The Changing Face of Students in the United States
Horace Mann was a revered educational reformer. In regards to the United States school system, Mann held onto the passionate belief that education is “the great equalizer of the conditions of men” (Sadovnik et al. 74). In an ideal, egalitarian, and meritocratic society, all social issues can be remedied by educational attainment—one could achieve the “American Dream.” This, however, was an ideology stemming from the 19th century with Anglo-Americans in mind. Today, the entire landscape of the U.S. educational system has changed as the demographics of student populations have shifted to become more racially and ethnically diverse. According to Gary Orfield et al., authors for the UCLA’s Civil Rights Project/Proyeto Derechos Civiles, there has been “a 28% decline in white enrollment… and an almost unbelievable 495% percent increase in the number of Latino students” (Orfield et al. 6). With the changing demographics of U.S. public school children, now “24.7% of students nationwide are Hispanic or Latino of any race” (Foxen and Mather 1) with 95% of Latinx students being U.S. citizens (National Council of La Raza, 8). Given these changing demographics, public schools should be working towards supporting Hispanic and Latinx students who make up a significant portion of students being served in the country. However, upon close examination, public schools in the United States have been systematically working against Latinx students, rather than working towards Horace Mann’s ideals of education being the “great equalizer.”
So why are Latinx students continuing to struggle despite making up a significant portion of the nations student population? Some prevailing themes surrounding Latinx students include their historical struggle against segregation, the linguistic genocide of English-only curriculums, migration and documentation status, and the rise of bilingual education. In order to develop an understanding of the Latinx present-day struggle, one must pull back the layers of historical oppression.
|
Horace Mann lived from 1796 to 1859. While he saw education as the ticket to upward mobility, it is unlikely he foresaw the student demographics of the 21st century to be predominately students of color, with 24.7% of them being Latinx.
Source: 2013 - 2014 Civil Rights Data Collection First Look
|
Early to mid 20th century
Segregation Beyond the Black/White Dichotomy
Segregation may be one of the greatest issues facing the United States public school system today. Due to segregation, our nation’s most marginalized groups continue to be systematically oppressed and academically stifled. With segregation being a major source of academic inequalities, there is a dire need for desegregating public schools. The 1954 landmark case for educational equity, Brown v. Board of Education, became the first piece of legislation to actively desegregate public schools along black and white racial lines. The ruling noted how racial segregation in U.S. public schools was unconstitutional, and with time, schools gradually became less segregated. This however, did not hold up for long, as now schools are more segregated than they were in 1970 (Orfield et al. 11). De facto segregation--or segregation that is not explicitly enforced by legal means--has led to public schools being segregated not just along black and white racial lines, but across race, ethnicity, class, and language. In fact, Latinx students are now the most segregated ethnic group in the country’s suburban public school system (Orfield et al. 2), thus highlighting the need to address an issue that most greatly affects the Latinx students of the United States. |
Two Different Forms of Segregation!
Know the difference between de jure and de facto segregation! De jure segregation is enforced by the law, such as segregation during the Jim Crow era. De facto segregation is segregation by "fact." Typically seen today in regard to housing segregation. To learn more, click here! |
"Mexican Schools" and Mendez v. Westminster
Segregation for Latinx students is nothing new. In fact, predating Brown v. Board of Education, was Mendez v. Westminster in 1947. Up until this historic case, Mexican-American students in California were subjected to racist and dehumanizing school segregation policies. In California, Mexican-American students were sent to “Mexican schools” that were exclusively for Mexican-American children. These “Mexican schools,” purported the intent to help children learn English and assimilate to U.S. culture. In actually, Mexican-American students were subjected to a sub-par, mediocre education that focused on teaching menial skills, hygiene, and “American morals.” Though de jure segregation--segregation enforced by legal means--these insidious schools ultimately existed to keep Mexican-American students segregated and oppressed.
Some schools in segregated districts would commonly admit a small number of Mexican-American students into the “white” schools. However, this was not due a school board's particularly keen sense towards social injustice. Rather, Mexican-American students that were admitted into “white” schools were more affluent and “descendants of old ‘Californio’ families” (Wollenberg 321). Wealth, cleanliness, quotas, and an adherence to “American” values were all part of the criteria that would enable token Mexican-American students to attend “white” schools. Following World War II, Mexican-American parents demanded for “equal rights and opportunity” (Wollenberg 325). Gonzalo Mendez, along with several other Mexican-American parents of Westminster county, emphatically advocated for integrated schooling (Wollenberg 325). When school boards across California refused support school desegregation, Mendez along with 4 other parents took legal action.
Segregation for Latinx students is nothing new. In fact, predating Brown v. Board of Education, was Mendez v. Westminster in 1947. Up until this historic case, Mexican-American students in California were subjected to racist and dehumanizing school segregation policies. In California, Mexican-American students were sent to “Mexican schools” that were exclusively for Mexican-American children. These “Mexican schools,” purported the intent to help children learn English and assimilate to U.S. culture. In actually, Mexican-American students were subjected to a sub-par, mediocre education that focused on teaching menial skills, hygiene, and “American morals.” Though de jure segregation--segregation enforced by legal means--these insidious schools ultimately existed to keep Mexican-American students segregated and oppressed.
Some schools in segregated districts would commonly admit a small number of Mexican-American students into the “white” schools. However, this was not due a school board's particularly keen sense towards social injustice. Rather, Mexican-American students that were admitted into “white” schools were more affluent and “descendants of old ‘Californio’ families” (Wollenberg 321). Wealth, cleanliness, quotas, and an adherence to “American” values were all part of the criteria that would enable token Mexican-American students to attend “white” schools. Following World War II, Mexican-American parents demanded for “equal rights and opportunity” (Wollenberg 325). Gonzalo Mendez, along with several other Mexican-American parents of Westminster county, emphatically advocated for integrated schooling (Wollenberg 325). When school boards across California refused support school desegregation, Mendez along with 4 other parents took legal action.
Source: KCET 2013
Members of the segregated school districts provided defenses inherently rooted in white supremacy. For example, the superintendent of Garden Grove School District, James L. Kent, provided a rationale for the racial segregation, noting that these policies were rooted in “benevolence” for the Mexican-American students. In Kent’s defense, “his district’s practice of segregation on the grounds that Mexicans were socially, culturally, and intellectually inferior to Anglo/white students. Kent asserted that Mexicans required special instruction beyond the English language--and cited his belief that Mexican people had poor personal hygiene and immoral social habits--that justified their segregation from Anglo/white pupils” (Fernandez 426). Rationales based on the “cognitive deficits” of Mexican-American children also were provided, noting how Mexican-American students required attending “Mexican schools” due to their limited proficiency in acquiring the English language. The presiding judge, however, noted how Mexican students were slower at acquiring the English language, not due to cognitive deficiencies, but rather by segregation itself. Through segregation, students were not as readily exposed to native English speakers as they would have been in diverse, desegregated schools. Ultimately, even the judge ruled that students were being segregated purely based on "the Latinized or Mexican name of the child” (Wollenberg 326).
Mendez v. Westminster provides testament to the power of Latinx organizing and advocacy for overcoming oppressive institutional structures. De jure segregation marginalized and adversely affected the community’s Mexican-American population--leaving students to receive a sub-par education when compared to their white peers. The history of struggle and advocacy thus becomes a prevailing theme when recognizing how Latinx students not only struggle, but are able to initiate change into creating a better system to work for all students. Similar advocacy occurred shortly after Mendez v. Westminster, when Puerto Ricans in New York City came together to create the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, ASPIRA, and advocated for bilingual education.
Seperate is Never Equal. A children's picture book by Duncan Tonatiuh that discusses the events surrounding school segregation and Mendez v. Westminster.
Mid to late 20th century
The Great Puerto Rican Migration
The theory of transnationalism is important to understanding the influx of Latinx migration, specifically with Puerto Rico. In 1916 the U.S. journalist Randolph Bourne described the expression “trans- national America” to challenge the myth of the melting pot, which justified the assimilation of immigrants into Anglo-Saxon culture (Duany, 2011) Transnationalism, in short is the idea that migrants continue to have ongoing ties with the communities from which they migrated. This is an important notion to understand when one begins to dissect the history of Puerto Ricans in the United States. Puerto Ricans have a unique relationship with the U.S. which dates back to the different waves of Puerto Rican migration. Puerto Rican history in the United States begins with the “Pilgrims of Freedom,” (Ojeda Reyes 1992) this group of Puerto Ricans migrated as they sought refuge. Since then, working-class Puerto Ricans have migrated primarily for economic reasons, such as: consistent unemployment and poverty. This group of Puerto Ricans are referred to as the "Pilgrims of Freedom" because they were in favor of the island's independence from Spain in 1868. Only about 690 Puerto Ricans were actually allowed into the United States- but this first group marks the beginning of the Puerto Rican Migration.
The second wave of Puerto Ricans are known as the "Pioneers." The pioneers began to leave the island in search for work. At this point, the United States had occupation of the island- many migrated to Hawaii, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. The largest mainland Puerto Rican settlements were in New York City, about seventy-one thousand Puerto Ricans moved to the mainland between 1900-1944. Puerto Ricans as a whole came to the United States in massive numbers before Dominicans. It is important to note that Puerto Rico is now a “commonwealth” of the United States, anyone from the island- also holds United States citizenship, since 1917. The years 1940–49 and 1950–59 mark the largest migrations of Puerto Ricans to the United States- most migrated for economic reasons. The economy in Puerto Rico had plummeted since 1930 (Duany) and many Puerto Ricans came to the United States knowing little to no English- leaving them to work in agriculture, manufacturing, and domestic service.
Puerto Ricans came to the United States full force and after 1946 most arrived to New York City in airplanes. In Blurred Borders Duany mentions, Luis Rafael Sánchez (1994) "uses the metaphor of a 'flying bus” (la guagua aérea), to suggest that Puerto Ricans transport between the island and the mainland as if they were just taking the bus. As flights between San Juan and New York became cheaper, shorter, and more frequent, Puerto Ricans became a “nation on the move” (Duany 2002)." Hence, leading to the enormous influx of Puerto Rican Migration. Puerto Ricans were able to fly to and from the island without a passport because they were considered United States citizens.
Puerto Ricans in New York City were titled Nuyorricans. This term is a blend of New York and Puerto Rican. Nuyorricans are apart of the Puerto Rican diaspora. This term includes Puerto Ricans being raised in NYC (or around NYC) and those who have migrated from the mainland. Nuyorrican is a term used to differentiate between a Puerto Rican born on the mainland and one of Puerto Rican descent. Nuyorricans is also a title that comes with negative connotations. This term is deemed less than an island born Puerto Rican. In general, however, this term is used to mark a prominent movement in Puerto Rican history- in NYC. The Nuyorrican Movement was a cultural movement that included poets, writers, musicians and artists who were of Puerto Rican descent. They lived in or near New York City, and called themselves Nuyorricans. The Nuyorrican movement shined light on the Puerto Rican experience in the United States. In the 1950s when Puerto Ricans were migrating to the United States, they often went unnoticed because they were confused for blacks.
If you want to learn more: https://www.nuyorican.org/
Puerto Ricans, however, were a force to be reckoned with. Then, and still, they can not be silenced. Justice and civil rights have and continue to be a themes that are discussed when speaking about Puerto Ricans on the island. For many years Puerto Ricans were forced and stripped of their island identity and language. Many were forced into English-only classrooms where they lost the rhythm of their mother tongue. The growing population of Puerto Ricans on the mainland, specifically in NYC, introduced the ideas of language rights. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was founded in 1972 in New York City and its main goal was to protect the civil rights of Puerto Ricans. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund is now known as LatinoJustice PRLDEF ( www.latinojustice.org ) and is still committed to advocacy against injustices throughout New York.
Currently, the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico is one that can be debated- considering the state of the island Post- Hurricane Maria.
See here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/03/puerto-rico-after-hurricane-maria-dispatches/
The theory of transnationalism is important to understanding the influx of Latinx migration, specifically with Puerto Rico. In 1916 the U.S. journalist Randolph Bourne described the expression “trans- national America” to challenge the myth of the melting pot, which justified the assimilation of immigrants into Anglo-Saxon culture (Duany, 2011) Transnationalism, in short is the idea that migrants continue to have ongoing ties with the communities from which they migrated. This is an important notion to understand when one begins to dissect the history of Puerto Ricans in the United States. Puerto Ricans have a unique relationship with the U.S. which dates back to the different waves of Puerto Rican migration. Puerto Rican history in the United States begins with the “Pilgrims of Freedom,” (Ojeda Reyes 1992) this group of Puerto Ricans migrated as they sought refuge. Since then, working-class Puerto Ricans have migrated primarily for economic reasons, such as: consistent unemployment and poverty. This group of Puerto Ricans are referred to as the "Pilgrims of Freedom" because they were in favor of the island's independence from Spain in 1868. Only about 690 Puerto Ricans were actually allowed into the United States- but this first group marks the beginning of the Puerto Rican Migration.
The second wave of Puerto Ricans are known as the "Pioneers." The pioneers began to leave the island in search for work. At this point, the United States had occupation of the island- many migrated to Hawaii, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. The largest mainland Puerto Rican settlements were in New York City, about seventy-one thousand Puerto Ricans moved to the mainland between 1900-1944. Puerto Ricans as a whole came to the United States in massive numbers before Dominicans. It is important to note that Puerto Rico is now a “commonwealth” of the United States, anyone from the island- also holds United States citizenship, since 1917. The years 1940–49 and 1950–59 mark the largest migrations of Puerto Ricans to the United States- most migrated for economic reasons. The economy in Puerto Rico had plummeted since 1930 (Duany) and many Puerto Ricans came to the United States knowing little to no English- leaving them to work in agriculture, manufacturing, and domestic service.
Puerto Ricans came to the United States full force and after 1946 most arrived to New York City in airplanes. In Blurred Borders Duany mentions, Luis Rafael Sánchez (1994) "uses the metaphor of a 'flying bus” (la guagua aérea), to suggest that Puerto Ricans transport between the island and the mainland as if they were just taking the bus. As flights between San Juan and New York became cheaper, shorter, and more frequent, Puerto Ricans became a “nation on the move” (Duany 2002)." Hence, leading to the enormous influx of Puerto Rican Migration. Puerto Ricans were able to fly to and from the island without a passport because they were considered United States citizens.
Puerto Ricans in New York City were titled Nuyorricans. This term is a blend of New York and Puerto Rican. Nuyorricans are apart of the Puerto Rican diaspora. This term includes Puerto Ricans being raised in NYC (or around NYC) and those who have migrated from the mainland. Nuyorrican is a term used to differentiate between a Puerto Rican born on the mainland and one of Puerto Rican descent. Nuyorricans is also a title that comes with negative connotations. This term is deemed less than an island born Puerto Rican. In general, however, this term is used to mark a prominent movement in Puerto Rican history- in NYC. The Nuyorrican Movement was a cultural movement that included poets, writers, musicians and artists who were of Puerto Rican descent. They lived in or near New York City, and called themselves Nuyorricans. The Nuyorrican movement shined light on the Puerto Rican experience in the United States. In the 1950s when Puerto Ricans were migrating to the United States, they often went unnoticed because they were confused for blacks.
If you want to learn more: https://www.nuyorican.org/
Puerto Ricans, however, were a force to be reckoned with. Then, and still, they can not be silenced. Justice and civil rights have and continue to be a themes that are discussed when speaking about Puerto Ricans on the island. For many years Puerto Ricans were forced and stripped of their island identity and language. Many were forced into English-only classrooms where they lost the rhythm of their mother tongue. The growing population of Puerto Ricans on the mainland, specifically in NYC, introduced the ideas of language rights. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was founded in 1972 in New York City and its main goal was to protect the civil rights of Puerto Ricans. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund is now known as LatinoJustice PRLDEF ( www.latinojustice.org ) and is still committed to advocacy against injustices throughout New York.
Currently, the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico is one that can be debated- considering the state of the island Post- Hurricane Maria.
See here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/03/puerto-rico-after-hurricane-maria-dispatches/
ASPIRA: From Struggle to Hope
Aspira means “to aspire” which is what the Latinx community continues to do. In New York City nearly all of the students served by this nonprofit organization come from low income households. Aspira began as a small counseling agency and is now the only national Hispanic organization that is exclusively dedicated to Hispanic/Latinx Youth. The organization is focused on education and leadership of Hispanic/Latinx youth and provide many programs that encourage our students to stay in school, succeed in academics and serve their community. The organization was founded by Dra. Antonia Pantoja who was born and studied in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Dra. Pantoja worked as a teacher and this is where she cultivated an interest in "education and addressing the needs of disadvantaged children" (Aspira). Upon moving to NYC in 1944, she began to notice the harsh experiences of racism and the discrimination the Puerto Rican communities faced. While working in a factory, she became an activist for other workers- Dra. Pantoja helped these workers find their voice. ASPIRA, was one of her greatest contribution to the Puerto Rican community. She paved the way to making history and educational advances for Latinxs’.
Important Cases
ASPIRA v. the New York Board of Education
The LatinoJustice PRLDEF'S FIRST case was Aspira v Board of Education. This case established and granted the right for Public School children to receive Bilingual Education while simultaneously learning English. ASPIRA v Board of Education stemmed specifically from the Puerto Rican community in New York City public schools. In 1972, the Puerto Rican community in NYC sought to obtain Bilingual Education programs for emergent bilinguals or language learners. Bilingual Education would allow students an equal opportunity to perform and learn as their non latinx peers. This case, was the stepping stone in seeing progress with Bilingual Education and Bi-literacy in New York City. ASPIRA gave Bilingual Education the important it deserves- seeing that many of of our Latinx students are thriving in Bilingual settings!
Read more here: www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=37720842002
ASPIRA v. Pennsylvania Board of Education
On October 8, 1970, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission representing ASPIRA of Pennsylvania, filed a complaint against the District of Philadelphia suggesting that the district was unlawfully segregated by race. After over 30 years, the court ordered the district to implement a 5 year plan called Imagine 2014.
The plan included:
· Increasing achievement and closing the opportunity and achievement
· gap for all students;
· Ensuring the equitable allocation of all District resources;
· Holding all adults accountable for student outcomes; and
· Satisfying parents, students and the community
Plyer v. Doe
Up until 1947, de jure segregation prevented most Mexican-American students from attending equitable schools. Through the struggle, organization, and advocacy, the Mexican-American community was able to win Mendez v. Westminster and put an end to de jure segregation. This, however, did not put an end to discriminatory policies designed to oppress Latinx students. Fewer than 40 years later, the state of Texas “authorized local school boards to exclude the children of undocumented aliens from the public schools” (Karst 1920). Schools that would enroll undocumented students would have to face harsh penalties of having their state funding cut--ultimately deterring schools from accepting undocumented students.
In the Supreme Court case Plyer v. Doe, the court found Texas’ attempt of excluding undocumented children from public schools to be unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. In their rebuttal, Texas legislature insisted that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to undocumented migrants due to their documentation status. However, the court was clear-- “the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for all PERSONS extends not only to aliens lawfully admitted for residence but also to undocumented aliens” (Karst 1920). Ultimately, Texas discriminatory legislation was defeated, as “all persons” includes anyone and everyone--even undocumented students. While Texas may have failed in their xenophobic and racist legislation, it did not prevent other states from attempting to exclude undocumented students from the public school system. Twelve years following Plyer v. Doe, California attempted a similar act of oppression against undocumented migrants with Proposition 187.
Up until 1947, de jure segregation prevented most Mexican-American students from attending equitable schools. Through the struggle, organization, and advocacy, the Mexican-American community was able to win Mendez v. Westminster and put an end to de jure segregation. This, however, did not put an end to discriminatory policies designed to oppress Latinx students. Fewer than 40 years later, the state of Texas “authorized local school boards to exclude the children of undocumented aliens from the public schools” (Karst 1920). Schools that would enroll undocumented students would have to face harsh penalties of having their state funding cut--ultimately deterring schools from accepting undocumented students.
In the Supreme Court case Plyer v. Doe, the court found Texas’ attempt of excluding undocumented children from public schools to be unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. In their rebuttal, Texas legislature insisted that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to undocumented migrants due to their documentation status. However, the court was clear-- “the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for all PERSONS extends not only to aliens lawfully admitted for residence but also to undocumented aliens” (Karst 1920). Ultimately, Texas discriminatory legislation was defeated, as “all persons” includes anyone and everyone--even undocumented students. While Texas may have failed in their xenophobic and racist legislation, it did not prevent other states from attempting to exclude undocumented students from the public school system. Twelve years following Plyer v. Doe, California attempted a similar act of oppression against undocumented migrants with Proposition 187.
Proposition 187: Intentions to Re-segregate
Echoing the attempts of Texas in Plyer v. Doe , the state of California presented their own effort to enforce other discriminatory policies with the intention of outright prohibiting undocumented Latinx students from attending public schools altogether.
In 1994, Californians attempted to enact Proposition 187 which would have barred undocumented immigrants from receiving any public or social services--which included public education. The anti-Mexican sentiments expressed in California overflows with a bitter hypocrisy for a state that formerly belonged to the Mexican government. The policy was formed with the intent to deprive undocumented Mexican children from receiving any public education.
Upon the enactment of Proposition 187, civil rights groups immediately responded to put an end to Proposition 187. Some of these groups included the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the American Civil Liberties Union (Lerner et al. 323). Without the advocacy of civil rights groups such as these, Proposition 187 would have entirely prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving access to social services, publicly funded health services, and all public schools. Public schools would have had to not only report the citizenship status of all of its students, but their legal guardians as well--so that even if a child were to be a legal citizen, the undocumented guardian would still incur legal ramifications.
Today, United States public schools serve all children--regardless of documentation status. While Proposition 187 ultimately failed, the intention behind barring undocumented Latinx children still demonstrates the enduring struggle Latinx students continue to face. However, the ultimate defeat of this piece of legislation by Latinx civil rights groups demonstrates how through struggle and advocacy, the Latinx community has, time and time again, found ways of moving towards a more equitable future.
Echoing the attempts of Texas in Plyer v. Doe , the state of California presented their own effort to enforce other discriminatory policies with the intention of outright prohibiting undocumented Latinx students from attending public schools altogether.
In 1994, Californians attempted to enact Proposition 187 which would have barred undocumented immigrants from receiving any public or social services--which included public education. The anti-Mexican sentiments expressed in California overflows with a bitter hypocrisy for a state that formerly belonged to the Mexican government. The policy was formed with the intent to deprive undocumented Mexican children from receiving any public education.
Upon the enactment of Proposition 187, civil rights groups immediately responded to put an end to Proposition 187. Some of these groups included the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the American Civil Liberties Union (Lerner et al. 323). Without the advocacy of civil rights groups such as these, Proposition 187 would have entirely prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving access to social services, publicly funded health services, and all public schools. Public schools would have had to not only report the citizenship status of all of its students, but their legal guardians as well--so that even if a child were to be a legal citizen, the undocumented guardian would still incur legal ramifications.
Today, United States public schools serve all children--regardless of documentation status. While Proposition 187 ultimately failed, the intention behind barring undocumented Latinx children still demonstrates the enduring struggle Latinx students continue to face. However, the ultimate defeat of this piece of legislation by Latinx civil rights groups demonstrates how through struggle and advocacy, the Latinx community has, time and time again, found ways of moving towards a more equitable future.
Backlash Pedagogy and Proposition 227
Public education, as presented by Horace Mann, should serve as “the great equalizer,” and therefore, one would subscribe to the ideology that education should be equitable to all students--regardless of race, ethnicity, social class, and other ascriptive factors. However, when Latinx diversity poses a threat towards neocolonial Anglo-American culture, the educational system functions to oppress Latinx students. Jill Kerper Mora notes how, “[The] term, Backlash pedagogy, has been coined to characterize [the] reactionary policy web that threatens advances in effective educational practices and equal opportunity for Latino students” (30). One of these infamous forms of backlash pedagogy is the implementation of “English-only” policies in schools that support the notion of English-language superiority and the eradication of linguistic diversity. For many Latinx students, this means the erasure of the Spanish language from public schools, and in turn, communities.
Proposition 227 is perhaps one of these most controversial pieces of education legislation in recent history. In an effort to force Latinx students to abandon Spanish and become immersed in an English-only curriculum, the ideology was immersion would be the most effective method for teaching Latinx students the English language. According to Mora, “Before passage of Proposition 227, 30% of the ELL population (8% of the total school population) was enrolled in bilingual program” (35). Mora attributes this to how the California teaching force was comprised of only 8% of teachers who were certified to teach bilingual education--hinting that the number may have been greater if more teachers were certified in bilingual education. As a result of Proposition 227, students then were taught by teachers who were not bilingual, nor did they have effective pedagogical methods for instructing bilingual students (Mora 35). Mora continues to note that, “consequently, in many school districts, monolingual teachers with a minimum amount of training are expected to accomplish in 1 year what bilingual teachers with high specialized training were formerly expected to accomplish in 3 to 5 years of instruction.” This English-only philosophy was not only implemented in Californian policy, but it had become the ethos of the U.S. public school system in an effort to forcibly assimilate the “domestic foreigners” with a Spanish tongue.
In his book, Harvest of Empire, author Juan Gonzalez reflects on his schooling experience in his New York City’s East Harlem public school: “Most of us became products of a sink-or-swim public school philosophy, immersed in English-language instruction from our first day in class and actively discouraged from retaining our native tongue” (Gonzalez 90). In many ways, the linguistic genocide committed towards the Spanish language not only invalidated the cultures of these Latinx students, but had also greatly exacerbated the achievement gap in an already-marginalized community.
Public education, as presented by Horace Mann, should serve as “the great equalizer,” and therefore, one would subscribe to the ideology that education should be equitable to all students--regardless of race, ethnicity, social class, and other ascriptive factors. However, when Latinx diversity poses a threat towards neocolonial Anglo-American culture, the educational system functions to oppress Latinx students. Jill Kerper Mora notes how, “[The] term, Backlash pedagogy, has been coined to characterize [the] reactionary policy web that threatens advances in effective educational practices and equal opportunity for Latino students” (30). One of these infamous forms of backlash pedagogy is the implementation of “English-only” policies in schools that support the notion of English-language superiority and the eradication of linguistic diversity. For many Latinx students, this means the erasure of the Spanish language from public schools, and in turn, communities.
Proposition 227 is perhaps one of these most controversial pieces of education legislation in recent history. In an effort to force Latinx students to abandon Spanish and become immersed in an English-only curriculum, the ideology was immersion would be the most effective method for teaching Latinx students the English language. According to Mora, “Before passage of Proposition 227, 30% of the ELL population (8% of the total school population) was enrolled in bilingual program” (35). Mora attributes this to how the California teaching force was comprised of only 8% of teachers who were certified to teach bilingual education--hinting that the number may have been greater if more teachers were certified in bilingual education. As a result of Proposition 227, students then were taught by teachers who were not bilingual, nor did they have effective pedagogical methods for instructing bilingual students (Mora 35). Mora continues to note that, “consequently, in many school districts, monolingual teachers with a minimum amount of training are expected to accomplish in 1 year what bilingual teachers with high specialized training were formerly expected to accomplish in 3 to 5 years of instruction.” This English-only philosophy was not only implemented in Californian policy, but it had become the ethos of the U.S. public school system in an effort to forcibly assimilate the “domestic foreigners” with a Spanish tongue.
In his book, Harvest of Empire, author Juan Gonzalez reflects on his schooling experience in his New York City’s East Harlem public school: “Most of us became products of a sink-or-swim public school philosophy, immersed in English-language instruction from our first day in class and actively discouraged from retaining our native tongue” (Gonzalez 90). In many ways, the linguistic genocide committed towards the Spanish language not only invalidated the cultures of these Latinx students, but had also greatly exacerbated the achievement gap in an already-marginalized community.
Source: [Educational Justice, Link]
Proposition 227 was formed under the guise of helping Spanish-speaking, Latinx students, of achieving proficiency in English in order to attain overall academic achievement. However, in Thomas and Collier’s 1997 study of language minority students taught strictly in English, only an “estimated 10% of the programs for language minority students are highly effective in achieving these academic achievement goals” (Mora 35). Mora summarizes the longitudinal study conducted by Thomas and Collier and discusses how the “Typical student who is schooled through bilingual education and is achieving on grade level in his or her native language” will take 4 to 7 years to close the achievement gap. However, “the typical young immigrant or American-born speaker of a native language other than English who is educated entirely in English as a second language from 7 to 10 years or more [to close the gap]... Many of these students never do reach this level of achievement unless they receive support for academic and cognitive development in their native language either at home or in school” (Thomas and Collier, as cited by Mora 34, 35).
the 21st Century
Segregation: A Persistent Issue
Segregation still persists even though there is no longer any explicitly racist policies enforcing segregation, such as designated schools for Latinx children and exclusionary policies for undocumented immigrants. According to the UCLA’s Civil Rights Project/Proyeto Derechos Civiles, “In most populous metropolitan areas, Latinos make up 42% of public school enrollment” and “segregation is by far the most serious in the central cities of the largest metropolitan areas” (Orfield et al. 2). The crisis of public school segregation had historically been presented along the white/black binary, but with a growing Latinx population in the country, the United States must address the systematic oppression incurred by Latinx public school segregation.
Segregation still persists even though there is no longer any explicitly racist policies enforcing segregation, such as designated schools for Latinx children and exclusionary policies for undocumented immigrants. According to the UCLA’s Civil Rights Project/Proyeto Derechos Civiles, “In most populous metropolitan areas, Latinos make up 42% of public school enrollment” and “segregation is by far the most serious in the central cities of the largest metropolitan areas” (Orfield et al. 2). The crisis of public school segregation had historically been presented along the white/black binary, but with a growing Latinx population in the country, the United States must address the systematic oppression incurred by Latinx public school segregation.
As a multidimensional issue, segregation has long functioned along the lines of race, ethnicity, language, social class, and ability. However, the greatest contributor to segregation in the public school system is the persistent housing segregation occurring in communities of low socioeconomic status (Anyon). These communities tend to be predominately black and Latinx (CRDC), where “Metropolitan areas experience hyper-segregation due to persistent housing segregation” (Orfield et al. 34). Although there are not any explicitly racist policies, such as Proposition 187, that are the cause of today’s segregated school system, the utilization of school zoning laws and funneling low socioeconomic Latinx students into zoned schools, becomes problematic for all pupils--especially for the ever-growing Latinx population.
|
Source: 2013 - 2014 Civil Rights Data Collection First Look, adapted from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census: and Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center
|
The effects of school segregation are detrimental to the educational achievement of all students attending these schools. For instance, schools that are predominately black and Latinx are twice as likely to have inexperienced teachers completing their first year of teaching with 10% of teachers being in their first year teaching, as opposed to 5% of first year teachers in schools with low enrollments of black and Latinx students (CRDC 9). Specifically for Latinx students, 9% of Latinx students attend schools where 20% of teachers are in their first year of teaching (CRDC 9). This is further exacerbated as “experienced educators systematically move away from segregated minority schools to largely white or integrated schools where the students are better prepared and the external problems less severe” (Orfield et al. 35). In order for students to be academically successful, experienced and knowledgeable educators are crucial. Latinx students subjected to instruction strictly by novice teachers is an injustice to a significant portion of public school students. All students should have equitable access to experienced educators with highly developed pedagogical practices. By having experienced educators, Latinx students can begin to have access to the same academic rigor and instruction as their white peers--otherwise, this educational injustice will continue to persist.
Additionally, while segregated schools have fewer experienced teachers, Latinx students are not as equitably resourced as their white peers when it comes to advanced coursework. According to the Civil Rights Data Collection, “Only a third of high schools with high black and Latinx enrollments offer calculus, compared to 56 percent of those that serve low numbers of black and Latinx students.” and “Less than half the high schools with high black and Latinx enrollments offer physics, while two in three high schools that have low numbers of black and Latinx student offer physics” (CRDC 6). Without academically rigorous coursework, Latinx students become ill-prepared for entry into higher education. Additionally, with a significant portion of Latinx students coming from low socioeconomic backgrounds, advanced placement courses become crucial as they provide valuable college credits without the college price tag.
Additionally, while segregated schools have fewer experienced teachers, Latinx students are not as equitably resourced as their white peers when it comes to advanced coursework. According to the Civil Rights Data Collection, “Only a third of high schools with high black and Latinx enrollments offer calculus, compared to 56 percent of those that serve low numbers of black and Latinx students.” and “Less than half the high schools with high black and Latinx enrollments offer physics, while two in three high schools that have low numbers of black and Latinx student offer physics” (CRDC 6). Without academically rigorous coursework, Latinx students become ill-prepared for entry into higher education. Additionally, with a significant portion of Latinx students coming from low socioeconomic backgrounds, advanced placement courses become crucial as they provide valuable college credits without the college price tag.
Source:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/28/534396017/i-am-learning-ingl-s-a-dual-language-comic
Bilingual Education
The United States of America has had a long history of immigration and migration, both in and out of the country. The U.S. claims to be a melting pot of cultures and backgrounds; however, there has always been an undercurrent of Anglo Saxon dominance over all other cultures. The educational system in the U.S. demonstrates and enforces this undercurrent and the system has often failed to adapt to the needs of all who come here. Immigrants from Latin America traveled to the United States for a better life, some of whom could not speak English. It was nearly impossible to educate children in the U.S. with a language barrier. Depending on who you ask, there is a distinct difference between education, and schooling. Education is supposed to be the way one learns, and receives knowledge, skills, values; a formal transferring of information from one person to others, while schooling is defined as the education received and obtained through experience and exposure. In the United States, there seems to be a system of education and schooling that limits the amount of knowledge members of different races and classes of society receive. Where some children are taught to think critically, others are taught to understand without question.
In Affirming Diversity, Sonia Nieto would consider this to be Monocultural curriculum, which gives students only one way of seeing the world. Members of the high class have created an education system which keeps the rich, rich, and keeps the poor, poor, by forcing upon them a pedagogy that keeps a large number of individuals oppressed while empowering others. Jean Anyon describes in her observations of schools in different neighborhoods that in “working class schools, work is following steps of a procedure…which is usually mechanical, involving rote behavior and very little decision making, or choice.” While in the more wealthy schools in different neighborhoods, which Anyon refers to as elite executive school's, “work is developing one’s analytical powers…children are asked to reason through a problem…their work helps one to achieve, to excel.” (read more here). Anyon described the working class schools as a population made up of blue collar families who are supported by the head of the household who more often than not, had an unskilled or semi- skilled job, while the elite executive schools as a population of fathers who are top financial executives, and mothers intricately involved in town politics or also have well-paid occupations who have “no minority children in the school” (Anyon).
Latinx children in the United States are a minority group who make up a high population, many of whom unfortunately barely make it out of high school, let alone into and beyond the realm of higher education. This is specifically because of the education system in place which detaches them from their cultural backgrounds, and forces upon them the notion that they need to assimilate in order to advance in society, which gives them an urge to resist, or to reject education. In their brief history of Latino Education in the Twentieth Century, San Miguel and Donato describe how students were “mistreated by teachers and other students... punished for simply speaking Spanish.” Referring to a history like that, what Latino child would feel comfortable, let alone safe speaking a language other than the ones that their peers speak, at the risk of ridicule and shame? The exclusion of students native language is a contributing factor of the negative path they forcibly take. But how can we meet our students where they are?
¡Educación bilingüe hoy!
Bilingual Education today looks different depending on the schools you visit. Schools throughout NYC support English Language Learners or emergent bilinguals using different programs- one of the most popular and beneficial being Dual Language classrooms. In the last year, there were almost fifty new Bilingual Education programs added to schools in order to better serve language learners under Mayor De Blasio and Chancellor Richard Carranza (who has often shared his story as a language learner). Former DOE Chancellor Carmen Fariña has also shared her views on the importance of Bilingual Education. Bilingual Education, in short, embraces the mother tongue. Currently, Chancellor Richard Carranza has been very vocal about desegregating and creating equity in DOE schools. In an interview he stated:
"It’s been [more than 60 years] since Brown vs. Board of Education. I don’t think anybody can point to a lot of action. So c’mon. Give me a break. Equity, from the very beginning that I got here, has been something that I’ve not only championed but talked about. I’ve been able to sign off on two community education district plans, District 3, which sets aside a certain percentage of seats for underrepresented students, and then most recently, District 15, where they are taking on screens (selective admissions criteria used by some schools) in a very different way. So there’s action. I would also say that, when’s the last time that they remember a chancellor actually taking this on, right from the beginning? The very fact that I’m using the word‘ segregation,’ using the word ‘integration,’ is action. I would also point to the fact that the mayor and I have put forth a very specific proposal on specialized schools. Talk about the marquee portfolio of schools, that we call them specialized schools, but those are kind of screened schools."
Chancellor Carranza replaced Carmen Fariña, who retired, in April 2018. Since his first day in NYC he has been on a mission: A mission that puts our children first. Carranza mentions the idea of equity and with equity we need to reach students, families, and communities where they are and provide the necessary programs/ assistance for them to reach expectations. One way we reach our students is though Bilingual Education.
Bilingual Education has different models, which include:
Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE): The students’ home language is used to help them progress academically in all content areas while they acquire English. They eventually move into English speaking classrooms
Dual Language Programs (DL): Students learn to speak, read, and write in two languages, and also learn about other cultures while developing strong self-esteem and diverse language skills.
One-Way Dual Language Programs: Students who come from the same primary or home language and or background have the opportunity to be bilingual or multilingual.
Two-Way Dual Language Programs: Includes both native English speakers and ELLs. The teacher or teachers provide instruction in both English and the home/primary language. The goal of these programs is for students to develop literacy and proficiency in English and in the home/target language (the second language that is being acquired/learned).
English as a new Language (ENL formerly known as ESL): Emphasizes English language acquisition
Find more information here:
http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/program-options-english-language-learnersmultilingual-learners
The future of latinx education
Equity, not Equality: A Call for Desegregation and Inclusion
As seen throughout this overview of the systematic oppression of Latinx students in the U.S. public school system, the history of U.S. Latinx students has been one of struggle and oppression. From forms of segregation rooted in notions of white supremacy, to legislation that promotes the linguistic genocide of the Spanish tongue, the experiences of Latinx students has, and continues to be, one that promotes inequality.
In order for the U.S. public school system to address the struggles that Latinx students face today, a call for desegregation and inclusion is necessary if the system is to become more equitable to the ever-growing Latinx student population. This is exactly what the San Antonio Independent School District intends on doing.
For example, the use of diversity models--deliberately including students from various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, regardless of their school zones--can be one step towards creating more diverse and inclusive school environments. In the face of de facto segregation, explicit policies must be made to help diversify schools and thus provide equitable resources to all students--regardless of ascriptive factors.
As seen throughout this overview of the systematic oppression of Latinx students in the U.S. public school system, the history of U.S. Latinx students has been one of struggle and oppression. From forms of segregation rooted in notions of white supremacy, to legislation that promotes the linguistic genocide of the Spanish tongue, the experiences of Latinx students has, and continues to be, one that promotes inequality.
In order for the U.S. public school system to address the struggles that Latinx students face today, a call for desegregation and inclusion is necessary if the system is to become more equitable to the ever-growing Latinx student population. This is exactly what the San Antonio Independent School District intends on doing.
For example, the use of diversity models--deliberately including students from various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, regardless of their school zones--can be one step towards creating more diverse and inclusive school environments. In the face of de facto segregation, explicit policies must be made to help diversify schools and thus provide equitable resources to all students--regardless of ascriptive factors.
Fostering Bilingual, Bicultural Students
What do Bilingual Latinx 5th graders have to say about Bilingual Education?
These are my 5th grade (10-11 years old) students! Our school is located in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Sunset Park is a predominantly Latinx neighborhood, that is showing early signs of gentrification. My students have been in Dual Language Spanish classrooms since Pre-K. Many come from immigrant families or are immigrants themselves.
I say this through the eyes of a Dual Language Spanish Teacher:
Bilingual Education allows Language Learners the opportunity to become balanced bilinguals, meaning they can read, write, and orally communicate in two languages.
How do we know Bilingual Education is worth fighting for?
Read what they have to say!
What do Bilingual Latinx 5th graders have to say about Bilingual Education?
These are my 5th grade (10-11 years old) students! Our school is located in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Sunset Park is a predominantly Latinx neighborhood, that is showing early signs of gentrification. My students have been in Dual Language Spanish classrooms since Pre-K. Many come from immigrant families or are immigrants themselves.
I say this through the eyes of a Dual Language Spanish Teacher:
Bilingual Education allows Language Learners the opportunity to become balanced bilinguals, meaning they can read, write, and orally communicate in two languages.
How do we know Bilingual Education is worth fighting for?
Read what they have to say!
"Bilingual Education is important because I think of my friends who just came to the country, how will they learn if they can't understand what the teacher is saying?"
- Student A "Being in a Dual Language Classroom helps me speak Spanish fluently, honestly I don't need Siri when I speak to my family back in the Dominican Republic."
-Student B "Creo que la educación bilingüe es importante porque cuando seas grande va ser fácil hablar o trabajar con gente que hablan inglés y español. Si no sabes dos lenguajes vas a tener dificultad hablando con gente porque hay muchas personas en nuestro vecindario que solo hablan español."
-Estudiante C "La educación bilingüe es importante porque ayuda a los niños que solo hablan un idioma interactúen con otros. Si ellos aprenden ser bilingües tienen más posibilidades para tener buenos trabajos cuando crezcan. Pueden ser exitosos en la escuela y afuera. Y por eso la educación bilingüe es muy importante."
- Estudiante D |
"La educación bilingüe es importante porque obliga a las escuelas a representar de dónde soy.
- Estudiante G "Yo creo que la educación bilingüe es importante porque si eres de los Estados Unidos y también de Puerto Rico necesitas aprender cómo hablar inglés y español. La educación bilingüe ayuda con el proceso de aprender un idioma. "
-Estudiante F "I am happy to be in a Dual Language classroom because my classmates who just moved here get to learn English with a teacher who also speaks and teaches in Spanish."
-Student I "Nuestra clase permite que los niños que no saben inglés aprendan sin duda o miedo."
-Estudiante H "You get more money when you grow up because you speak more than one language. When I own a business, I can help more than one customer at a time."
-Student E |
Works cited
- Anyon, Jean. Radical Possibilities: Public Policy, Urban Education, and a New Social Movement. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
- Anyon, Jean. "Social class and the hidden curriculum of work." Journal of education 162.1 (1980): 67-92.
- Duany, Jorge. Blurred Borders: Transnational Migration between the Hispanic Caribbean and the United States. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 2011. Print.
- Foxen, Patricia, and Mark Mather. Toward A More Equitable Future: The Trends and Challenges Facing America's Latino Children. National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the Population Reference Bureau (PRB). 2016. URI: http://publications.nclr.org/handle/123456789/1627
- González, Juan. Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America. New York: Viking, 2000. Print.
- Lerner, K. Lee, Editor, and Gale Group. Immigration and Multiculturalism Essential Primary Sources. Detroit, Mich.: Gale, 2006. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web.
- Lilia Fernández, Editor. 50 Events that Shaped Latino History: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic [2 volumes]. Greenwood, 2018. ABC-CLIO, publisher.abc-clio.com/9781440837630.
- Mora, Jill Kerper. "Caught in a Policy Web: The Impact of Education Reform on Latino Education." Journal of Latinos and Education 1.1 (2002): 29-44. Web.
- Nieto, Sonia. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. New York: Longman, 1992. Print.
- Orfield, Gary, Erica Frankenberg, Jongyeon Ee and John Kuscera. “Brown at 60: Great Progress, a Long Retreat and an Uncertain Future.” Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. 2014.
- San Miguel Jr, Guadalupe, and Rubén Donato. "Latino education in twentieth-century America: A brief history." Handbook of Latinos and education. Routledge, 2009. 53-88.
- Sadovnik, Alan R, Peter W. Cookson, and Susan F. Semel. Exploring Education: An Introduction to the Foundations of Education. Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2006. Print.
- Wollenberg, Charles. "Mendez v. Westminster: Race, Nationality and Segregation in California Schools." California Historical Quarterly 53.4 (1974): 317-32. Web.