Travis W. England’s Shifting Foci and Subsequent Confusion, Article Critique Example

America, the great melting-pot, contains alloys from across the world, resulting in a mystery amalgam of separated materials. Bilingual education in America chooses elements from different theories as arbitrarily and independently as Uncle Sam at a buffet. Without research-based standards and unity, the increasing diversity of the American populace pushes the inadequacies of educational adaptation and integration into the public spotlight. The issue is personal for millions of people, and Travis W. England places the blame on these indecisive, “shifting policies” based upon unproven research and very real guidelines. This multiculturalism strengthens America- provided that the enrichment of the mainstream culture continues to develop and assimilate the strengths of its human agents of change. England’s “Bilingual Education: Lessons from Abroad for America’s Pending Crisis” suggests that an age of mass immigrations approaches, and that- unlike in the founding generations of the United States- the country adapts less than in the past and that the comparative success of early bilingual education might also be explained by the available information. He cites the examples of two international programs which attempted to integrate English language acquisition into the existing cultures and challenges lawmakers to provide a specific, unified, national plan of action which will clarify the place of bilingual education under current federal and state laws.

Critique

Travis W. England examines legal and statistical, qualitative research and generalizes these results for easy comprehension within the broad framework of the topic at hand and poses theories about the cause and effect relationship of the development of educational law according to a larger social awareness. However, this approach confuses the line between qualitative and quantitative research- often interpreting the direction of the evidence in the literature review section itself. the author’s examination of the historical development of bilingual education in the United States includes relevant information which is not commonly known, and the diversity, credibility, and citation of sources seems to be in order. In one example of the quality of information, England writes that in the early 1900’s “several states even enacted prohibitions against the teaching of foreign language” (p. 1213). The earliest masses of immigrants often settled in isolated, remote communities, or within different areas of large urban centers, such as New York. England’s explanation clarifies that old models of bilingual education suited the pattern of professionals within a restricted community serving their young peers (pp. 1213-1214). Today’s combination of shifting patterns of immigration and static educational tactics compounds the confusion and the failure of current mainstreaming efforts. Thus, England gives an interesting tour from illegal bilingual education to cultural-maintenance education and eventually to the current policy of transitional universal inclusion.

Although the information which the author presents retains its credibility in its current form, the constant intrusion of the author’s interpretations- while valid and logical- decreases from the cohesion and clarity of the article. The author’s interpretations represent personal theories of connection and detract from the discussion of the legal and social progression of bilingual education. The reader soon finds that they must read every footnote to follow the author’s argument from beginning to end. This is particularly true for the use of acronyms which are explained once and not given a brief re-introduction. In the text alone, this article includes more than a dozen acronyms and legal cases- not including the author’s citations of various propositions to existing laws, which can be difficult to follow throughout the thirty pages of this article. In another example, the expected acronym of EEO for the Equal Educational Opportunity Act was not used, while the acronym BEA refers to the Bilingual Education Act and not to the Bantu Education Act discussed in later pages (pp. 1214-1228). While unnecessary length hinders most authors’ goals, England would have benefited from more room to make the crucial, fine points of his arguments more clear and from the inclusion of his inferences only in the discussion section of his article.

England’s examination of specific immigrant groups both reveals and conceals the larger picture regarding bilingual education. The author’s brief studies of both South Africa and Singapore ably represent these two groups in the wider scope of American education as it relates to the political and social structure. The relationship of politics and language reveals the deeper attitudes toward the group, and the early emphasis upon South Africans learning English reveals an eagerness to make them ‘civilized’ representatives of the large white majority in America. England emphasizes the role of minimizing the ‘mother languages’ of Africa in the incoming masses gave way to a policy of choice. The author presents Singapore’s adoption of English as a success story built upon appreciation of the culture in which the English language originally intruded upon in the 1800’s (pp. 1230-1234). The author’s study within the United States presents fluid and comprehensible arguments, which might have been strengthened by the examination of the use of some or all of the five policies: 1) instructional bilingual programs, 2) certification of instruction staff, 3) supporting funds, 4) cultural mandates, and 5) required parental consent (p. 1219).

Noticeably, England does not include his discussion of Mexican-American immigrants in his section study on international perspectives on bilingual education. Additionally, the Singapore success story that he cites does not apply to immigrants from Singapore coming to the United States—it refers to the forced integration of an entire country into English culture about two hundred years ago. The comparisons differ in the scope of time, in the circumstances, in the cultural expectations of students and teachers, and in the level of support within the community involved. In short, what might have been an effective support for England’s case for the importance and potential success of bilingual education instead comes off as a short account which very ethnocentrically considers the majority perspective. The South Africans are of Dutch descent; the people of Singapore inherited an English colony still dominated and coerced by English culture; the Mexican-American perspective- by right of sheer numbers and proximity- should be considered as an integral part of the study of international perspectives within America.

While the author ably demonstrates the legal foundations of these movements, his studies of South Africa and Singapore prove cursory, general, and beneficial provided that another author later provides more specific recommendations. England himself “passes the buck” for the task of suggesting possible concrete federal regulations for the guidance and development of American bilingual education in the future.  He repeatedly refers to “striking a balance between the education of linguistic minorities and the promotion of a common language” but hardly delves into the specific practices behind the failures which he cites within the South African programs (pp. 1234-1237). He suggests that English studies as second or third language of choice negatively affects the general commitment to mastery and expectation of practical use.

Finally, England could have benefited from more educational perspectives and direct experience in the field. His proofs and theories read like an outsider’s perspective and, he considers student second-language acquisition and motivation as though it were a formulaic product produced by a set of educational conditions. An up-to-date educator knows the importance of the No Child Left Behind Act and does not mention it solely as a footnote to a discussion about the English-speaking emphasis of transitional bilingual education. He cites the lack of national programs offering incentives to learn English, but any immigrant sees those benefits in the real world: greater educational achievement, employment possibilities, socialization, and identification as an American through more than naturalization or birth (pp. 1236-1237). For states with the resources and social support for bilingual education, this deregulation improves the quality of the student experience which they offer. The author presents an unclear general picture of bilingual education within America, so the bright beginnings of their legislative research and historical perspective soon give rise to the belief that the author bit off more than they could chew even with one country, and the supporting points drawn from South America and Singapore became counterintuitive to the heart of the discussion. He writes about society and education, but how can this be a thorough study with rare mention of the students themselves or the specific theories and practices employed? The reader finishes the article aware primarily of England’s ominous warning that American educational policies threaten multicultural education programs with “the tangle of different agencies engaged in language planning…with tight budget constraints to undermine the system’s effectiveness” (p. 1231). Likewise, England’s specific plan seems to get lost in the tangle.

Conclusion

The United States welcomes any immigrants who would continue to hold her high, but the immigrant masses often find that being welcomed and being at home to be two very different feelings. Nonetheless, these waves of immigration bring a cultural boon which cannot be fully appreciated until the newer, inborn generation of Americans finishes their education and integrates into the mainstream working population. America offers liberty and cultural freedoms, and these bilingual groups offer a cultural diversity which enhances American viability as a globalized nation. England’s discussion of the evolution of minority groups, in particular, reveals the extent of social isolation of the past, which necessitates cultural appreciation in the present- albeit in a skeptical, cause-and-effect discussion of the legal evolutions affecting bilingual education throughout its development. Despite issues of clarity and statements out-of-place, England delivers a practical tour of bilingual education in the last one hundred year. Any reader who considers the truth of his theories- and does not merely accept them as fact- benefit greatly from his systematic overview of the laws and statistics, especially in relation to the ‘undesirable’ immigrant groups in the early years of American bilingual education. Most importantly, the article illustrates the social consciousness and class structure governed by educational legislation. His discussion of international programs meanders and only distracts from the greater persuasiveness of the theoretical claims which his article began with. If the author narrows his focus and supports his theories with educational research and expertise, then the legal foundations might be comprehensible to the audience addressed.

References

England, T.W. (2009). Bilingual Education: Lessons From Abroad For America’s Pending Crisis. Washington University Law Review, 86(5). Print.