DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 212 748 UD 022 108

AUTHOR Underwood, Robert A. TITLE Bilingual Education in a Developing Pacific Area: Why? Asian Pacific American Education Occasional Papers. INSTITUTION National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education, Berkeley, Calif. PONS AGENCY National last. of Education (ED), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 81 GRANT NIE-G-79-0063 NOTE 36p.; Not available in paper copy due to institution's restrictions., AVAILABLE FROMNational Association for Asian and Pacific American Education, 1414 Walnut Street, Room 9, Berkeley, CA 94709 (write for price).

EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Bilingual Education; *Chamorro; *Cultural Awareness; Developing Nations; Educational Policy; Elementary Secondary Education; Ethnicity; *Language Role; *Nationalism; Political Attitudes; Political Influences; Social Change IDENTIFIERS *Guam; *Pacific Trust Territory (Mariana Islands)

ABSTRACT This paper examines the relationship between politi :s, economic development, nationalism, and school language policy in the Marianas and Guam. Past and present developmentsin language policy and various rationales in support ofbilingual education programs are reviewed. The author draws from Fishman's "Language and Nationalism" and Woodward ari Inglehart's "Language Conflicts and Political Community" to support his arguments that(1) language difference does not promote nationalistic conflictin and of itself; and (2) while language is not a necessary component of nationalism, it does provide a link to ethnic and cultural authenticity. It is suggested that bilingual programs have been viewed as reconciling rising nationalism in the Marianas, concern over the loss of Chamorro ethnic andcultural identity, and pressures to learn English and assimilate into a dominant Englishspeaking culture. The report concludes with the observation that indeveloped Pacific areas such as Guam, the use of language in schools is evaluated far less for its educational value than for its usein defining the essence of a society that is struggling forcultural survival. (JCD)

*********************************************************************** * * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** %' iS

CNI 1--i CV 2 ASIAN PACIFIC,AMERICANEDUCATION

OCCASIONAL PAPERS -

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION' f f)(.11 AT tONAf HE Si 1t, Hl 1, INFORMA NON ( ENTEH EFlL r11/1I,,r e.j ,,%

,alr ,111111

,., r. , ft,tal ME

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCETHIS MATERIALIN MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY +.0l,,,k-6,, J.., _,

TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

111

IANATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ASIAN AND PACIFIC AMERICAN EDUCATION Asian Pacific American Research Seminars A 0 A Z BILINGUAL EDr('AIIDN TN A DEVELOPING PACT RE/. WHY

Robert P. Underwood

AE..sistant Professor University of Guam Mangilao, Guam

1981

This paper was prepared for the Asian Pacific AmericanResearch Seminars, a project of the National Associationfor Asian and Pacific American Education.

The Asian Pacific American ResearchSeminars is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Education(NIE-G-79-0063). Copies of this paper can be obtained from theNational Association for Asian and Pacific American Education,1414 Walnut St., Rm. 9, Berkeley, CA 94709. Write to this address for the list ofpublica- tions and price list. r

As with many other areas ofthe Pacific, the island ofGuam and the rest of the MarianaIslands are undergoing a language and culture revitalization movement. This movement is being played out primarily in theschools of Guam, but is beginning to have appreciable effect onthe nature of political rhetoric ,i and educational operationsin the neighboring, butpolitically separate, islands of the Marianas. In this struggle for cultural and linguistic affirmation,the major arena of activity hasbeen the public schools and themajor focus has been the Chamorro language.1 Through a variety of rationales,bilingual-bicultural forms of education have beenadvocated, damned-and implemented. While these proposals for the studyof and use of the Chamorro language, both as a subject and amedium of instruction, may be examined in terms of theirpedagogical implications or theirlin- and in- guistic appropriateness, suchanalyses would be incomplete sufficient. A far more fruitful approachwould be an investigation into under the political and socialagendas apparently being pursued the rubric of bilingualeduca,.on. The zenith-like rise of concern over Chamorro in thehitherto English-only schools of theMarianas may be more of apolitical and social movementthan'the sudden recognition of an educationallyvaluable tool. This is not to say that there is no substance tothe argument that utilizing the Chamorro language would not be apedagogically sound tool for in- creasing pupil performance andachievement. Hovver, pupil achieve- ment is really on theperiphery of the question ofschool language policy, despite protestations tothe contrary. The spirit of sup- strength in port for Chamorro languageeducation doesn't find its linguistic or educational research. If anything, appeals to such research are frequently utilizedonly to the extent that theybut- tress existing notions aboutwhat Guam's political and social nature should be. In tact, political support ofChamorro language issues is sometimes articulatedin a manner heedless of the most 2 4 common linguistic sense.

1

4 This growth of interest inbilingual education.on Guam has both baffling and predicatabledimensions to it. In its operation, which is largely drawn fromAmerican bilingual educationtrends, and the rheto- the contrast between thereality of Guam's children rical aims of the programsis glaring. Filled with ESEA Title VII of Guam are terms from the U.S. Officeof Education, the children supposed to be lifted fromtheir English deficienciesand limited bilingual chances of educational successthrough federally-spawned 3 and education. Yet, the children ofGuam are English-speaking Chamorro, as a first languagefor the island's youth,is limited 4 to an ever decreasingminority. Although the linguistic charac- fit the teristics of the NorthernMarianas might more properly simply arrived typical rationale forbilingual education, Title VII However, this does not fifteen to twenty years toolate for Guam. education on prevent almost unanimousjustification for bilingual the baFis that it is necessary asa transition to alanguage of wider communication. have been The reasons for thissituation are clear and could that the resurgenc,.? ofChamorro predicted. They lie in the reality status as a in Guam's schools isessentially a product of Guam's considered. developing society meetingissues it had not previously is at once a The language question inthe schools of the Marianas social, economic and politicalquestion. Language is being used visions. as a tool to representparticular social and political As such, the decision to usea Pacific languagein a developing area is a much morecomplex question thatcontrastive linguistic aralysis with languagesof wider communication. We are dealing strictly lin- with a milieu in whichwhat may be thought of as of school guistic concerns arefrequently the last considerations colonial history, rapid language policy. The impact of a long nationalism economic development,increased immigration, growing in Marianas and prolonged languageloss makes language choice schools clearly a statementof political and socialvision. the rela- There have been few attemptsto offer analyses of policy tionship between politics,nationalism and school language However, there are generaldis- in developed Pacificsocieties.

2 5 cussions of the relationship betweennationalism and language throughout the world. Two oi these will be utilized tohelp analyze the Marianas situation. Fishman's language and Natioaa- lism (1972) and Woodward andInglehart's "Language Conflicts and Political Community" (1967) canoffer us some insights into how linguistic questions become volatilesocial issues. Based on these discussions, the Marianassituation will be examined.

In this attempt to understandwhat is occurring on Guam and the Marianas in school languagepolicy, we will review past and present developments in languagepolicy. We will also review the growth of bilingual education andthe various rationales enlisted by educators to support the programs. By comparing these trends with the emerging nature ofisland society in the Marianasand the increased level of ethnoculturalnationali,.1, we will see that bilingual education faces atroublesome future. Despite the fact that bilingual education nowenjoys widespread support, it: shouldering of political and socialissues may prove to be too heavy a burden in the future. Bilingual education and themainte- bance of a valuable human resource(the Chamorro language) may fail,, but be- not because it didn'tprovide children a sound education, cause it did not live upto its advanced billing asthe major vehi- cle for ethnocultural salvation.

Framework for Analysis The Inglehart and Woodwardformula for understanding language They in its political dimensionsis _ simple, but effective one. polit- hold that linguistic pluralismdoes not inherently create a icized linguistic environment. In fact, they point outthat, there number of are many traditionalsocieties in the world in which a languages co-exist without unrest. The oppression of theselan- guages or even theexistence of a privileged linguisticminority does not necessarily bring onconflict in policy formation. Con- flict comes, as they explain it,in terms of two related situa- tional factors. They are the level of economicand political

3

f; development and the extent towhich "social mobility is blocked 5 because of membership in a givenlanguage group". In other words, language becomes a source of conflictin a linguistically diverse society when that society 'sundergoing rapid industrialization and modernization. The key point here is that societyis in flux and that there are new expectations about economic and social mobility. If it appears.that mobility inthis situation is re- stricted On the basis of a languagebelonging to a dominant minor- ity, then conflict will arise. If we assume that bilingual educa- tion has political overtones, andonly a fool will maintain other- wise, then its rtunes might be dependent on thefactors outlined by Woodward and In ehart.

The two scholars also makethe point that although assimila- tion of subordinate language groups maybe the ultimate result, this does not preclude the emergenceof language policies designei for bilingualism/Nil the interim,transitional phases. Furthermore, within their frapewoNk, they allowfor a multitude of types of political activiy and do not presume_topredict or categorize specific types of language policieswith certain social situations. Of interest in theirdescription of various kinds ofaetivicies is their conclusion that theutility or vibrance of a language is not a prerequisite forlanguage policies. They argue that a few poli- ticians may seize ..;:spri language as avehicle for personal political power and that such wasthe case in many Europeansituations. Lan- guage during thenationalistic fervor of 19th century Europe was not intrinsically the sourcefor conflict. Butit was a focal point for conflict since itprovided a convenient weapon to dif- ferentiate between patriot andintruder.

The key point here is thatlanguage difference does not pro- mote nationalistic conflictin and of itself. Far too many analyses of such questions seem to assumethat political conflict that cen- ters on language survives merely onthe basis of linguistic dif- ferences without reference toother factors.

4 This overemphasis on thedivisive power of language inpolitically volatile situations may lead tothe assumption thatconflict will Inasmuch as cease once linguisticassimilation has taken place. in the 19th cen- many of the Europeanlanguages were dying or dead 6such an assumption tury Europe Cwhenlinguistic conflicts arose), which is an oversimplification. Language may be the stage upon the conflict isplaykl out, but the theatre is built on social and economic discontent. Fishman's analysis of thenationalistic uses of language are also pertinent to this attemptto explain thedimensions of school language policy in theMarianas. In his Language andNationalism , Fishman gives us an insightinto the emotional andideological dimensions of language. If Woodward and Inglehartexplain how lan- how the conflict may guage coialicts mayarise, Fishman describes be played out in developing scieties with a strongnationalistic discussion, the term, base. In his work, and for p poses of this and nationalism is used to mean a f ling of ethnocultural unity independence. identity, not a movement'forpolitical and territorial In applying this to theMarianas, we may say thatChamorro nation- solidarity, alism is widespread as anindicator of ethnocultural desirability 01 'organizing but that relativelyfew have a,.gued the a Chamorrorepublic. of emotional Fishman argues thatlanguage is used in a number By way of explaining this and ideological waysby nationalists. phenomenon, he points outthat language is notinherently nation- is not a ne:ossary componentof alistic. That is to say, language nationalism nor does itbring about a sense ofethnocultural loyalty, He argues that nation- but it does simplifythe nationalistic task. that this unity must alism is a process ofseeking broader unity and be sanctified by aSense of authenticity. This authenticity can Without language. stem from references to aglorious common past. language as the link it is possible to buildauthenticity. but with just memories. to the glorious past, wehave something more than becomes the bond and, The spoken word itself,th., common language, transcends the ihdi- by virtue of the fact thatit is immortal (it

II

5 viduals who use it), theethnocultural authenticity takes on a the past, we recon- supernatural air. We d6 not .merely remember struct it as a periodfor our ancestors whospoke with the very pro- same words we now use. Moverover, in this re-ethnification cess, language is notjust oneof several equallyvalid ,a.tionales. It becomes the major linkwith the past and'our_hasisLo- feeling unique. FiShman writes that languagein emerging nationalistic societies goes beyond "instrumentalidentification of comMunity with language" and goes toward"the identification ofauthenticity with a particular languagewhich is experientially unique."7

o This search for nationalisticauthenticity through language several linguistic behaviors. In what manifests itself through 4. Fishman terms "contrastiveself-identification" we may witness policy attempts to highlightthat which is most linguistically pure and primitive. We have an emphasis onancient and archaic fror the forms and a deliberate attemptto root out foreignisms the nationalists suspect vernaculars. In fact, in many instances being those who have become veryglib in a second language as untrue or inauthentic tothe masses and to thenationalist cause. Language policy in suchsituations finds itself attempting Any to plan for authenticitywhile making the leap tomodernity. organized pursuit of solutionsto language problemsin this con- text may generate what appearsto be _irrational andcontradictory that those whohigh- behaviors. Fishman makes the cogent point fail to light contradictions innationalist language planning recognize their own outsideperspective and may also miss some- 8 planning, as thing very crucial. Contradictions in language . _ "an inevitable dialecticthat perceived by the nationalists, are 9 serves merely to testthe strength and the faithof tle faithful." leave us with Any attempt to wed ideologyand reality is bound to social processes., but to some discontinuitiesin our perception of creative forces ignore and deride ideologyis to misunderstand the which abound in all societies.

6 e- Development of Guam and the Marianas eGudmand the Northern Marianas arepresently separate polit- ical entities that have clis.tinctrelationships with the United States. At first glance, this politicalseparation appears to have some social and economicjustification inasmuch as.the two areas are at different stagesof development. However, upon closer examination, we find thatwhatever.route Guam has taken in its development,,,/ the rest of hersister islands in the chain seem insistent on doing the same. Moreover, the speed at which changes are made in the NorthernMarianas appear to exceed Guam's rateof change when it was undergoing the "boom':of the late 60's and early 70's. Originally, the Marianas werepopulated by the Chamorros when the Spaniards first visitedthe islands in the sixteenthand seven- predecessors came to the teenth centuries. The Chamorros and their Marianas over four thousandyears ago. These original inhabitants . / .. of the Marianas developed aculture not unlike those foundin . Western Micronesia and naturallywrought their language with them" which We now call Chamorro. The Spanish used Guam as away-gtation in the lucrative 0 Manila Galleon trade betweenthe Philippines and Mexico. It wasn't .. 4 . long before missionaries visitedthe island and asked permission from the Spanish throne toorganize a mission for theMarianos or Indios as the Chamorros were thencalled. Father Diego Sanvitores was the first Westernerto settle the Marianas whenhe arrived with his fellow priests and soldiersin 1968. Along with the missionary spirit came the inevitable wars,diseases and reduction in popula- only in the faith of the tion. The Marianas were baptized not W .,tern world but in its ways aswell. The Chamorros had the dubious distinction of being thefirst people of the Pacific to en- dure colonization by the West.

Many cultural changes werefoisted on the people and the Chamorros were Hispanicized tosuch a degre that they, nolonger 4

7

10 at least to theoutsiders. Names, appeared to hePacific Islayidez,s, altered. However, the language habits, customs andtraditions were of the the unifyingthread of the People remained and/it became b Marianas to theiridentIty. political ways throughthe The islands wenttheir separate seizecUby the Americans machinations of colonialpowers. Guam was part of itsemerging Pacific in the Spanish-AmericanWar of 1898 as Spain tc. theGermans The rest of theMarianas was sold by empire. of subsequently took theislands is kLeague in' 1899. -The Japanese I as part ofits reward forde- Nations mandateafter World War , meantime,Guam wasgoverned by claring war on theGermans. n the and all itsinhabitants the U.S. Navy asif it were a naval vessel 10 crewmembers. activity n ';heNorthern Although there wasmuch economic .little directlyinvolved or Marianas prior toWorld War 11, very Guam was simply benefited the peoplein the NorthernMarianas.. failed to moveeither economically stagnant underthe U.S. Navy and Guam and'the NorthernMarianas or 'politically. Consequently, both of affairssocially, culturally Were relativelyin the4'same state the,conclusion of WorldWar II. and economically:at territory of the U.S.,rapid However, becauseGuam was a in the Cold WAr. changes were in storeas the U.S.became embrioled hardware and personnel. The'island became asupermarket of military military installationswere In a period'of one year,21 separate Guam declared U.S. citizensin 1950 by the built. The people were cultural direction Organic Act andthe island beganto change its contact withoutsiders. under the directimpact of increased the late 60's aftera'change More dramaticchanges came in in policiesdesigned to pro- local governmentleadership resulted increased immigrationand mote economicgrowth. These policies From a base,population of population pressuresaccordingly. island grew to 105,000 in 1980. approximately 60,000in 1960, the and the secondlargest Of this population61% were Chamorros The birthplaceof mothers of group wasFilipinos with2170.1`

S children born in Guam reveals somethreate'ning figures for those concerned with Chamorro survival. In 1970,. 2,875 children were born on Guam and 464 of these babies had mothersfrom Guam. In 1979, only 1,271 out.of 2,797babies born on the island had native mothers. Viewedb.another way, since 1973, less thanhalf 12 A of the children born on Guam haveChamorro mothers. do the other hand, Filipino births on Guamincreased 400% from 1963 to 13 1972. The economic changes reveal someimpressive statistics that can be misleading. In 1964, gross business receipts onGuam were 14 2124M and in 1979, they rose to$977.848M. However, the hidden dimension to these changes on the island arethe income cleavages which increase annually and have neverbeen so blatant in the island's history. It was reported in 1979 that36% of all Guam families had incomes over$20,000 and 2f% had incomes of less 15 that $7,000 per annum. Clearly, a discomfortingeconomic and social pattern has emerged onGuam. Economic development has brought,Aith it increased immigration andeconomic disparity. . Moreover, the common perception wasthat very little of this move- ment was bent fitting theoriginal inhabitants. The entrepeneurs and managers in the private sector werelargely off-islanders.

To complicate matters, theimmigrants on Guam were generally not of the "huddled masses"variety. They came to Guam inre- sponse to economicconditions with professional andtechnical skills far exceeding those of thenative population that economic develor-ent was supposed to benefitin the first place. This results' not only in the Chamorrosbeing on the wrong end ofchange,' but has let to a tremendous rateof out-migration. Recent figures from the 1980 report that32,000 "Guamanians" live in the 1,6 States. /(' English in this charging islandsociety is advertisfd ai the otteway to economic successand its role as a means of upward mobility is continually assertedby businessmen, English teachers -N Filipino engineers and school counselors. The fact that Korean and and-doctors don't seem toknow English very welldoesn't alter this perception of English asthe sure road to economicsuccess. The importance of Englishhas been stressed for solong, that psychological and real. its role as a gatekeeper tosuccess is both The development of theNorthern Marianas has no been as spectacular, but it appears nowto 5e on a path similarto that the U.N. of their city cousinsfrom Guam. The group was part of Trusteeship assigned to the U.S.following the Pacific War. Unlike activity (much of the rest of Micronesia,however, U.S. military the 40's and it covert) and control wasof major importance in district In the TrustTerritory of 50's. Eventually, it became a Marianas the Pacific Islands(T.T.P.I.), a status the Northern They just didn't seem tofi: .alvays seemed uncomfortablewith. the Micronesian mold. Interest in re-integrationof the Marianas, which meant mid-60's, but joining Guam as a U.S.territory, ran high in the was soundly defeatedin the Guam voting ofthe re-integration the Marianas Legislature referendum. Finding itself rejected, est of the sought a separate arrangementwith the U.S. from the April, 1972, T.T.P.I. (and fi-mi Guam). Asking for status talks in the Northern Marianas a final covenantfor the Commonwealth of arrangement, the was completed in1977. Under te negotiated commonwealth came intobeing a January 9, 1978. For most purposes, ,,his arrangement issimilar to that of Guam's. in the Economically, the northernislands began their boom Saipan has witnessed the con- mid-70's. In the past few years, that of Guam struction of five majorhotels. The same pattern as is now the order has emerged in thatwidespread economic disparity of the day. It is true that the poor are relativelybetter off than the poor in previous years, but the vastmajority of the econo benefits go to the absentee investor, the newresident or to the

10 13 The expectation of naryul of native politicians orlandowners. economic benefit andsocial mobility is, however.widespread and closely tied to the commonperception ol what. theirU.S. citizen- !? ship status means. with an As with Guam, economicgrowth has been associated of the increase in immigration. The total native population Norther Marianas is approximately16,000 so that any suddenshift 18 that on Guam. in 'mmigration patterns canbe even more disastrous Even with the Northern Marianasgovernment ostensiblycontrolling illegal immigration in its own interest,there are a reported 2,000 four aliens on Saipan. Moreover, approximately one of every 19 Saipan residents on theisland is not a native. This ha:; been a phenomenon of the 70's.

Of course the same messageabout the economic utilityand of the necessity of English istransmitted to the young people by the same Northern Marianas. Additional'y, it is transmitted agents as on Guam(stateside buisnessmen andthe educational insti- about social mobility,the use tutions). With rising expectations of English as a gatekeeperwill have enormous policyramifications. ancestral If the average personbelieves that membership in an mobility. language group automaticallygives others a head start on the inevita- then increased consciousnessabout language issues is ble result. clear Although, at different stagesof development now, it is in the same that both Guam and theNorthern Marianas are moving United States and both are airection. Both are territories -if the developing economies alongsimilar lines. Lastly, both are facing their own the possibility of beingoutnumbered and displaced in homelands.

Past Language Policy the Northern The language policiesof governments in both Marianas and Guam hayehistorical! been very anti-Chamorro. that a Beginning with a Spanishcolonial ,olicy that dictated

11 14 knowledge of Castellano be a pre-requisite forgovernment employ- ment in the 1790's, the Chamorrolanguage has been under near continual attach from external and internal sources. In fact, many have commented that"by all the rules of history and lin- 20 guistics it (Chamorro) should no longerexist."

Spanish lafiguage policy was based on thesimple assumption that individuals who could be educated wouldeventually find them- selves in contact with the refined languageof the Castillian. Of course, notions regarding universaleducation were tenous even in the peninsula and rarely expressed, let alone,implemented in the crumbling empire. Consequently, Chamorro survived because there was no widespread formal educationalchallenge to it. This was not the case with othercolonial powers. The Spanish priests did use the language,but naturally pro- moted Castellano as the refinedand significant language. Para- doxically, the priests late-r became the agentsof language mainte- nance when Spaiu left the scene. Although Guam fell into the hands of the Americans, the SpanishCapuchins still managed the Church. Unable or unwilling to use English- incatechism and sermons, and Spanish now havinglittle social or economic utility, Chamorro became the language of theChurch. The Spanish priests frequently had Guam children reading thecatechism in Chamorro before the U.S. Navy schools would have theopportunity to extol the virtues of English. When the U.S. Navy arrived on the scene,they seemed deter- mined to not merely teach English, butto offer it as a substitute 21 home language. The Navy unabashedly maintained thatChamorros should speak English "habitually" to theirchildren and frequently charted educational achievement in terms ofhow little Chamorro 22 was being used. The attack on Chamorro was justified onthe basis that mere knowledge of the English language wouldbring on economic progress, moral rectitude and social cleanliness. In one statement charac-

12

4...)1 t- teristic of this hysteria overthe necessity of English,education officials wrote is 1925, "English will bring to the peopleof Guam through the public schools a knowledgeof sanitation and hygiene, which will enable them tolive in a cor-

. . along with such increase (popu- rect manner . lation) will come further and enforced(sic) economic development. With economic development will co;ae more of the real pleasuresof life. Through English will come aknowledge of fair play and a keen sense of honor such asthe proge- nitors of Americans had at thetime of the origin of the language."23 Administrative restrictions and laws weredeveloped to enforce Chamorro in this English mania. These included not only a ban on schools, but in governmentbuildings and in the presonce ofmilitary impediment to personnel. Chamorro was not merely viewed as an learning, but as a stumblingblock to efficient governmentand good social order. under In the Northern Marianas,the experience was gentler when the Germans, but somewhatsimilar to Guam's Navy experience the Northern islands wereunder the Japanese. All children who insofar attended schools duringGerman times were taught in German the colonial language it- as possible. With the Japanese, study of self occupied 50% of instructionaltime for the three years of 24 schooling required of allchildren. Native la.(;uage instruction was non-existent. Subsequent to World War II,the language policies,particular in schools, were dissimilarin the two areas. Guam's schools con- and tinued to view the Chamorrolanguage as an enemy of education did not alter this linguisticviewpoint despite the institution of a locally-controlledcivilian government 1950. Americanization of and the promotion of Englishcontinued on through the aegis contract teachers whom aleading Pacific linguist called"twentieth 25 century versions of thenineteenth century colonialists." School the Govern- policy in this matter wassanctioned by Section 3000 of

ment Code of Guam, oneof the first laws passedby all-Chat-,rro

13 legislature. It reads that English is theofficial language of the

Territory and forbids governmentemployees from speaking other

languages at work. There was very little objection to thislanguage

stance and, in fact,Chamorro was viewed as being not onlyinferior, 26 but hardly even a language.

In the Northern Marianas, Chamorro wasused as a language of

instruction under the suddenly enlightened U.S. military adminis-

tration following World War II. Although it was used only as a

gentle bridge to the English language,there was not the wholesale

rejection of Chamorro by the localelite (colonial or native) which from the was cOmmon onGuam. Under the impact of increased funding "concerned" liberal Kennedy administrationin the 60's, there was a

shift towards English as themedium of instruction in schools.

English subsequently became theend-all of education.

As the 60's drew to aclose, both Guam and the NorthernMarianas

had school language policieswhich were clearly assimilationist.

Both areas had endured attacks ontheir native language which were

supported by powerful outsideinstitutions. However, Chamorro

had not yet disappeared, andonly on Guam did a pattern oflanguage

loss begin to manifest itself. The local elite had raised their

children using English andthe rest of the population wasfollowing policies, little suit. Despite these linguistic imperialist opposition was ever in evidence.

To place these pastdevelopments into proper perspective it

should be recognized thatalthough the original agents whoadvertised

English as the vehicle to successand progress were Americans,they didn't need to be present in largenumbers to maintain that message. The institutions that weretransplanted to the islancls were seen by both thelocal populace and oft-islander asintrin- sically carrying that message. At the time of their organization as institutions and intheir operations to the present.the

English message is seen as a natural andlogical component part of all educational and economic institutions. There has never been a counter-message within the historicalexperience of the

Marianas.

Development of Bilingual-Bicultural Education Into this linguistic and educational history of theMarianas ent ;)the concept of bilingual education. The original impetus for e funding of these programs camefrom ESEA Title VII funds of the U. S. Office of Education andits rationales are affected accordingly. The U. S. 0.E. had defined bilingual education as

the use of two languages. one of whichis the native language of

the child and the other English, in a programof/ instruction

The conditions are that the nativelanguage is used only to the

extent necessary to promote fluency andcompetence in English27

Although this is the accepted educationalexplanation, the common

perception of bilingual education in theMarianas is any program with any Chamorro in it, including thosewhich teach it as a

second language. The first bilingual program in theMarianas was organized on

Guam as the Kolehion Mandikike'Project. In its very first brochure released to the public in1971,the program was advertised

as being "designed forchildren whose dominant language is Chamorro." It also discusses (in Chamorro) certain linguistic attitudes existing at the time and, interestirwly, says that "it

is a good thought" to teach English at home as a First language 28 since English is the language of the schools and offices. In

a prospectus about the program issued later onin the year, the

program is justified on a "belief that pupils ,ho usetheir

predominant language in school will learn basic language art 09 skills more rapidly.' This perspective of bilingual education as being transitional

in style and as a vehicle to raise pupil achievement inEnglish

has continued to the present in a l lof the funding proposals sub-

. I n the latest Guam mitted to U . S . O. E for Title VII funds

proposal for K-9 project last year, the proposal writers go to

great lengths to show that there is an inverse relationshipbetween

high percentages of Chamorro wirollnivnt and .pupil achievementin

Guam's schools. It points out that 55'7( of all students in the

target schools are in stanines 1,2,3 in standardized test scores.

To highlight the depths to which Chamo_ro students apparentlyhave

fallen, the proposal reader is reminded that the children arelow 30 income to boot. This is not meant to deride the rationale for transitional

bilingual education, but aside from the initial brochures and

yearly proposals for funding, bilingual education on Guam is not

being sold or accepted locally as a sound educational programto

meet linguistic needs and problems. Instead. it is clearly an

attempt to bring Chamorro into the classroom by any means necessary,

even if it takes advertising one's self' as alinguisticall/y and

16 19 socially disadvantaged group. While this phenomenon may be a practical necessity to some, others see it as another exampleof

federal insensitivity.

Moreover, there can be little ,justification of bilingual education on Guam as a transitional program. In a study of language use on Guam in 1972, ironically sponsored by the bilingual program, it was pointed out that for the past20 years Chamorro bilinguals under 30 years of age learned Chamorro as a=second

language. Furthermore, the incidence of English monolingualism 31 among the very young was on the increase. A University of Guam

linguist pointed out the same year that based on herresearch

the/4 is no longer any "need" for bilingual education. Instead she

suggested the development of a "bidialectical/bicultural program 32 with the speaking of standard English as its goal." However, any criticism that bilingual programs areinappro-

priate and do not match their own state reasons forexistence will

fall on deaf ears locally. For the majority of politicians, parents and children who come into contact with thebilingual

program, the program is obviously built torevive Chamorro, give

it some respectability and provide an educationaloutlet for ethno-

cultural cartharsis. Beginning in 1972 and to the present, brochures and other public materials emarating fromthe bilingual

program speak of saving "our" language andfrequently print poems

which emphasize emotional links to the great anGpeaceful past.

Language is the link to this glorious past andit is argued that

by maintaining it, "our" greatness can besomehow transmitted.

17

20 Sometimes, the description of the program asbeing designed to promote English skills (written inEnglish) is sandwiched between 33 such poems (written in Chamorro).

A clear indicator that the gapbetween the educator rhetoric of bilingual education and the socialdimensions which underlie it can be found in the lack of enthusiasmfor e;:panding bilingual education to non-Chamorro groups. Buried in the files of the

Department of Education are the recommendationsgenerated from an evaluation of thefirst bilingual project on Guam. The North- west Regional Education Laboratoryrecommended that Guam institute 34 programs for Ilocano and perhapsVietnamese-speaking children. Such programs would be likely perceived as aperversion of bilingual education, since it has beenidentified, advertised and accented as a kind of Chamorro revenge onthe public schools.

To highlight further that bilingualeducation is really a part of a re-ethnification processrather than a strictly utili- tarian educational endeavor are thedevelopment of other Chamorro- oriented educational programs. The Chamorro Language and Culture

Program (CLCP), funded by ESAA Title VIIfrom the U. S. 0. F . began in 1973 and spread rapidly to 16 ofthe island's.28 elementary schools. In the intermediate grades J4-6), itsavowed purpose is to "revive, maintain and allowstudents the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the language and culture of thepeople of Guam and 35 the Mariana Islands." Over 4,000 children participate inthis program. It grew from a funding level of S225,000in 1973 to 36 $585,000 in 1977. Its stated rationale is clearly language

revival, but interestingly it still arguesits point with an eye

to current American trends. The CLCP emerges as an ethnic

18 i 21 notions and heritage project thatsubscribes to pluralistic speaks of the need for respectof diversity in oursociety.

Clearly, however, the CLCPrepresents an extension oflolingu,11 within the education irto revivalistfrontiers, but does so framework of Americancultural pluralist rhetoric. Politically, the Island's structurehas been supportive of these endeavors, but not onthe basis on linguisticneed or even the basis of ethnocultural a culturalpluralist philosophy, but on

solidarity or latentnationalism. In 1974, the Guamlegislature official language of passed P.L. 12-132 which made Chamorrc an and papers. the island, but not for purpol-esof official recordings status means if One is led to wonderwhat exactly this official

it isn't for officialacts. This Of more significance isP.L. 12-31 pa,,ied in 1973. primarily law authorizes theestablishment of bilingual programs language skills, despite on the basisof maintenance of Chamorro the fact that it was forthe purpose oflegitimizing the existing English skills). Title VII project(ostensibly designed to upgrade Interestingly it limits theauthorization of bilingual programs culture of the Chamorro to those which"emphasize the language and of bilingual education people." There clearly was no acceptance of non-English or as a valuablelinguistic respons( to the needs limited English speakingchildren who COMP fromnon-Chamorro

backgrounds. Two years later thelegislature had another billwhich

mandated the developmentof instructional materialsto reflect

19 22 the island. This measure the multi-ethnicsocial structure of pluralist fad hittiryT,the appeared to be inkeeping with the similar in tone to someof the points U.S. mainland and was funding. Bill No. 358 made in the CLCPproposals for federal quietly silenced. had a short lifeinasmuch as it was activity in the This did not prevent anyfurther political In fact, the mostsignificant school cultureand language policy. July 16, 1977. asP.L. 14-53. measure wassigned into law on language mandate.the More commonlyknown as the Chamorro teaching Chamorroto all government of Guam nowcommits itself to In the secondary students in Guam'sschools in grades K-6. Indicative of theemotion attached schools, it becomesoptional. 21 senatorsquickly co- to the measure wasthe fact that all into law rapidly. sponsored the measureand it was signed primarily through It did engender somedebate in the public, politician has evenquestioned it. letters to theeditor, but no publicly, the lone Interestingly, when thebill was heard bilin,:al project testimony against it camefrom the first language coursesshould director on Guam. She felt that Chamorro

be voluntaryrather than manlatory. when one considers This growth ofsupport is phenomenal considered as anofficial that in 1974, whenChamorro was being several weeks toget language, debate wasextended and it took

sufficient support topass it. was alsomanifested Popular support inGuam's larger society Attitudes towards b,, a widespreadChamorro consciousness. in the 70's evenif the language and cultureshifted significantly people's day-to-day behavior didnot match the increasedexpression 4 of concern. That is to say, despite the praiseof Chamorro, there

has been no appreciable increase intheuse of Chamorro. Indicative of this concern is the conclusion ofa major study on cultural

change conducted on Guam in 1973. The researcher, Cornelius

VanDer Poel, suggests that younger peopleare demanding more

support for and from Chamorro culture. In this phenomenon, the

'younger people generally havea more idealized perception of

Chamorro culture and express their notionof ideal behavior as

being synonymous with traditional behavior.37 In keeping with

this perception, the younger generation ismore resentful of

outside influences and the cultural changes beingwrought on

the island than the older generations whoostensibly suffer more from it.

Language is viewed as a major carrier oftraditional authen-

ticity and upon it is placed much of the burden ofgroup survival in a political and social sense. Avery popular education consultant among bilingual teachers encapsulatedthe sentiments of many onthe island when he stated, "Guam withan impressive mixture of lan2-uaras in the middle ofa language revival which may lead to the liberation of he Chamorro people."38

The liberating qualities of Chamorro and its rolein ethnocultural solidarity were further expressed inthe Government of Guam Development plan released in 1979. In the document, written by a handful of young Chamorros in the Bureauof Planning, it was argued, that 4 "Nothing is a clearer indicator of the torturedyet triumphant history'-of the people ofGuam than the

21 24 record of change which hassurrounded the Chamorro language. Although the language has changed,it has remained the people'scleaKst link to.tpe fact that they areChamorros.""

Increased concern over languageissues seemed to go hand in hand with the economic andsocial changes that occured on the islands in the 70's. Moreover, involvement in politicalactivities which were nationalistic seemed toattract many of those working the Pacific kn'bilingual projects. A 1978 demonstratiOn against

Daily NewsEnglish-only language policy was led by a group called Peoples Alliancefor Responsible Alternative(PARA). The wkth bilingualf group consistedprimarily of individuals involved A similar programs in'onecapacity or another through the years. language protekt againstthe Saipan and Guam airports wasalso' led by those involvedin bilingual education. The same group was alsoinvolved in a letter-writingcampaign, media-exposure effort andthe-successful defeat of a1041 consti- tution which recognizedU.S. sovereignty 'over Guam. In fact, during the bitter campaign overthe constitution,pro-constitution supporters charged that theanti-constitution people were

"bilinguists who were buying timeforindependence."40

Such charges of apoliticized environment surrounding bilingual education arenot inaccurate, norshould they necessarily be construed as anunhappy state of affairs. Given the nature and'the forces which of the societywhich produced the program sustained it,it would be woefully naive toexpect linguistic

22

25 /. . research .to beat the forefront of the ChamorroeduCation mol/rement. bilingual In the NorthernMarianas, the development of identical lines. In education ,has followedsimilar although not began on the 1971, the firstfederally-funded bilingual project island of Rota withfunding,from'ESEA Title I. It was justified English would be facilitated on the basisthat the transition to by instruction in thenative language. The rest of the Northern

MIlianas saw abilingual project funded byESEA Title VII

instituted in 1975.. On'the_basisofthis'fundirig, all schools English/ have bilingual programseither in English/Chamorro ow 1-4 and 1-3 respectively. All are Justified Carolinian at grades r- transition to English. on the basisthat they facilitate in that However, unlike Guamthis rationale is apOicable

the children do cometo school knowingprimarilyQfiamorro. is'not/a matter of ethno- Vernacular instructionin' this situation linguistic sense. culturalsolidarity. It is,a'matter of common is appealing to Also unlike Guam,this 'transition" rationale

some politicians. Mani members of the Northern Marianas Chamorro schools under the elite wish tollmiet4role of Chamorro in the N, 41 As a result, political assumption thatChamorro will always lxit. A ethnoculturai support of-bilingualeducation as a vehicle for although it,does solidarity is not'aswidespread as it is on Guam the threat of"non-locals" dominating exist., This could be because clearly preceived asit is the island isnot,as developed or as t4 on Guam. f.

23 However, this does not prevent the individuals who work in bilingual programs in the NorthernMarianas from seeing their programs as vehicles forethnoctltural survival. They tend to be very nationalistice asevidenced by their interest in organizing social action groups similar to those found onGuam.42

Political Ramifications

Basically, there are three socio-political pointswhich can be made about bilingual education and the rise ofChamorro in the

Marianas. The first is that the programs are a response to ethnocultural nationalism which is on the risein the Marianas.

Concern over the loss of Chamorrocultural identity as a result of economic anddemogiaphic changes is dealt with ambivalently by local politicians. Unwilling to deliberately turn the direction of the islands arouLIJ, butstill finding the present situation atomforting, the islands' leaders feel that somesort of

1 cultral and linguistic action is necessary. Bilingual education and its various forms h.,.ve becomelie arena for sociopolitical action by these concerned individuals. The major difficulty with identifying bilingual orChamorrolanguage education with a nationalist perspective is that the educational programsare generally not part of a larger nationalistpolipy., The programs themselves are frequently the entirefoual point of language and culture policy when they sboule oe part of ageneral strategy of political action to meetculturalthitd linguistic changes brought on by economicdevelopment.

24 27 Secondly, bilingual education then becomes thevehicle for solving the psychoculturalproblems of change for individuals.

In response to the enormouschanges being wrought by the economic and political sceneand the problems of personal integration which may arise from them,the individual gets these educational programs.

What we have here is the heigi.t ofeducational egotism. That is to say, some educatorswould seriously maintain that through Chamorro language education of 30minutes daily and through arts and crafts, they can counteractthe effects of mass media, consuMmerism and technology run riot. Moreover, in addition to being a solution for psychoculturalproblems, the programs are suppsed to maintain Chamorro-ness onthe island and provide a vehicle for ethnocultural catharsis. These burdens are not only unrealistic but unfair to bilingualeducation. It is yet another example of how educational programs areexpected to solve problems they didn't create nor have anycontrol over.

The third point is that thoseindividuals who are most nation- alistic or concerned about culturalsurvival in the island societies become active in bilingualeducation. This makes bilingual educa- tion appear to be overtlypolitical. However, this is not a function of bilingualeducation, but rather a function ofthe first solidarity. point. Nationalistsmwant to promote ethnocultural Those who wish to promote suchsentiments find bilingual education as the onlyvehicle. It would be grossly inaccurate to saythat bilingual education is beingutilized solely for nationalistic purposes. It is, however, the only current legitimate route for cultural nationalistsin the Marianas. As such, there is a tremendous amount of emotional commitmentto the programs. However, this commitment must be reinforcedcontinual'/ in order to maintain interest in bilingual programs. Since many bilingual educators draw their spirit from thisethnocultural nationalism, some program activities take on avitriolic tone which generates opposition. This phenomenon also means that thebilingual educator as nationalist offers a non-pedagogicaldefense of bilingual education.

Almost by definition, nationalisticeducators see those in opposition as inauthentic members of theethnic culture. Oppo- nents are not just people whodiffer, they are unwitting mental prisoners of the oppressor at bestand dastardly enemies of the people at worst.

In terms of the Woodward/Inglehartand Fishman analyses,

Guam's situation can be understood,but not fully comprehended.

Conceit over language is supposedto be most serious in those linguistically-diverse areas which are in the processof rapid development. In tiles, times of economic change andhigh expecta- tions of social mobility,membership in certain language groups may facilitate suchmobility. If that language belongs to a dominant minority and serves as agatekeeper, the concern over language will reach new emotionalheights. This description fits

Guam (with a few adjustments)and with the rapid development of the Northern Marianas, Guam'snorthern neighb-i-s may not be far

263 behind.

The Woodward/Inglehart analysisapplies to Guam it proper consideration is given to the nature ofinstitutions in developing, yet colonial societies. As a colonial area, Guam has"borrowed" modern institutions. These institutions draw theirethos and models for comparisons fromwhence they were borrowed. Since these institutions did notevolve from (uam history, but were rather transplanted to theisland at various points in itsdistant and recent past, the institutions(particularly schools) may not be pursuing "local" agendas. Modern schooling on Guam is an (including American phenomenon. It pursues "American" agendas the emphasis on English asthe gateway to success) regardlessof how many "Americans" or"non -- Americans" are ostensibleoperating accrediting agencies, the system. The intricate networks of professional associations,consultant firms, federal funds and regulations all work towardsassuring that the institutionsbehave in a not too atypicalfashion when viewedfrOm a mainland U.S. advertise English as a perspective. In this sense, the agents who gatekeeper need not beoverbearing Anglos, assimilatedChamorros The schools, h, their very nature, or a "foreign"capitalist class. give that message. The gate may in fact be moreperceived than real and the enemies ofChamorro may be more internal thanexternal.

Nevertheless, the rapid changesin economic and social lifehave brought increased attentionto language and its rolein society, which would not be presentif there were no changesand there was no expectationof mobility.

27 30 In terms of Fishman's analysis of the nationalistic uses of

language, all the trademarks of Chamorro nationalism can be found

in the emerging school language policies of Guam. Appeals to a

glorious past and ethnocultural authenticity are frequently

addressed in terms of language. Additionally, the behavior of

many bilingual educators and involvement in political issues

make their nationalist sentiments apparent. Finally, we find

that the government has takenonly limited action in non-school

circles to support Chamorro as a vehicle to ethnocultural solidarity.

I do not wish to imply that a nationalist revolution is

brewing on Guam nor do I wish to convey the impression that there

is unanimous support of Chamorro language or bilingual forms of

education. Taking William Mackay's maxim that only before God

and linguists are languages equal, it is relatively easy to see

that English still has and will continue to enjoy a privileged position. However, the meteoric rise of concern over Chamorro does merit attention and analysis.

In conclusion, this language and cultural resurgence has, and will continue, to generate hard issues in both Guam and the

Northern Marianas which all people at the crossroads must confront.

Languages become tools in these issues not because of their widespread use or existence as communication impediments, but because they have been correctly identified as symbols of peoplehood. For the

Chamorros, who have historically been denied symbols or loaned the of other peoples' symbols, the recognition of something unique and

2R authentic is a form of mentalliberation.

The inescapable conclusionis that in developedPacific areas such as Guam, the useof language in educationalsystems is evaluated far less forits educational value thanfor its use in defining the essenceof a society that isexperiencing the happy vision of troubled times. It is a vehicle to maintain days gone by as well as atool for demonstratingpolitical and will engender a highly group clout. Developed Pacific areas developed sense ofnationalism. For Guam, the long-termchance Chamorro in of success for thenationalism (and the use of expressing it) may be slimand matter little in athousand years.

Nevertheless, at this stageof Guam's development, noother social for any self-respecting and political strategyseems to make sense

Chamorro.

29 32 BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES

1Chamorro is the indigenouslanguage of the Marianas. It is an Austronesian languageclosely related to Philippine languages, most notablyTagalog and Ilokano. See Donald Topping, Chamorro Reference Grammar(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1973), p. 4.

2Pacific Daily News, 9 Sept. 1977 A delegate to theisland's constitutional conventionvoted to make Chamorro the onlyofficial language because 75% ofthe children don't know it.

3See almost any proposal for Title VII,ESEA funding. The 1979-1982 Guam Bilingual-BiculturalEducation Program, K-9 - Proposal is a good example.

4See Carol Odo, A Survey ofLanguage Use arid Attitudes on She Guam (Agana, Guam: Guam Department of Education,1972). reports that Englishmonolingualism is rapidly growing among that the English the young. It is also worthwhile to note spoken on Guam reflects agreat deal of Chamorro influence.

5 "Language Conflicts and R. F. Ingelhart and M. Woodward, Political Community, "inLanguage and Social Context,ed. Pier Giglioli (New York: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 359.

6Ibid., p. 372

7Joshua Fishman, Languageand Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays (Rowley,Mass.: Newbury House, 1972), p. 43

8Ibid., p.71 and p. 84

9Ibid., p. 71

30 33 10Roy James, "The IslandPossession of Guam," in America's Pacific Dependencies (New York: American Institute of Pacific Relations, 1949), pp. 79-80.

11 Department of Commerce, Guam Annual Economic Review,1980, (Agana, Guam: Government of Guam, 1979), p.5, 58

12Ibid., p. 63

13Departmentof4tommerce, Guam Statistical_ Abstract 1974 (Agana, Guam: Government of Guam, 1974), p. 24

14Guam Annual Economic Review1980, p. 117. and Guam Statistical Abstract 1974, p.24

15Guam Annual EconomicReview 1980, p.13-14

16U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Naws, July 29,1981 (CB81-128)

17This is based on the nature of the campaignrehetoric for N. Marianas and U.S. a approval ofthe covenant between the

18Pacific Daily News, 2 May 1978, p. 6

19Ibid.

20 "Chamorro isa Living VibrantLanguage," P.D.N. April 16, 1974, p. 22. Quote attribute to Dr.George Riley, a University of Gua linguist.

21Katherine Aguon, "Guam's Educational Dilemma,"Islander (P.D.N. Sunday NewsSupplement), May 13, 1979, p.4

22"Education: the Basis of Progress,"Guam Recorder, I (Feb. 1925), p.3

23"English in the Schools of Guam,"Guam Recorder, I (Feb. 1925), p. 3

31 24Civil Affairs Handbook: Mandated Marianas Islands

(Washington, D.0 : Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 1944), pp. 115-117

25Don Topping "Spoken Chamorro Tomorrow" Guam Recorder (2nd series) III (Jan. - March, 1973), p. 46

261bid.

27The Bilingual Education Act (Rosslyn, Va: National Clearing- house for Bilingual Ed., 1979), p.3

28"What Parents Should Know About Bilingual Education," Guam Dept. of Education-Brochu44-1, 1971.

29The Guam Bilingual Education Project: A Review and Prospectus (Agana Guam: Dept. of Ed., 1971), unpaged.

"Guam Bilingual- Bicultural Education Program K-9, 1979-1982 Proposal, (Agana, Guam: Guam Dept. of Ed.), pg. 8-9.

310do, p.13

32Monika Kehoe, "English on Guam," Guam Recorder (2nd Series) III (Jar. - March, 1973), p. 43

33See Kolehion Mandikike' Project Brochure, 1973

34Final Re0rt on Bilingual Education on Guam (Portland,(re: Northwest Regional Ed. Laboratory, 1975 , p. 4

35Emergency School Aid Act Continuation Proposal for Fiscal Year 1977 (Agana, Guam: Guam Dept. of Ed., 1976), p. 4

36ESAA Project: Chamorro Language and Culture Program (Agana, Guam: Guam Dept. of Ed., 1977), p.16

32 37Cornelius J. Vander Poel, Guam, In Search of Its _Own Identity, Vol. I. (Agana, Guam: University_of Guam_ Social Science-Institute), p.331

3R Pacific Daily News, July 21, 1978, p.17a Quote attributed to Dr. Samuel Betances. e 39Bureau of Planning, Kabales Na Planu Guahan (Agana, Guam: Government of Guam), p. 68

40In a Debate broadcasted over KUAM-TV, Aug. 1,1979 in Guam.

33

36