The English only debate is on the legislation, primarily state, that makes the English the only standard of instruction in learning institutions in those states. These legislations have had an impact in the learning environment since the population of students with limited English proficiency as the number of immigrants to the United States increases. The legislations are usually aimed at ensuring that English is the only language of communication in all official business, including instruction of learners in schools. The laws thus have a direct impact on the education sector.
In California, in a public vote in 1998, Proposition 227 was passed. This legislation was initiated by Ron Unz and was premised on the argument that by offering bilingual learning in schools, students with limited English proficiency were not being encouraged to learn the language and thus to rectify this, the law would force instruction in schools to be in English and thus ensure that learning of the language by such students was primarily through the use of English as the language of instruction in schools. It essentially made it illegal for teachers to use another language other than English in instruction. The legislation has a provision which gives a waiver by making it possible for parents to apply for bilingual education in schools. However, this provision is under a condition that parents of at least twenty students in a given school must make a formal request for bilingual education (Stritikus, 2002).
In Arizona, a similar campaign was undertaken after the successful Structured English Immersion legislation in California, financed and led by Unz and culminated in the adoption of Proposition 203. In Arizona, the provisions of the legislation were similar to the legislation on the same in California, with some minor differences meant to make the adoption of bilingual education more difficult. It provided for more paperwork and gave more hurdles for parents, teachers and students to overcome if they made a quest for the adoption of bilingual education in their schools. Arizona’s legislation on structured English emersion was contested in a court of law in the Flores V. Arizona, 2000 and was settled later after the adoption of the legislation. In Arizona, there is a further requirement by the law for all certified personnel in the education sector such as superintendents, teachers and administrators to acquire structured English endorsement so as to keep their licences (Stritikus, 2002).
In Massachusetts, the SEI legislation was passed in 2002. The law in Massachusetts is similar in most ways to the similar law in California and is devoid of some of the restrictions that were imposed in Arizona. However, the law is still based on the presumption that instruction of students in English is a better method for non English students to learn the language than the use of bilingual education to achieve the same goal. The bilingual education approach to teaching non English students has thus faced a major hurdle since the legislation was passed and though its proponents continue to advocate for its perceived benefits, studies conducted over the last few years have shown that it is not exactly the most appropriate method to teach English to non native speakers of the language (Stritikus, 2002).
An English only law was passed in Utah in 2000 through a popular vote after failed attempts by the state legislature to pass the same laws on several occasions previously. The law made exceptions for the singular use of the English language such as situations which concerned the safety of the public and the individual and in public education. This means that the restrictions imposed by such laws in California, Arizona and Massachusetts in the education sector were not possible in Utah under the law. The state thus made an allowance for the use of bilingual education and there were no restricts on the use of other languages other than English in the instruction of students in public schools. Further, after a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the law was drastically curtailed. In Alabama, an only English law was passed and a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 rejected a challenge made to the law in Sandoval V. Alexander 2001 (Stritikus, 2002).
The English only debate in education is of prime importance to the education sector since it deals with the ability of teachers and other stakeholders to participate fully in the instruction of students. Many of the non-native English speakers find most of those laws discriminatory since rather than offering a chance for better and quicker learning of the English language, such laws usually end up frustrating the attempts of learners to learn the language while at the same time continuing with their education. The result is an increased rate of school dropout by students of diverse origins which are not English.
An argument has been suggested that such laws are unfair to learners who had strong academic backgrounds before their arrival in the United states and though they are literate in their native languages, they cannot transfer this knowledge obtained in their native languages to English because of the restrictive English learning environment imposed by the policies adopted under the English only legislations. The one appropriate method of ensuring the success of these learners is by allowing the adoption of bilingual leaning in schools, something which may not be achievable under such English only legislation(Stritikus, 2002)..
In my own opinion, the English only laws are restrictive and do not offer any equality in the provision of education to learners who are not native English speakers. Their continued application in the education sector and the formulation of policies in the education sector which are informed by such laws will continue to affect the learning capacities of such learners and the objectives of learning will not be actualised. Such laws were passed in the belief that they would enable non native English learners acquire a grasp of the language faster, but according to studies, it has been established that the opposite effect is true. Such laws need to be repealed and appropriate measures taken to ensure that the adverse effects that they may have had on learners are reversed.
References
Adams, K. L., & Daniel T. B., eds. (1990). Perspectives on Official English: the Campaign for English as the Official Language of the USA. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant Children and the Politics of English-Only: Views from the Classroom. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC.
Tatalovich, R. (1995). Nativism Reborn?: the Official English Language Movement and the American States. Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky.
