Heritage Language Programs in the Era of English-Only and No Child Left Behind.

There is a growing recognition of the need for Americans who are proficient in languages other than English; however, there is a great disconnect between these needs, state English-only education policies, and current federal education policy as realized through the No Child Left Behind Act (NLCB) of 2001. These policies are moving the country in the opposite direction in terms of the needs for heritage language programs which can address students' and the country's linguistic needs. Drawing on eight years of research, this article presents the cases of a variety of in-school and after school Heritage language programs serving Khmer (Cambodian), Spanish, and Native American heritage language learners from California, Arizona, and Texas which have been eliminated or substantially weakened due to current federal and state language and education policies. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for needed changes to policy which will encourage, rather than discourage, quality heritage language programs. Introduction There is a growing recognition on the part of the United States government of the need for Americans who are proficient in languages other than English (Peyton et al., 2001). These needs are most greatly felt in the areas of national security, diplomacy, and international commerce (National Security Education Program, 2001, 2002). The private business and service sectors of the country are also in constant need of bilingual employees (Wright, 2003a). However, there is a great disconnect between these needs, state English-only education policies, and current federal education policy as enacted through the No Child Left Behind Act (NLCB) of 2001 (Wiley & Wright, 2004). These policies, as they are currently being implemented, appear to be moving the country in the opposite direction in terms of the needs for heritage language programs that can address the country’s linguistic needs. Progress in federal education policy over the years, in recognition of the value of societal bilingualism and support for programs promoting the development and maintenance of students’ heritage languages (HL), came to an abrupt end following the passage of NCLB (Wright, 2005b). Prior to NCLB, the final version of the Title VII Bilingual Education Act (BEA) in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the Improving America’s Schools Act) declared that “as the world becomes increasingly interdependent and as international communication becomes a daily occurrence in government, business, commerce, and family life, multilingual skills constitute an important national resource which deserves protection and development” [Bilingual Education Act, 1994 Reauthorization, §7102(a)]. The 1994 BEA also acknowledged 2 Heritage Language Journal, 5(1) Summer, 2007 personal and societal benefits of bilingual and heritage language programs, and included in its list of official purposes, “developing bilingual skills and multicultural understanding” [§7102(C)(2)]. The BEA still made it clear, however, that its overall purpose was “to help ensure that limited English proficient students master English” and “meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging State content and performance standards in academic areas [§7102(c)]. The Bilingual Education Act, after 34 years of providing federal support for heritage language instruction, came to an end following the passage of NCLB in 2002 (Crawford, 2002; Gonzalez, 2002). It was replaced by Title III, “Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. ” The word “bilingual” no longer appears in the legislation. Also absent in Title III are any recognitions of the benefits of bilingual education and bilingualism (Wright, 2005b). Title III’s focus is exclusively on English. The list of purposes repeatedly stresses that Title III programs are to “ensure that LEP students attain English proficiency,” “develop high levels of academic attainment in English” and are prepared to “enter all-English instruction settings” (NCLB, §3102). Another stated purpose of Title III is “to hold State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools accountable for increases in English proficiency and core academic content knowledge” of limited English proficient (LEP) students by requiring “demonstrated improvements in the English proficiency” and “adequate yearly progress” on state academic achievement tests [§3102(8)]. While NCLB lacks encouragement for bilingual programs, it does not explicitly forbid them. The law calls for LEP students to be placed in “language instruction education programs . for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards” [§3301(8)]. The law indicates that these language instruction education programs . may make instructional use of both English and a child’s native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. [§3301(8)] In other words, use of the native language is completely optional. The emphasis here on using the native language is not to help students become bilingual, but rather to help students become proficient in English. In fact, as written the law suggests the goal of bilingualism for LEP students is only allowable if the program includes English-only students who want to learn the LEP students’ native language. In practice, however, it is up to each state to determine what qualifies as a “language instruction education program. ” Freeman (2004) argues that despite NCLB’s major focus on teaching English, there is still space available within the policy for quality heritage language programs. Anti3 Heritage Language Journal, 5(1) Summer, 2007 bilingual education advocates, such as Rossell (2005), have even expressed concern that the law’s provisions for temporarily testing students in their native language will encourage more bilingual education programs. While Freeman is technically correct, Rossell’s concerns are largely unfounded. Freeman (2004) and others (Combs et al., 2005; de Jong et al., 2005; Little & McCarty, 2006; Maxwell-Jolly, 2000) have described the significant efforts of some schools to continue to provide quality heritage language education programs despite NCLB and state English-only instruction policies. Nonetheless, I will argue in this article that the high-stakes testing policies of NCLB, along with the accountability provisions which demand that “limited English proficient” students learn English as quickly as possible, ultimately serve to discourage schools from offering heritage language programs. In addition, I will describe how the English-for-theChildren initiatives in California and Arizona have complicated the matter further and have curtailed efforts for public school HL programs in those states. I will provide evidence for my argument by drawing on a number of cases of HL programs in California, Arizona, and Texas which illustrate how these policies have ended many HL programs, and severely restricted others. These cases will be drawn from my own research and that of others conducted over the past eight years. I will conclude with a discussion of the implications for needed policy changes which will encourage the types of HL programs our students and country needs. Definitions and Methodology The terms heritage language, heritage language learners/speakers, and heritage language programs, are problematic because, as Wiley (2001) notes, they “attempt to apply a single label to a complex situation” (p. 29); these terms mean different things to different people and thus we currently lack definitions upon which all agree. In this article, I use the definition of heritage languages forwarded by Joshua Fishman (2001)—languages other than English that “have a particular family relevance to the learner” (p. 81). Thus, heritage languages refer to the home and/or ancestral language of students, and heritage language speakers/learners covers students across a wide range of proficiency, from no proficiency to full fluency in the HL (Valdés, 2001). I use the term “heritage language programs” in its broadest sense, meaning as an umbrella covering any program in which students are actively learning, or learning through, their heritage language. This includes the wide variety of in-school bilingual education program models, in-school foreignlanguage classes targeting HL speakers of the language, and community-based programs outside of school hours. This article draws on data collected for a number of different studies I have conducted over the past several years. These include a study of a large California school district and analysis of its language and education policies and programs for Khmer (Cambodian) American students (Wright, 1998); a study of the impact of high-stakes testing policies on an elementary school in California (Wright, 2002); an analysis of the impact of California’s Proposition 227’s testing and instructional policies on a Khmer bilingual education program (Wright, 2003b); studies on the implementation of Proposition 203 and its impact in Arizona (Wright, 2005c; Wright & Pu, 2005); an analysis of the 4 Heritage Language Journal, 5(1) Summer, 2007 evolution of federal policy for language minority students and the implications of NCLB for ELL students (Wright, 2005b); an analysis of the intersection of NCLB, high-stakes testing and accountability policies and Proposition 203 in Arizona with its implications for instructional and testing accommodations for ELLs (Wright, 2005a); and a survey of Arizona teachers on the impact of federal and state language, testing, and education