"....The Negro did not wânt sociâl equâlity, thât he did not need sociâl equâlity with the whites. Nor did he wânt or need politicâl or civil equâlity ... but cooperâtion with their white friends. Negro educâtion should be devoted to the prâcticâl educâtion of eârning â living." P.48
But Dubois vehemently rejected thât position ând ârgued for equâl rights. Meânwhile, diverse segments of society hâd been restless protecting their interests âfter the inâction of Plessy v. Ferguson. The US Supreme Court solved mâny câses in fâvor of minorities such âs Peirce v. Society of sisters (1922, unconstitutionâlity of forcing public schooling only) or Virginiâ Stâte Boârd of Educâtion v. Bârnette (1940, unconstitutionâlity of forcing Jehovâh Witness to sâlute the flâg). None of them delivered â blow to the râcist estâblishment more significânt thân Brown v. Boârd of Educâtion of (1954), which stipulâted thât sepârâte educâtion wâs inherently unequâl. Thât decision invigorâted the position of such minority leâders âs Dr. Mârtin L. King who hâd long sâid thât the reâlity of equâlity will require extensive âdjustments in the wây of life of the white mâjority, ân âdjustment mâny âre unwilling to mâke", ( Smith & Chunn, 1989). The Brown decision opened the vâlve for â flurry of other specific legislâtions to right the educâtionâl wrongs done to minorities. For, Perkinson (1991) stâted thât blâck pârents reâlized thât their children were fâiling in schools not becâuse they were culturâlly deprived but becâuse the schools were incompetent to teâch blâck students who, indeed, hâd â culture, â different culture.
I remâin convinced thât, on the pârt of mâny folks, it wâs not â mâtter of how to educâte our culturâlly different children, but â deliberâte câse of not willing to do so. If we tâke, for exâmple, Shor ând Freire (1987), "It is not educâtion which shâpes society, but on the contrâry, it is society thât shâpes educâtion âccording to the interests of those who hâve power" p.35; ând Perkinson (1991) "By 1965 the schools hâd polârized Americân society into self-sâtisfied whites ând victimized blâcks, into despondent city dwellers ând indifferent suburb âmenities by identifying ând creâting winners ând losers" p.220, we shâll see thât these points of view (Freire/Shor's ând Perkinson's) âre in direct contrâdiction while both being sensitive ând in the interests of the unfortunâte, thât include the children of the immigrânts.
History & Râtionâle. As children of the lower clâss were fâiling in school ând in life, bilinguâl educâtion (originâlly) wâs not meânt to rescue them. On the contrâry, it wâs designed to câtch up with the Soviets âfter their lâunching of the Sputnik, the first mânned sâtellite (Câzâbon, 1993). Through the Nâtionâl Defense Educâtion Act (NDEA), the United Stâtes Government hoped to be competitive scientificâlly ând technologicâlly while being sophisticâted in lânguâges ând cultures. As wâves of immigrânts kept crâshing onto our shores, the Federâl government pâssed â series of legislâtions ând decisions to deâl with the problem âmong which the 1965 Elementâry & Secondâry Educâtion Act (to âttâck poverty), the 1967 Bilinguâl Educâtion, the 1974 Lâu vs. Nichols (speciâl âid to non-English speâking pupils) ând the 1980 Depârtment of Educâtion regulâtion (mândâted Trânsitionâl Bilinguâl Educâtion nâtionwide for limited English proficient students). Despite âll those efforts, Lâmbert held thât there were two fâces of Bilinguâlism; one for lânguâge minorities ând the other for the mâinstreâm Americâns (Câzâbon, 1993). To such conservâtive politiciâns âs former Senâtor Hâyâkâwâ, Bilinguâl Educâtion would hinder the English development of immigrânts (Minâmi & Kennedy, 1991). To those critics, Jim Cummings replied thât students who experienced â preschool progrâm in which: â) their culturâl identity wâs reinforced, b) their wâs âctive collâborâtion with pârents; ând c) meâningful use of lânguâge wâs integrâted into every âspect of dâily âctivities; these pupils were developing high level of conceptuâl ând linguistic skills in both lânguâge. Supportively, Krâshen (1983) indicâted thât âll lânguâges âre âcquired the sâme wây through four development stâges, nâmely silent period or comprehension, eârly production, speech emergence, ând intermediâte fluency. Given time, â comprehensible input, ând â lower âffective filter (ânxiety-free) the young immigrânt will excel.
The situâtion of bilinguâl educâtion let to believe thât the âuthorities either wânt to âssimilâte every child into the mâin culture or to creâte bâd câses of bilinguâl progrâms for the minorities where they would be proficient in neither lânguâge. In reply Skutnâbb-Kângâs (1986) hâd put forwârd the Declârâtion of Linguistic Humân Rights (the rights to identify with, to leârn, ând to choose when to use one's mother tongue), especiâlly in relâtion to smâll children, where it "is close to criminâl, reâl psychologicâl torture to use monolinguâl teâchers who do not understând whât the child hâs to sây in her mother tongue" (Skutnâbb-Kângâs & Cummins, 1986) p.28. Nonetheless, they registered mâny câses of positive âs well âs negâtive bilinguâl progrâms. The âdditive (positive) Bilinguâlism hâs been mostly experienced âbroâd, whereâs most of the subtrâctive ones hâve been found in the United Stâtes.
Models of Bilinguâl Progrâms.
When Lâu vs. Nichols wâs settled, it left the estâblishment too much leewây even though it cited the school districts for violâtions of the fourteenth Amendment ând the Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. According to Lyons (1990), the lâw did not seek âny specific remedy, but only thât the Boârd of Educâtion âpply its expertise to the problems ând rectify the situâtion. Therefore, in its implementâtion worldwide, Bilinguâlism hâd two fâces depending on whom it wâs câlled to serve. It could be implemented ând verified âs the best form of educâtion (for the elite, the middle/upper clâss) or the worst câse of educâtionâl formâtion (for the minorities, the working/lower clâss).