| |
Tse, Lucy (2001). "Why Don't They Learn
English?" Separating Fact from Fallacy in the U.S. Language
Debate. New York: Teachers College Press.
120 pp.
$42 (Cloth)
ISBN 0807740977
$18.95 (Paperback) ISBN 0807740969
Reviewed by Wayne E. Wright
Arizona State University
April 22, 2002
"Why don't they learn English?"
As this is a question many involved in the education of language
minority students constantly hear, Lucy Tse has chosen an
effective title for her book. Hopefully this will help bring it
the attention it deserves.
Tse's addresses two of the major misconceptions in the
U.S. language debate: (a) immigrants resist learning English, and
(b) immigrants cling to their native language and perpetuate it
to subsequent generations.
Educators and scholars generally have difficulty
influencing public opinion and policy, because they mostly just
talk to each other. Their research papers, journal articles,
conference presentations, and books are rarely accessible to the
general public; the target audiences are typically other scholars
and/or practitioners. Thus, public opinion and policy tend to be
shaped by journalist, mass media, politicians, and occasionally
books written for the general population. This has been
especially true in the area of education of English language
learners, as evidenced by the passage of Proposition 227 in
California, Proposition 203 in Arizona, and similar initiatives
currently underway in Colorado and Massachusetts to end bilingual
education.
Tse attempts to remedy this situation by writing what she
describes as a "short, readable introduction to these
issues for the nonspecialist, but one that is well supported by
research" (p. vii). In this Tse largely succeeds. She
writes in a clear, concise manner that is more like a
conversation one would have on an airplane or at a social event
than an article one would read in a scholarly journal. She places
the majority of her references and more scholarly comments in
endnotes, out of the way of the lay-reader, but still accessible
to the academic reader. She avoids other characteristics typical
of scholarly writing. For example, rather than the formal
author/date format when referring to research in the text, she
uses both the first and last names of other researchers, and
mentions who they are, (e.g., "Stephen Krashen, a
researcher at the University of Southern California, . . ."
p. 22). She keeps her tables and charts as simple as possible.
She provides several anecdotal accounts of personal acquaintances
to illustrate her points; this technique that may be viewed by
academics as too informal, yet has proven to be an effective tool
in popular and political discourse. She also includes anecdotes
from her own life. In addition, Tse makes references to the
popular cultural to illustrate her points. For example, she
describes a comedy sketch by Father Guido Sarducci (Don Novello)
on Saturday Night Live where he delivered satirical news
and commentary—all in Italian—but in a manner that
made it comprehensible to the American audience. Thus, by
avoiding academic prose and writing conventions, and by telling
stories, and making references to the popular culture, Tse
succeeds in writing on an important topic in a non-threatening,
easily accessible format. Unfortunately, given the fact that the
publisher (Teacher's College Press) mainly markets to the
academic audience, the book is more likely to be used in teacher
education programs, rather than appear in popular bookstores.
However, in exchange for writing to the popular audience the book
may never reach, Tse was limited, by her own admission, by the
need to keep the book short, and thus was not able to adequately
address other key issues in the language debate (e.g., language
loss among indigenous peoples, power dynamics, and theory and
politics surrounding bilingual education). In the introduction,
she refers readers to several other scholars for discussion on
these matters (p. viii).
In Chapter 1, Tse documents public perception of language
policy by describing the debates surrounding "Official
English" amendments and bilingual education. She analyzes
congressional speeches in favor of "Official English, and
opinion articles in the popular press on issues such as bilingual
education. The results reveal the common beliefs and themes in
the debate: English unites the county, multilingualism is
divisive; English needs to be preserved as the national language;
immigrants are not learning English; immigrants need to learn
English; and bilingual education prevents English learning.
Tse challenges these popular beliefs in Chapter 2. She
provides data from many sources, including the U.S. Census, to
create a more accurate picture of "the state of
English-language learning" in the United States (see also
Wiley, 1996, for data-based challenges to myths about language
and diversity in the United States). She first shows that
today's immigrants are predominantly from Latin America and
Asia (57% and 17% respectively) in contrast to 1900 when 85% of
immigrants were from Europe, and only 2% (1% each) were from Asia
and Latin America. Also significant is the fact that while there
are a greater number of foreign-born immigrants in the U.S. today
(about 25.8 million in 1999 compared to about 11 million in
1900), the proportion of foreign-born immigrants to the overall
population has actually decreased (from 13.6% in 1900 to 10.6% in
1990). The data reveal that the overwhelming majority of
immigrants do in fact speak English. In 1989, 71.5% of people
from Spanish speaking homes, and 72.3% of people from homes where
Asian/Pacific Islander languages are spoken reported that they
spoke English "well" or "very well." Tse
provides data on studies on the children of immigrants in schools
revealing that over 90% of students from Latin American, Asian,
and Hatian immigrant families spoke English "well" or
"very well." An interesting factor here is that these
data are based on self-reports (See Wiley, 1990, 1996, for issues
related to self-reporting language and literacy proficiency), and
thus the majority of immigrants in these data feel they speak the
language well. Tse observes that complaints about immigrants not
learning English usually refer to the fact that that immigrants
do not sound like native speakers. If true, then the issue is one
of accent discrimination, and not one of immigrants refusing to
learn English (see Lippi-Green, 1997). Tse further notes that
despite the overwhelming success of immigrants in learning
English, there are many obstacles hampering their efforts to do
so. The main obstacle for adults is the availability of, and
access to, English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. There are
long waiting lists for many established programs, and issues such
as work schedule, transportation, and child care prevent others
from attending.
In Chapter 3, Tse addresses the misconception that immigrant
languages are passed down from generation to generation. The fact
that immigrant youth learn English well was documented in the
previous chapter. Here Tse uses research and anecdotal accounts
to argue that "immigrant languages have short lives in the
United States" (p. 30). Thus, the issue is not immigrant
children refusing or failing to learn English; rather, the issue
is immigrant children are losing their home (heritage)
language(s). She cites several causes of language loss,
including: (a) the powerful pull of English, (b) limited exposure
to the heritage language, (c) limited opportunities to learn the
heritage language, (d) parental and school misconceptions about
language learning, and (e) community and peer influences. Tse
then addresses some of the factors leading to the myth that
immigrant languages linger in the United States across
generations. She suggests that the influx of new immigrants and
the confusing of bilinguals with non-English speakers has helped
to create this illusion. The creation of
"new-dialects" of English (e.g., Chicano English or
Vietnamese English) and codeswitching also contribute to this
misconception.
Having essentially accomplished her stated purposes in the
first half of the book (i.e., challenge the misconceptions), Tse
utilizes the final three chapters to address why and how we
should promote heritage languages in the United States. One could
argue that Tse has mislead the reader by luring them unknowingly
into a conversation on promoting heritage languages and
bilingualism in the United States—a topic not suggested by
the title. However, I believe Tse's strategy is quite
effective: lure the reader in with what they think the
problem is, set the record straight, reveal the real problem, and
then move on to discuss it.
Tse argues in Chapter 4 that there are many benefits to
promoting heritage languages in this country at both the personal
and societal levels. For children, there are two sets of
advantages: (a) it can speed the process of English acquisition
while ensuring students are learning subject matter in other core
content areas (the strategy used in bilingual education
programs), and (b) by becoming bilingual they may have cultural,
social and economic advantages. At the societal level, Tse
identifies and discusses three benefits of bilingualism: (a) the
nation benefits by having citizens who are linguistically and
culturally savvy to advance international business, (b) the
nation benefits politically by possessing a rich diplomatic and
national security corps, and (c) the country gains educationally
by stemming the shortage of foreign-language teachers, especially
in the less commonly taught languages. Tse's arguments here
have particular salience after the events of September 11, 2001.
The immediate problems of lack of security personnel fluent in
languages of the Middle East, particularly languages such as
Pashto, have hampered U.S. efforts. Tse mentioned past interests
of the U.S. in developing and maintaining its linguistic
resources for security purposes; there is once again a strong
renewed interest and sense of urgency to do so (see, for example,
National Press Club, 2002).
Unfortunately, few heritage languages are being actively
promoted, and many are becoming lost. Tse notes serious personal
consequences of heritage language loss, including the emergence
of an intergenerational language gap, lack of acceptance by
members of the heritage community, and the difficult task of
trying to reclaim the language later in life. While a large
percentage of elementary and secondary schools provide foreign
language instruction (31% and 87% respectively in 1997), these
are designed for native English speakers and rarely create
proficient bilinguals. Tse identifies three types of heritage
language development programs: (a) developmental bilingual
education programs, (b) native speaker heritage language courses,
and (c) heritage language schools. Unfortunately, enrollment in
these types of programs is miniscule. For example, only .03% of
"limited English proficient" (LEP) students were
enrolled in developmental bilingual programs. Also, little
research has been conducted on the effectiveness of native
heritage language courses (e.g., Spanish for Spanish speakers),
and heritage language schools (e.g., Chinese Saturday
School).
Given the importance of Heritage language development, but the
current lack of resources and commitment to do so, Tse's
focus in Chapter 5 is on how Heritage languages can be promoted.
She first identifies and discusses two critical language learning
elements: language exposure and group membership. The first
simply shows that one needs substantial exposure to a new
language through listening and reading. She suggests that
providing a comfortable and non-threatening learning environment
is key. Providing ample access to interesting things to read
along with encouragement for recreational reading of these
materials are also critical; Tse argues this is much more
effective than grammar exercises and drills. Group membership is
also crucial because "we tend to learn languages better
when we feel like a member of the group of people who speak that
language" (p. 60). She cites studies showing that heritage
language programs can be successful in promoting positive group
membership when the language is given official sanction, status,
and is integrated into the regular school day; provides
interesting exposure to the language and allows for interaction
in the language; and cultivates interest and appreciation of
other languages and cultures among both minority and majority
students. She cites research showing that many students do not
enjoy attending heritage language schools and suggests the
problems are related to the above issues. Many heritage language
schools rely on traditional grammar and skills-based drills that
fail to provide substantial exposure to meaningful and
interesting language.
In the final chapter, Tse provides a summary of the preceding
chapters, and argues that "myths about immigration language
learning skew the public mindset on language-related issues,
causing a misdirection of energy and funds toward solving phantom
problems while ignoring true crises" (p. 72). In this
light, Tse makes several suggestions on where we should go from
here. These suggestions include an increase in adult ESL classes
and bilingual programs for children, and helping schools
understand the importance of heritage language development and
providing them with the necessary conditions to do so. These
would include the integration of heritage language instruction
into the regular school day from kindergarten to 12th
grade, and the creation of a greater number of teachers and
materials to make these programs possible.
Tse provides real-life examples and data from several
immigrant populations, including many from the Asian American
community, and not just the Spanish-speaking communities that
tend to dominate the bilingual education literature. For
example, in Table 4.1 Tse reports the ratio of bilingual teachers
(Spanish and several Asian languages) to students with limited
English proficiency in California. Regrettably, however, this
table, reproduced from Olsen (1997), erroneously lists
"Khmer" and "Cambodian" as separate
languages, when in fact, these are two names for the same
language. Thus, the actual ratio of Khmer-speaking teachers to
students is difficult to determine. While the point is still
clear that the ratio is abysmally high, and the Khmer/Cambodian
confusion is somewhat common, Tse's reproduction of the
table without catching this error is unfortunate. Also, groups
such as the Lao and Koreans, who make up large numbers of
students in California, will likely be concerned as they are left
off of the table altogether.
Overall Tse provides a nice balance of research data and
personal anecdotes. Those who have attempted to learn a second
language, those who have experienced heritage language loss and
those who are attempting to recover their heritage language will
find themselves nodding their heads as Tse's descriptions
and anecdotes validate their own experiences. While the book
provides an excellent overview for her intended audience, those
within the bilingual education field will not find anything new
here, nor will they find much to disagree with. However, Tse has
provided a nice model of how these issues can be discussed with
the non-specialists. Indeed, if those in the field help promote
this book outside of the field, some progress may be made in the
arena of politics and public opinion. Also, graduate students
will find the data and the information in the endnotes and
references useful in conducting their own research. The book will
most likely be used in teacher preparation programs, where it can
be very effective in informing future teachers of the real
issues. Recent research has shown that even certified ESL
teachers exhibit many of the misconceptions that Tse works to
debunk (Garcia, 2001). Hopefully the book will be used in not
just ESL/Bilingual certification programs, but general teacher
credentialing programs as well. If anything, Tse has shown us how
a serious scholar can translate educational research and present
it in a non-threatening, useful way to the general population
with the hopes of better informing public opinion and policy
makers, leading to more linguistically sensitive and appropriate
educational programs for language minority students.
References
Garcia, A. G. (2001). Attitudinal differences among
elementary teachers toward the use of the native language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language,
ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York:
Routledge.
National Press Club. (2002). National Briefing on Language and
National Security. (2002). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
April 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web,
http://www.nflc.org/security/transcript.htm
Olsen, L. (1997). An invisible crisis: The educational
needs of Asian Pacific American youth. NewYork: Asian
Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy.
Wiley, T. G. (1990). Literacy, biliteracy and educational
achievement among the Mexican-origin population in the United
States. NABE Journal, 14(1-3), 109-127.
Wiley, T. G. (1996). Literacy and language diversity in the
United States. Washington, DC & McHenrey, IL: Center for
Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
About the Reviewer
Wayne Wright
College of Education
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2411
Wayne Wright is currently the Editorial Assistant with the
Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education. He works in the Language Policy Research
Unit of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State
University. Wayne is fluent in Khmer (Cambodian); he has worked
as a bilingual Khmer (Cambodian) teacher in California in one of
the only bilingual Khmer educational programs in the country. His
research interests include language in education policies,
equitable educational programs for language minority students,
and issues of standardized testing and assessment.
| |