Introduction
In the history of California, it has been considered one of the most linguistically diverse places in the world. However, according to some researchers as well as statistics from different database, California is fast losing its rich heritage of the indigenous languages (Hinton, p. 83). Out of the at least 98 native languages initially spoken in the boundaries that have now been covered within the California State, research findings have established that 45 of these languages have no fluent speakers left in the present century. Additionally, these researches have also determined that 17 of these languages have only one to five speakers left, and 36 have only elderly speakers (Hinton, p. 83). There are varied views in different states of the United States on the best education system to use in educating learners.
While some states and educational stakeholders propose that educators should use bilingual education programs, others are of the contrary opinion that educators should adopt English only programs. While seeking to reestablish the native languages in California State, the natives have also ensured that they advocate for bilingual education in order to ensure that as learners grasp educational needs, they maintain their native languages. In June 2, 1998, proposition 227 was passed in a ballot requiring public schools to teach limited English proficient students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English (Parrish, pp. 55-61). Similarly, the Arizona State also passed proposition 203 to ensure that English Language Learners gain educational needs in similar ways as proposition 227 in California.
Promising bilingual education to Native American Indian tribes in California
This is the first approach governor Brown should consider in the quest of the Native Indian Americans. This approach will help the California State to continue with the exploration of the oil reserves. Additionally, the California Indian Council will have been satisfied in their quest to ensure that Indian learners acquire education and maintain the heritage of the native Indian languages. The proposition 227 in California and Proposition 203 in Arizona States have ensured that learners incline to English only programs, which have led to the erosion of the native culture, which the California Indian Council seek to reestablish and protect.
Nevertheless, there are challenges associated with adopting this resolution. First, since there are different native language speakers in the California State, there is a possibility that these other tribes might also seek similar intervention in a bid to seek equality in the state. Secondly, since the establishment of bilingual education system in California State would require employment of more staff to teach the learners as well as other operational costs, this would imply that the state government would have to spend more money in this program. However, in this regard, the governor should ensure that the state re-examines the state policy on bilingual education and its funding from the state and the government. According to the current learning policy (proposition 227), the state government is required to provide $50 million annually in aiding education for native adults who would educate the limited English Proficient learners (Charter, p. 24). However, while promising the California Indian Council to provide bilingual education, the governor should ensure that he requests for patience from the locals to discuss the issue with the state and national policy makers to restructure the budget to ensure that the governments increase their provisions for bilingual education as well as revoke the provisions of proposition 227.
Considering the current state of education policy in Arizona State, proposition 203 has replaced the bilingual education policy with the English only programs. Therefore, Governor Brown should meet with the Arizona State’s governor and discuss the issue with him. In his meeting with the Arizona’s governor, Governor Brown should explain to him that considering the success of bilingual education programs on learners, embracing the bilingual education in the two states would ensure that learners not only understand their subjects, but also preserve their heritage. Additionally, Governor Brown should explain to the Arizona’s governor that despite the budgetary challenges associated with embracing the new system, the proceeds resulting from the exploitation of the oil reserves would ensure that the states meet these expenses. Additionally, the national government has the responsibility of providing education to all its citizens. Therefore, if both states work together to influence the national government, chances are very high that the government would respond toward supporting this goal. This might propel the national policy makers to inject more funds to the states to develop bilingual education.
Additionally, even though Governor Brown might promise the American Indians bilingual education to allow the exploitation of oil reserves, the governor should plead with the natives to consider assisting California State to reduce the cost of rolling out this program to the native Indian American population. He should consider meeting with the California Indian Council, which is charged with the duty of linking the Native American Indians from many of the tribes in California to rally their subjects to volunteer towards this program in a bid to ensure that native educators assist in tutoring the learners.
Not offering bilingual education to the Native American Indian tribes
This option presents even more challenges, both to the California State government and to the native Indian Americans. To the latter, denial of the bilingual education program would imply that they risk sinking their native languages even further while they support proposition 227, which they believe to be oppressive of their learning needs. However, to the California State government, risking denying the Native Indian Americans bilingual education might imply rejection by the native community from exploiting the oil reserve. However, the government could still convince the Native Indian Americans against bilingual education and still access the oil reserves.
In his meeting with the California Indian Council, Governor Brown should explain to the latter that according to the United States Department of education, it has been realized that bilingual education programs are characterized by inconsistent teaching practices as well as varying test results between different districts (Hill, p. 18). Additionally, according to different education professionals, proposition 227 and proposition 203 offer a shorter period for the learners to learn English language. The only problem is the fact that the Native Indian Americans have greater interest in their languages than the English language (Purcell, pp. 54-9). Nevertheless, governor Brown should first appreciate their concern for learning English alongside their native languages. However, he should explain to this council that the current education systems are aimed at transforming learners to meet the international standards in the global job markets. Therefore, students should seek to understand their subjects in English, which is the most spoken language in the whole world.
Additionally, since the California Indian Council intends to use the educational program to prevent oil exploration the governor should give alternative benefits of the exploration to the Native Indian Americans. In his argument, the governor should promise the Indian Americans that instead of embracing the bilingual education in California, they should use a portion of the proceeds from the oil exploration to enhance the current education programs under proposition 227, which asserts that learners should use English only programs. These funds could be used to increase payment as well as improve training for the native adults who promise to tutor the learners.
The governor could also argue that bilingual education is inappropriate for the California education. First, most of the Native American Indian languages in California have not been standardized or provided with writing systems yet. This implies that allowing bilingual education in California would face a setback of un-standardized education for the learners. Following the diversity in the different tribes in California, introducing bilingual education programs will not only increase the cost of education through provision of additional teachers, classrooms, and reading materials, but also widen the racial gaps in America. This would further lead to increased racial segregations and reduced social interactions between the learners. In the future when these learners become adults in the society, they might consider each other as enemies instead of development partners, thereby reducing the development of the state, which should be a common interest of the inhabitants. Additionally, considering trends from different school districts in the United States, the rate of school dropouts in schools using bilingual education programs are higher than schools that use single languages. This could be associated to the fact that bilingual education characterizes the learners to lean towards their native language, thereby ignoring the English language. Finally, the governor should explain to the California Indian Council that since the term bilingualism in the United States is associated with immigrants, instituting bilingual education might be associated with ‘poor’ children, thereby stigmatizing the learners (Hirsch, p. 137). This could also contribute to increased school dropouts as well as reduced interaction between learners from different backgrounds.
My Advice to the Governor
Following my consideration for and against allowing bilingual education in California State against the exploitation of the oil reserves, I believe that the governor should turn down the request from the California Indian Council. The Native Indian Americans have identified that their native language speakers have greatly reduced and they would wish to ensure that the learners access bilingual education to help in ensuring their preserve their heritage. The discovery of the oil in “Hacama” community has brought up a platform for the Native Indian Americans to address their concerns. However, allowing the bilingual education in the California State present different challenges to the government than the advantages that it probably presents.
I would advise Governor Brown to reject the California Indian Council’s proposal and persuade them against bilingual education as well as request for their permission to continue with the exploration. The bilingual education policy is very costly to the government since it requires many resources to roll up. To start the program, the government would need to build separate classrooms to serve the bilingual learners, hire teaching staff (who are hard to get) to instruct the learners, and buy new learning materials in order to ensure that learners access the necessary learning requirements. In addition to the economic effect, the bilingual program also has social impacts on the learners. Despite contributing to higher school dropouts, bilingual programs have increased stigmatization among learners. Bilingual learners are often considered ‘poor’ members of the society. Additionally, bilingual education discourages interaction between learners, thereby presents a challenge to social and economic development. Even further, the global job market does not recognize native languages, which might pose a challenge to the learners when they finally seek international duties.
Alternatively, the governor would still need access to the oil reserves, which the Native Indian Community also has vested interest in it. Therefore, the governor should explain to the California Indian Council that since they lack the resources to explore the oil reserves, they should allow the state government to explore the oil, and that a percentage of the proceeds from the oil reserves could be used to develop the education infrastructure in the state. Additionally, these funds could also be used to compensate families who might be left homeless following the excavations of the ground. He should advice the California Indian Council that instead of adopting education systems that brings racial and class segregations, the residents of California State should ensure that they work together towards achieving a common goal, both in the social and economic fronts of development.
Works Cited:
Hinton, Leanne. "Language Loss And Revitalization In California: Overview." International Journal of The Sociology Of Language 1998.132 (1998): 83-93. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Parrish, Thomas B., et al. "Effects Of The Implementation Of Proposition 227 On The Education Of English Learners, K-12: Findings From A Five-Year Evaluation. Final Report For AB 56 And AB 1116." American Institutes For Research (2006): ERIC. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Purcell, John. "The Foundations And Current Impact Of California's Proposition 227." (2002): ERIC. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Hill, David. "English Spoken Here." Teacher Magazine 9.4 (1998): 18. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Charter, Patricia Flores. "Who Will Teach Our Children?Use Of Bilingual Paraprofessionals In Special Education." (1991): ERIC. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Hirsch, E. D. (Eric Donald), 1928-. "Americanization And The Schools." Clearing House 72.3 (1999): 136-139. Education Source. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
