice-really-a-form-of-

freedom/523089/

Bunch, Michael B. "Testing English Language Learners under No Child Left behind."

Language Testing, vol. 28, no. 3, July 2011. 323-341. EBSCOhost.

California Secretary of State, Bill Jones. “Statement of Vote- Primary Election.” Alex

Padilla California Secretary of State. 2016 California Secretary of State, 2

June 1998. 84-86 Pdf. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/

statewide-election-results/primary-election-june-2-1998/statement-vote/

CA Secretary of State. ““English Language in Public Schools Initiative Statute.”

Internet Archive Wayback Machine. 18 Jun. 2010. Web. https://

web.archive.org/web/20100618094226/

Carmichael, Paul H. “Who Receives Federal Title I Assistance? Examination of

Program Funding by School Poverty Rate in New York State.” Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 19, no. 4, Dec. 1997. 354–359. Web.

Center of Equal Opportunity. “Meet the Staff.” Center of Equal Opportunity. Web. 20

Apr. 2019 58

Chavez, Linda. “Language Immersion Is Better than Bilingual Education for

Immigrants.” Bilingual Education. Ed. Noel Merino. Farmington Hills:

Greenhaven Press, 2016. 49-52. Print.

Cistone-Albers, Linda A. "Deconstructionist and Pragmatic Analyses Reveal the

Intent to Discriminate in Proposition 227 - A California Initiative," Western

State University Law Review 27 (1999-2000): p. 215-272. HeinOnline,

https://heinonline-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/

wsulr27&i=223

Collier, Virginia P. and Wayne P. Thomas. “The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual

Language Education for All.” NABE Journal of Research and Practice 2:1.

(2004) Pdf. https://www.berkeleyschools.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/

TWIAstounding_Effectiveness_Dual_Language_Ed.pdf?864d7e

Cummins, Jim. "Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramirez report in

theoretical perspective." Bilingual Research Journal, vol. 16 no. 1-2, 1992, 91-

104. Print.

Cummins, Jim. "Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and

Possibility." Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, vol. 20, no. 3,

Aug. 1998, p. 255. EBSCOhost.

Cummins, Jim. "Empowering Minority Students: An Analysis of the Bilingual

Education Debate." Estudios Fronterizos, vol. 0, no. 18-19, 1989, 15-35. Web.

EBSCOhost. 59

Darrow, Alice-Ann. “The Every Student Succeeds Act.” General Music Today 30:1

(2016): 41-44. Web. EBSCOhost.

Del Valle, Sandra. Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding our

voices. Cromwell Press, 2003. Print.

Dennis, Danielle V. "Learning from the Past: What ESSA Has the Chance to Get

Right." Reading Teacher, vol. 70, no. 4, Jan/Feb. 2017, 395-400. EBSCOhost.

Dyste, Connie. “Proposition 63: The California English Language Amendment.”

Applied Linguistics, vol. 10, no. 3, Sept. 1989, 313–330. EBSCOhost.

English for the Children. English for the Children. One Nation/One California. Web.

http://www.onenation.org/aboutonoc.html

“English Language Learner.” The Glossary of education Reform, Great Schools

Partnership, August 29, 2013. Web. www.edglossary.org/english-language-

learner/

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Pub. L. 89-10. 81 Stat. 27-58. 11

Apr. 1965. Pdf. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/

STATUTE-79-Pg27.pdf

Evans, Bruce A. and Nancy H. Hornberger. "No Child Left Behind: Repealing and

Unpeeling Federal Language Education Policy in the United States." Language

Policy, vol. 4, no. 1, Mar. 2005, 87-106. Web. EBSCOhost.

Farzan, Antonia Noori. “Tom Brokaw apologizes after saying ‘Hispanics should work

harder at assimilation.’” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 28 Jan.

2019. Web. 60

González, Roseann Dueñas and Ildikó Melis, eds. Language ideologies: Critical

Perspectives on the Official English Movement. Urbana: National Council of

Teachers of English, 2000. Print.

Hadley, Eryn. "Did the Sky Really Fall - Ten Years after California's Proposition

209," BYU Journal of Public Law vol. 20, no. 1 (2005): 103-138. HeinOnline,

https://heinonline-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/

byujpl20&i=115

Haver, Johanna J. English for the Children: Mandated by the People, Skewed by

Politicians and Special Interests. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Education, 2013. Print.

Haver, Johanna J. Structured English Immersion: A Step-by-Step Guide for K-6

Teachers and Administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2003. Print.

Hult, Francis M., and Nancy H. Hornberger. “Revisiting Orientations in Language

Planning: Problem, Right, and Resource as an Analytical Heuristic.” Bilingual

Review, vol. 33, no. 3, Sept. 2016, 30–49. Web. EBSCOhost.

Hipsman, Faye and Doris Meissner. “Immigration in the United States: New

Economic, Social, Political Landscapes with Legislative Reform on the

Horizon.” Migration Policy Institute. Migration Policy Institute, 16 Apr. 2013.

Web. https:// www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-united-states-new-

economic-social-political-landscapes-legislative-reform 61

“How is an ‘English language learner’ defined in state policy.” Education Commission

of the States, November 2014, http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/

mbquestNB2?rep=ELL1402

Krashen, Stephen D. and Tracy D. Terrell. The Natural Approach: Language

Acquisition in the Classroom. Alemany Press, 1983. Print.

Krashen, Stephen D. Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City,

CA: Language Education Associates, 1996. Pdf. http://www.sdkrashen.com/

content/books/ under_attack.pdf

Katznelson, Noah, and Katie A. Bernstein. “Rebranding Bilingualism: The Shifting

Discourses of Language Education Policy in California’s 2016 Election.”

LINGUISTICS AND EDUCATION, vol. 40, 11–26. Web. EBSCOhost.

doi:10.1016/j.linged.2017.05.002

Library of Congress. Congress.gov. LC, 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2018.

Lillie, Karen E., et al. "Policy in practice: The implementation of structured English

immersion in Arizona." July 2010. Web. EBSCOhost.

“Linda Chavez on Immigration and American Identity.” YouTube, uploaded by

Conversations with Bill Kristol, 25 Aug. 2018. Web. https://

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=539&v=x3FHm7bww68

Manna, Paul. Collision Course: Federal Policy Meets State and Local Realities.

Washington DC: CQ Press, 2011. Print.

Miller, John J. “California’s Bilingual-Ed Mistake.” National Review, vol. 69, no. 6,

Apr. 2017, pp. 19–21. Web. EBSCOhost. 62

Muñiz, Jenny. “Shifting Collective Values: California’s Proposition 227’s Legacy on

Bilingual Education.” New America. New America. 14 Nov. 2017. Web.

https:// www.newamerica.org/millennials/dm/shifting-collective-values/

National Center for Education Statistics. “What is Title I and what type of student

does it serve?” National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education

Sciences. Web. nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158

Nelson, Adam R. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at Fifty: A Changing

Federal Role in American Education.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 56,

no. 2, May 2016. 358–361. Web. EBSCOhost.

Neumann, Caryn E. “California Proposition 187 (1994).” Salem Press Encyclopedia,

2018. Web. EBSCOhost.

Noel, Linda C. “”I Am an American’: Anglos, Mexicans, Nativos, and the National

Debate over Arizona and New Mexico Statehood.” Pacific Historical Review,

vol. 80, no. 3, 2011. 430–467. Web. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/

phr.2011.80.3.430

Ramirez, J. David. “Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy,

Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for

Language-Minority Children. Final Report.” U.S. Department of Education.

1991. Pdf. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED330216.pdf

Rios-Aguilar, Cecilia, et al. "A Study of Arizona's Teachers of English Language

Learners." Teachers College Record, vol. 114, no. 9, Sept. 2012. 1-33. Web.

EBSCOhost. 63

Rolstad, Kellie, Kate Mahoney, and Gene V. Glass. "The big picture: A meta-analysis

of program effectiveness research on English language learners." Educational

policy 19.4 (2005): 572-594.

Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. S., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Weighing the evidence: A meta-

analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1),

43-67.

Rossell, Christine H., and Keith Baker. “The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual

Education.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 30, no. 1, 1996. 7–74.

JSTOR.

Ruiz, Richard. “Orientations in language planning.” NABE Journal, vol. 8, 1984. 15–

34. Print.

Schütz, Ricardo. “Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition.” 28

Mar. 2005. Pdf. https://apps.esc1.net/ProfessionalDevelopment/uploads/

WKDocs/58121/2.%20Stephen%20Krashen.pdf

Slavin, Robert E., and Alan Cheung. “A Synthesis of Research on Language of

Reading Instruction for English Language Learners.” Review of Educational

Research, vol. 75, no. 2, June 2005. 247–284.

Southern Poverty Law Center. “Richard Bertrand Spencer.” Southern Poverty Law

Center. SPLC. n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2019. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-

hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0

Stephenson, Hank. “Bill amending Arizona's English-language-learner model is

revived.” Tucson.com. Arizona Daily Star. 23 Apr. 2018. Web. 16 Apr. 2019. 64

https://tucson.com/ news/local/bill-amending-arizona-s-english-language-

learner-model-is-revived/article_a8fe42dd-6b6f-53d9-b9ed-cfa917e79a4d.html

Stephenson, Hank. “Bill to drastically alter Arizona's English-language learning model

appears dead.” Tucson.com. Arizona Daily Star. 10 Apr. 2018. Web. 16 Apr.

2019. https:// tucson.com/news/local/bill-to-drastically-alter-arizona-s-english-

language-learning-model/article_aa719363-595a-5fd5-b7a7-

18c62511ecc7.html

Stewart, Jill. “Krashen Burn.” New Times LA, 29 May 1998. Web. http://

www.angelfire.com/az/ english4thechildren/krashen.html

Tran, Thu Hoang. “English Language Learners and the No Child Left behind Act of

2001.” Online Submission, Online Submission, 25 Sept. 2009. EBSCOhost.

“Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale University, The

Avalon Project. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2019. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/

19th_century/guadhida.asp

Unz, Ron. “California Republicans Vote to Restore ‘Bilingual Education.’”

amren.com. American Renaissance, 7 May 2014. Web. 7 Apr. 2019.

https://www.amren.com/news/ 2014/05/california-republicans-vote-to-restore-

bilingual-education/

Unz, Ron. “English and Meritocracy: The Gullibility of Our Political and Media

Elites.” Ron Unz- Writings and Perspectives, 15 May 2014. Web. 8 Apr. 2019.

http:/ /www.ronunz.org/2014/05/15/english-and-meritocracy-the-gullibility-of-

our-political-and-media-elites/ 65

Unz, Ron. “English Isn’t Racism.” English for the Children. English for the Children.

27 May, 1997. Web. 4 Apr. 2019. http://www.onenation.org/opinion/english-

isn-t-racism/

U.S. Census Bureau. “Languages in California.” Statistical Atlas. Cedar Lake

Ventures, Inc. 4 Sept. 2018. Web. 27 Mar. 2019. https://statisticalatlas.com/

state/California/Languages

U.S. Department of Education. “Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)” U.S.

Department of Education. Web.

U.S. English. “Biography of Senator S.I. Hayakawa.” U.S. English. U.S. English Inc.

n.d. Web. https://www.usenglish.org/senator-si-hayakawa/

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. “The Treaty of Guadalupe

Hidalgo.” National Archives. NARA. 25 Apr. 2018. Web. https://

www.archives.gov/education/ lessons/guadalupe-hidalgo

Wilson, Jason. “The races are not equal': meet the alt-right leader in Clinton's

campaign ad.” The Guardian. Guardian News & Media. 26 Aug. 2016. Web.

https://www.theguardian.com/ us-news/2016/aug/26/jared-taylor-alt-right-

clinton-trump

Wiley, Terrence G. and Ofelia García. "Language Policy and Planning in Language

Education: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities." The Modern Language

Journal, vol. 100, no. 1 [Supplement], 2016. 48-63. Web. EBSCOhost.

Woodlard, Katheryn A., Bambi B. Schieffelin and Paul V. Krosktity. “Language

ideologies: Practice and Theory.” New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print. 66

“Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2016.” Homeland Security, Department of

Homeland Security, Sept. 13, 2018. Web. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-

statistics/yearbook/ 2016