Bicultural Education Research Articles

Response

Anthropology & Education QuarterlyVolume 15, Issue 2 p. 184-187 Free Access Response Courtney Cazden, Courtney Cazden Professor of Education Harvard UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Courtney Cazden, Courtney Cazden Professor of Education Harvard UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: Summer 1984 https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1984.15.2.04x0481mCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References Cited Albas, D.C., K.W. McCluskey, and C.A. Albas 1976 Perception of the Emotional Content of Speech: A Comparison of Two Canadian Groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 7: 481– 490. Au, Kathryn H. 1981 The Essential Features List of the KEEP Reading Program. Honolulu, HI: Curriculum Series Paper No. 3, Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP). Barnhardt, Ray 1977 Cross-Cultural Issues in Alaskan Education. Fairbanks: University of Alaska, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, Vol. I. Barnhardt, Ray 1982 Cross-Cultural Issues in Alaskan Education. Fairbanks: University of Alaska, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, Vol. II. Cappella, J.N. 1981 Mutual Influence in Expressive Behavior: Adult-adult and Infant-child Dyadic Interaction. Psychological Bulletin 89: 101– 132. Cazden, Courtney B. 1983 Can Ethnographic Research Go Beyond the Status Quo? Anthropology and Education Quarterly 14(1): 33– 41. Collett, P. 1971 Training Englishmen in the Non-verbal Behavior of Arabs. International Journal of Psychology 6: 209– 215. Deloria, Vine 1970 Custer Died for Your Sins. New York: Avon. Ekman, P., and W.V. Friesen 1969 The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding. Semiotica 1: 49– 98. Elzinga, R.H. 1978 Temporal Organization of Speech. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 9: 29– 31. Erickson, Frederick 1979 Talking Down: Some Cultural Sources of Miscommunication in Interracial Interviews. In Nonverbal Behavior: Applications and Cultural Implications. A. Wolfgang, ed. New York: Academic Press. Erickson, Frederick, and Gerald Mohatt 1982 Cultural Organization of Participation Structures in Two Classrooms of Indian Students. In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action. George D. Spindler, ed. Pp. 132– 174. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Goodlad, John 1983 A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greenbaum, P.E. 1981 Final Report on the Number of and Need for Native Americans in the Designated Professions and the Extent to which Federal Programs are Helping to Meet the Need. Lawrence, KS: Native American Research Associates. Greenbaum, P.E. In press Nonverbal Differences in Communication Style Between American Indian and Anglo Elementary Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal. Greenbaum, P.E., and S.D. Greenbaum In press Cultural Differences, Nonverbal Regulation and Classroom Interaction: Sociolinguisric Interference in American Indian Education. Pea-body Journal of Education. Guilmet, G. 1978 Navajo and Caucasian Children's Verbal and Nonverbal Visual Behavior in the Urban Classroom. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 9(3): 254– 266. High water, Jamake 1981 The Primal Mind: Vision and Reality in Indian America. New York: Harper and Row. Kleinfeld, Judith 1979 Eskimo School on the Andreasfsky: A Study of Effective Bicultural Education. New York: Praeger. Kleinfeld, Judith 1983 First Do No Harm: A Reply to Courtney Cazden. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 14(4): 282– 287. LaFrance, M., and C. Mayo 1976 Racial Differences in Gaze Behavior During Conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33: 547– 552. Lawrence, G. 1978 Indian Education: Why Bilingual-Bicultural? Education and Urban Society 10: 305– 320. LeBrasseur, M.M., and E.S. Freark 1982 Touch a Child—They Are My People: Ways to Teach American Indian Children. Journal of American Indian Education 21: 6– 11. Ravitch, Diane 1983 The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945-1980. New York: Basic Books. Rodriguez, Richard 1974 Going Home Again: The New American Scholarship Boy. American Scholar 44(1): 15– 28. Rosenfeld, H.M. 1978 Conversational Control Functions of Nonverbal Behavior. In Nonverbal Behavior and Communication. A.W. Seigman and S. Feldstein, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sussman, N., and H.M. Rosenfeld 1982 Influence of Culture, Language, and Sex on Conversational Distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 66– 74. Turner, Ralph 1961 Modes of Second Ascent Through Education: Sponsored and Contest Mobility. In Education, Economy, and Society. A.H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson, eds. Pp. 121– 139. New York: Fall Press of Glencoe. Wilson, William Julius 1981 The Black Community in the 1980s: Questions of Race, Class, and Public Policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 454: 26– 41. Citing Literature Volume15, Issue2Summer 1984Pages 184-187 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education. Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, California: California State University, 1981

Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education. Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, California: California State University, 1981

REVIEW

Book review in this articleSchooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Developed by the Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, California.Take it Easy: American Idioms. Pamela McPartland.How to Be a More Successful Language Learner. Joan Rubin and Irene Thompson.

A Structural Profile of Basic Title VII (Spanishenglish) Bilingual Bicultural Education Programs

This study presents a macro-level perspective of basic Title VII programs in the United States. Following a precedent established by Gaarder (1970), this study is an examination of selected “salient features” which constitute these programs. Organized around structural characteristics, the results of this study feature a profile of the “typical” Title VII (Spanish English) bilingual program. These “salient features” include: (1) grade levels served by the Title VH program, (2) enrollment characteristics of Title VII programs, (3) staff experience, and (4) technological features of bilingual programs.

The Cultural Broker Concept in Bicultural Education

As Peggy Sanday and her collaborators have suggested in a number of articles, it is the nature and degree of contact with the mainstream culture that best explains ethnic differences in educational testing and other areas of educational achievement.1 For many educators this implies the need for a complete acculturation to mainstream cultural values and behavior-an idea common to the melting pot and cultural deprivation theories. But for black Americans who seek mainstream adaptation, or Anglo-conformity, the influence of racism in America renders the achievement of such goals highly unlikely. Further, the continued identification with one's own cultural group not only is necessary for the social supports which are often basic to one's physical and emotional survival2 but also for one's self-image-a factor in educational success.3 The authors of the present paper believe that the best educational policy for our structurally and culturally pluralistic society would be, as described by Burger,4 one that does not ignore or downplay nonmainstream

Pluralism and the new immigrants

w e do not know as much as we should about the extent of bilingual or bicultural programs in American public education. Legally, they are now required for any student who has some difficulty learning in English. These requirements do not stem from federal legislat i on -which only provides funds to assist in bilingual or bicultural education--but from two other sources. First, many states now require such education. Second, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare made bilingual education a requirement by interpreting the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of national origin by recipients of federal funds in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover children raised speaking another language. School districts must provide some program of bilingual education to be in compliance with the law. This requirement has been upheld in rather ambiguous language by the Supreme Court, which thereby enabled the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to go further and require more definitely some action by school districts. There are other legal bases for such programs, such as consent judgments stemming from court cases under which such programs are mandated. The Aspira case in New York City is the chief example. In addition to the facilitating legislation, providing funds for such education, that has been passed at the federal level, other federal legislation provides funds for research and development of curriculum materials for education in one's ethnic heritage. The reality is much more difficult to describe than the law. Whether provided under Office of Civil Rights requirements, or under a consent judgment, such as the one under which bilingual education is offered to the Spanish-speaking children of New York City, or under state law, an initial problem in bilingual education is, to whom must it be provided? The " w h o m " is generally defined as someone having difficulty in English, but how much difficulty, and how is it to be measured? Those pressing for bilingual education want it to reach the largest possible numbers; those who provide it (school districts) want to provide it to the smallest possible numbers. It is expensive, it is special education, and all school districts are strapped for money. Thus we find arguments over what tests should be used; what the cut-off point for those defined as requiring bilingual education should be; whether if these children do poorly in English they may not be doing equally poorly in a foreign language, thus leaving moot the question of which language of instruction (or induction) should be used, and the like. Equally difficult to define with any clarity in regulation or court decision is what kind of program must be provided to these children. Indeed, my difficulty in forming an opinion on these developments is caused by the fact that it is unclear to me just what goes on in such education--how many children, taught in how many classrooms, by teachers of what background and what training, for how many years?---and I do not know whether anyone has such figures. But there is no question that legally any child who has a problem with facility in English owing to foreign-language background has a fight to something--and that something involves some degree of teaching in the language that child has been raised speaking. There is also a strong bias among those administering these requirements in favor of more than that. Responsive as they are to interest groups pressing for a broader measure of bilingual and bicultural education, they are also sympathetic to teaching the ethnic heritage and background, as well as to simple instrumental use of the foreign language for a brief period to facilitate educational achievement. It would be interesting to get some sense of the extent of bilingual and bicultural education now. It would be even more interesting--though no simple census or survey can tell us this--to get some sense of what actually goes on in these classrooms. We lack good ethnographic descriptions of bilingual-bicultural classrooms. Undoubtedly they range from classes of solid academic content conducted in a foreign language by well-trained and competent teachers, to -as one anecdotal account puts i t -a class in contemporary history that is supposed to be conducted in Spanish in which neither the teacher nor the students knew the Spanish for key terms they were discussing. We have institutionalized, through law and practice, bilingual and bicultural education; to what extent and

CAE Organizes Session on Bicultural Education

CAE Organizes Session on Bicultural Education

The Chicanos: As We See Ourselves

Thirteen Chicano scholars draw upon their personal experiences and expertise to paint a vivid, colorful portrait of what it means to be a Chicano. “We have come a long way,” says Arnulfo D. Trejo, editor of this volume, “from the time when the Mexicano silently accepted the stereotype drawn of him by the outsider.” He identifies himself as a Chicano, and his “promised land” is Aztlan, home of the ancient Aztecs, which now provides spiritual unity and a vision of the future for Chicanos. In these twelve original compositions, says Trejo, “our purpose is not to talk to ourselves, but to open a dialogue among all concerned people.” The personal reactions to Chicano women’s struggles, political experiences, bicultural education and history provide a wealth of information for laymen as well as scholars. In addition, the book provides the most complete recorded definition of the Chicano Movement, what it has accomplished, and its goals for the future.

What is bicultural about bilingual-bicultural education?

This paper deals with the educational concept of bicultural education by using an ethnographic approach to focus upon the way in which biculturatism is defined and actualized in an elementary classroom setting. The study assumes that schooling, or what goes on in schools, must be analyzed as an institutional activity of a particular society, with weU-deFmed ends and means to those ends. We are shaped by our total environment, and schooling contributes in ways that are congruent with our society's social, economic, and political structure. Therefore, this paper focuses on a particular concept of culture, its relationship to the social setting in which bilingual-biculturat education occurs, and the operational def'mitions of biculturalism in an urban, federally supported, bilingual education classroom. The study developed from the need for an organized inquiry into how

Bilingual Education: The Hispanic Response to Unequal Educational Opportunity

It is appropriate that a volume which is primarily about desegregation also includes an article on bilingual education. Hispanics, who are the nation's second-largest minority enrolled in public schools,' often perceive bilingual education as paramount in their quest for equal educational opportunity. A common sentiment among Hispanics2 in 1978 is that desegregation is a method of achieving equal educational opportunity for blacks, and that for Hispanics to overcome the effects of decades of discrimination, the primary focus should be on bilingual and bicultural education. In many Hispanic communities desegregation is seen as an impediment to equal educational opportunity rather than an aid. This is not to deny that many Hispanic communities have gone to court to break the patterns of de jure segregation that have afflicted them.3 Indeed, seven years before Brown I,4 Chicano plaintiffs successfully overturned a pol-

5: Bilingual/Bicultural Education

This chapter (in line with the policy guidelines for the Review of Research in Education volumes) will survey the state of disciplined inquiry in the field of bilingual education (BE). This topic presents an unusually difficult task for a review chapter because the inquiry is frequently characterized by lack of discipline and rampant bias for or against issues, which range from bilingual education itself, its goals and objectives, to classroom techniques. Frequently this debate is carried out at a level of methodological development, when political ideology is actually the basic issue. To illustrate, the innocuous-sounding title of this chapter, assigned by the Review editor (no doubt in all innocence), has become a slogan which serves as the rallying cry of a particular interest group. At the federal level, only HEW agencies which work with civil rights legislation and Title VI funding ever use the term bicultural education. Title VII-funded programs officially eschew the use of the term bilingual/bicultural education; the statement by John Molina, former director of the Office of Bilingual Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, at a recent conference at the National Institute of Education is illustrative: The United States government is in the business to teach language, not to teach culture. Needless to say, a great deal of caution is needed with research which grows out of such a controversial situation.

Indian in Education: One Community's Experience

American Indians have historically been denied the opportunity to participate in policy-making in schools. Now because of belated recognition of tribe's rights to self-determination and because of an awareness of past failures, Indian people can have a voice in their children's education. The original aim of institutionalized Indian education was to separate Indian children from their tribal past and encourage them to adopt the ways of white people. This was often done by sending children hundreds of miles away from their home and reservations to boarding schools. Termed assimilation, this policy has been judged a failure by educators, congressional committees, and Indians themselves. Today federal assistance programs require involvement by Indian parents and students both in reservation and urban schools. By exploiting these programs, Indian parents can change the type of education provided their children. A case study demonstrating possibilities of participation is the focus of this article. Unfortunately special federal spending programs can and do end. Hence, Indian parents, while participating at the local level, must advocate the development of new permanent law guaranteeing their children the right to a bi-cultural education.

The Contribution of Linguistics to Bilingual - Bicultural Education

The Contribution of Linguistics to Bilingual - Bicultural Education

Meaningful Bilingual Bicultural Education: A Fairytale

Meaningful Bilingual Bicultural Education: A Fairytale

Sixth Annual International Bilingual Bicultural Education Conference

Sixth Annual International Bilingual Bicultural Education Conference

Bilingualism and Pluralism between a Rock and a Hard Place

BILINGUALISM AND PLURALISM BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE Richard Pratte Curriculum and Foundations The Ohio State University Insofar as this is the first issue of an occasional paper by The John Dewey Society, the lack of an established response format leaves me relieved and yet anxious. Relief is experienced in terms of feeling free of the vexing problem of format constraint, but anxiety is felt in terms of the personal judgment that the response should be such that it might be worthy of future replication. Hence, bearing these thoughts in mind, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Professor Pizzillo's paper because the topic he has chosen appeals, perhaps fascinates, huge audiences, not solely because bilingualism and pluralism "are in the air" but because each offers "the glimpse behind the curtain" in terms of what it is to live a different way of life, to perceive oneself and the world in quite a different way. Each reveals aspects of American life rarely caught except in certain novels or in movies like The Goodfather and the Swedish import, The Emigrants. In his paper, Pizzillo has set forth a description of the prevalent state of bilingual education and has proposed reasons for directing our attention and effort toward asking some hard questions and making bilingual education a muchneeded and vital part of the American educational experience. His general aim, I take it, is to provoke each reader to self-inquiry; to realize that there is no single culture in the United States whose symbols, values, roles, attitudes , or general life-style, are acceptable to all. In short, Pizzillo wishes to alert us to a new ethnic consciousness , one that delights in the glory of America's recently rediscovered pluralism. These are most provocative considerations , demanding our attention and critical judgment. I want, therefore, in the first part of my response, to offer a critical account of some of Pizzillo's basic ideas, which seem to me 2 intrinsically interesting and, moreover, important for education. In the second part of my response, I will formulate certain criticisms and reservations concerning the basic features of Pizzillo's descriptive account. My remarks in this section will be grouped under three headings: "Conceptual and Moral Difficulties ," "Cultural Diversity and Cultural Pluralism," and "Instructional Problems." A Critical Account We have much to learn from Pizzillo's paper. It is readily agreed that it is perhaps impossible to exaggerate the importance of language acquisition in the education of our children. He warns us that bilingual education is not new in the United States, having its roots in America's diversity of an earlier period . The commitment to bilingual education , according to Pizzillo, was choked off by the rising tide of American nationalism that emerged along with World War I. The return or reinstatement of bilingual education came about, at least in part, by the awareness that the educational level of Mexican-Americans, revealed in the data of the 1960 national census, was considerably below the national average. After considerable effort in Congress, the Bilingual Education Act Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed. Bilingual education, according to Pizzillo, is demanded and quite fashionable today. Public interest and support continue at high levels. He gives short shrift to glorified versions of remedial reading programs or English-as-a-SecondLanguage programs, and proposes that increasing the student's competency in two languages, his native tongue and English , employing both as a vehicle for content instruction, is called for. But along with the instructional use of language should go an emphasis on culture . Pizzillo, following Rodriguez, informs us that "language is not just an instrument for communication and learning ; it is a set of values. Bilingual education is, then, best viewed as bilingual -bicultural education." Pizzillo's definition of bilingual education is crucial, for the entire thrust of his argument turns on the acceptance of bilingual education as bilingual -bicultural education. In such a program, there is no merit in learning a new language just for the sake of exercising certain skills. If the bilingual -bicultural education program does anything at all, it is to develop an integrated personality, enhance a...

Issues And Problems In Bilingual Bicultural Education Today

(1976). Issues And Problems In Bilingual Bicultural Education Today. NABE: Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 11-19.

Values Clarification Theory in ESL and Bilingual Education

Because of the close relationship between language and culture, language learning necessarily involves culture learning. The culture of an individual or group is determined by his or its values. Bilingual/ bicultural education requires that student and teacher understand their own values as well as those of each other. One method of achieving this understanding is through the use of values clarification strategies. After presenting the basic theory behind values clarification, some strategies that have been used successfully in a college level English as a Second Language course for foreign students in the United States are discussed. The versatility of these strategies is demonstrated through examples of how the same strategies used with the college-level students can be adapted for use in a bilingual elementary school classroom.

Equal Opportunity for Indian Children: The Legal Basis for Compelling Bilingual and Bicultural Education

Equal Opportunity for Indian Children: The Legal Basis for Compelling Bilingual and Bicultural Education

A New Approach to Bicultural Education

A New Approach to Bicultural Education