Julie McClure
Week 2: Critique and Presentation
APLING 623
September 8, 2012
McClure 2
In “Politicization of the Schools: The Case of Bilingual Education”, Diane
Ravitch argues against bilingual education on the basis that it “politicizes” the
schools. She makes bilingualism sound like a dirty word. She consequently fails to
see that education is a political act. In “English Only: The Tongue-Tying of America”,
Donaldo Macedo argues for bilingual education. Macedo asserts that linguistic
minority students should have the democratic right to learn about their own culture
and represent themselves in their own language.
Two themes I want to address in Ravitch and Macedo’s work are empiricism
and the role of student voices. Ravitch and Macedo’s attitudes toward empiricism
are not entirely divergent. For different reasons, both writers claim that empirical
studies should not influence the political decision-making process. Ravitch and
Macedo’s differences collide in the second theme of their work: the role of student
voices. Ravitch does not include student voices at all. Her writing refers to students
from a distance as if they are objects. Macedo, by contrast, includes student
testimony in support of his argument in favor of bilingual education. In this way,
Macedo’s arguments bring the reader closer to the most important people affected
by bilingual education: the students.
Ravitch attemts to devalue empirical evidence. She claims social science
should not influence the legal system, yet she cites an empirical study to support her
argument against bilingual education. One of her arguments employs evidence from
a federally funded study completed in 1978. By 1985, this study was old news. In
the period between 1978 to 1985 other publications contradicted the findings of
Malcom Danoff, including O’Malley (1978), which sharply criticized the
McClure 3
methodology of the study. Furthermore, findings from Malcolm Danoff’s work was
used as evidence in the Lau vs. Nichol’s reauthorization hearings, yet decision was
upheld in favor of bilingual education (Garcia, p.17).
Ravitch primarily believes that government agencies ought to work to
maintain states rights in education. She claims that it is not the role of the federal
government to determine the intricacies of pedagogy and programming in schools.
What is notably different today is the vastly increased power of the federal
government and the courts to intervene in educational institutions, because
of the expansion of the laws and the depending of almost all educational
institutions on public funding (p. 261).
The decision to give more power to states than to the federal government is
political. She is, without irony, a states right’s advocate, an argument used in the
antebellum period to support slavery. In this way, she has not positioned herself as
an advocate for improving education for all students. She wants to maintain the
status quo of inequity in public education.
Perhaps because it might “politicize” the argument, Ravitch does not include
student testimony in her work. Student voices are silenced by her writing. She
distances herself from sixties college students and professors who condemned the
war in Vietnam, yet she cites the federal rulings that forced integration of the
schools. She divorces the students from the process of institutional change. Ravitch
does not account for the movements of peoples and the employment of a variety of
social change tactics, which led to the landmark civil rights court victories. The
climate of resistance that developed through political organization, demonstrations,
sit-ins, the freedom rides, and public opinion pressured the courts to rule in favor of
racial integration. Integration happened through politicization. Access to a free and
McClure 4
appropriate education is a political choice that promotes equality and began with
student voices.
Where Ravitch failed, Macedo won the argument. By contrast, Macedo
locates his argument in alliance with student testimony. I agree with Macedo’s idea
of increasing linguistic minority power through cultural production. Students
should study their native language and identity in order to self-name, self-identify,
and effectively create culture.
Regarding student voices, I noticed a difference between Macedo’s work
from 1991 and his work in 2000. In 1991, Macedo cited people who cited students
who were victims of monolingual colonization (1991, Macedo, p. 263). In 2000,
Macedo cited students firsthand accounts (2000, Macedo, p. 20). Student selfreporting can be some of the most powerful testimony regarding what works or
what does not work in schools. We must not distance ourselves from the most
important cultural agents in schools: students.
Like Ravitch, Macedo also claims that empirical studies should not drive the
decision-making regarding bilingual education. The reason he says empiricism is
problematic is that the debate typically becomes mired in issues of methodology.
While academics discuss methodology, they fail to address the bigger picture of
social inequality. “…effectiveness and validity becomes a mask that obfuscates
questions about the social, political, and ideological order within which the minority
language exists” (Macedo, p.269). Essentially, Macedo says the numbers do not
matter, but I believe numbers do matter.
McClure 5
When lawmakers develop legislation, they call upon experts to present
scientific findings. If there is evidence that bilingualism has cognitive benefits, this
can influence Department of Education appropriations. There is a great deal of
research in bilingualism on the cognitive side that could change the face of the
debate. Ultimately, political support of bilingual education may be obtained through
increasing awareness about the benefits for individuals and society and empirical
studies in bilingual education may be one part of that effort.
The reason I am a student in the Applied Linguistics program began with my
interest in bilingual education. I worked in a bilingual school in Boston and was
convinced of the benefits for the students, but I knew that I needed more training. I
needed more preparation and tools for my teacher toolkit.
Prior to entering Applied Linguistics at UMass, my understanding of the
benefits of bilingual education concerned the affective filter. I understood that
teaching students in their own language was a culturally affirmative practice. For
linguistic minority students, I saw this as particularly important in response to
social inequalities.
School should be a place in which a student’s language and identity are
honored, despite misrepresentation in other spheres of society. Curriculum content
and methods are both formed in relationship to a dominant social culture. Whereas
the dominant social culture perpetuates inequity concerning language, race, gender,
sex, and ability, schools have an opportunity to teach students to create a new
cultural paradigm. Education is a political act.
McClure 6
References
Garcia, Ofelia and Coline Baker (eds.) 1995. Policy and Practice in Bilingual
Education. Extending the Foundations. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
P. 16-17.
Macedo, D. (2000). “The Colonialism of the English Only Movement”. Educational
Researcher. Vol. 29, No. 3 pp. 15-24.
Ravitch, D. and Macedo, D. (1994). Should Bilingual Education be abandoned? YES:
Diane Ravitch/NO: Donaldo Macedo.
Questions for the Class:
How do you harness student voices in your teaching practice?
In what ways do you believe school communities can better utilize student voices?
Can you describe any school communities that effectively harness student voices?
How can/have teachers develop(ed) authentic spaces of learning in the climate of
English only?
What ways do you think APLING students can reshape the debate on bilingual
education in Massachusetts?