Spanish for Spanish Speakers (and Other «Native Languages») in California’s Schools: A Rationale Statement

California’s Foreign Language Framework asserts that a model curriculum for foreign languages includes «instruction in native languages for those students who already speak a language other than English». That is a bold and farsighted statement, one that certainly relates well to the extraordinary linguistic and cultural diversity of the state’s population. It recognizes, too, the sociological and linguistic changes that California has experienced in ever-increasing increments over the last fifteen years due to immigration and relatively higher birth rates amongst ethnic minorities. As the 1980’s ended, our state passed a significant milepost: during the 1988-89 year minority enrollments in California’s public Schools surpassed white majority enrollments. The «minorities» are now the «majority». This fact will have compelling and far-reaching consequences for California’s foreign language education agenda. The traditional curriculum will diversity and take on a new look and a new function. In school districts whose goal is to offer high-quality programs that reflect their communities’ needs and values, «native language» courses will be added to the foreign language curriculum, with official sanction from the State. Cantonese, Farsi, Hebrew, Hindi, Korean, Mandarin, Portuguese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese will appear in Schools’ master schedules in particular communities. Spanish for Spanish Speakers will become a common course offering. Ultimately, Schools that do not offer Spanish for Spanish Speakers will be the exception, not the rule.

Establishing «native» foreign language classes in California’s Schools will be socially responsive and academically valid, but logistically difficult. First, there will be the problem of staffing. Then there will be the problem of what to teach and how to teach it; curriculum does not yet exist for most «native languages». Finally, there is what could be called the problem of inconsequence. That is, most post-secondary institutions in California do not offer «native language» courses, and in those sporadic instances where they do exist, courses are highly prescriptive grammar classes whose goals and methods are corrective, rather than developmental. These are big logistical issues, but they are not insurmountable. California’s Model Curriculum Standards, the Language Arts Framework, the recently adopted Foreign Language Framework, the Statement on Competencies in Languages Other than English Expected of Entering Freshmen published by the Academic Senates of California’s postsecondary systems, and the substantial body of research literature on language acquisition and language arts provide sound guidelines, theoretical perspectives, practical case studies, and resource materials that can be profitably used by curriculum planners and teachers to develop courses of study in «native languages» that will be appropriate to the needs and language skills of students and will meet the demands and expectations of public policy. There will be developmental costs for communities and school systems to bear. In the «native language» spoken by the greatest number of Californian -Spanish-, there have been sporadic efforts by school districts and individual Schools throughout the state to develop courses in Spanish for Spanish Speakers. Some of those programs have been outstanding, and their outcomes have justified their developmental costs many times over. Here in California, and in Florida, Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas, there are working models to draw upon for all «native languages»; no one will have to reinvent any wheels, but we will have to build a few new ones and improve the design of others.

As a master of official educational policy and priority in California, Spanish for Spanish Speakers is, clearly, an idea whose time has

––––––––   447   ––––––––

come. Along with proficiency-based curriculum and instruction, Spanish for Spanish Speakers looms as one of the most important and immediate items in our state’s foreign language education agenda. Statewide, nearly 600,000 students study a foreign language in the public schools; three-quarters of them take Spanish, and many of those are Spanish speakers. There are nearly 800,000 students in California schools who have limited proficiency in English; three-quarters of them are Spanish speakers. The sheer numbers of Spanish-speaking children and adults in California and the practical necessities of society and of the marketplace here and abroad highlight the compelling need for formal Spanish language instruction to speakers of Spanish regardless of their level of proficiency. Academically, personally, socially, and economically, the potential return on the investment to establish and develop courses in Spanish for Spanish Speakers is huge. In schools where Spanish for Spanish Speakers has been instituted, the expenditure of time and effort by school officials, the community, teachers and students has produced significant and positive results on many levels.

People may ask, why should we spend money to teach Spanish to Spanish speakers if they already know it? This is a natural and understandable concern expressed by many thoughtful citizens and educators, and it deserves a thoughtful response.

There are very sound reasons for teaching Spanish to Spanish speakers. First, it accords perfectly with the geopolitical aspirations and necessities of the state and of the nation, and with the national language policy that is currently being developed.

More than ever before, our nation’s security -indeed, world stability as a whole- depends upon our understanding of and communication with other countries. The world beyond our borders is crucial to our nation and to our state. California is geographically, economically, and culturally one of the most strategic nexuses on Earth. We are a primary facet of the Pacific Rim. World events and the emergence of the global marketplace have internationalized California’s economy. We are a key commodity exchange for the world’s agricultural, industrial and technical production. More than ever before, our economic well-being is intertwined with that of other countries through expanding international trade, financial markets, and investments. The conclusions of the National Governors’ Association in its report on international education are especially apt for us in California: «The imperatives are clear: It is time to learn languages. It is time to learn geography. It is time to change our thinking about the world around us. For we cannot compete in a world that is a mystery beyond our borders». At no time in history has our nation needed more linguistic capital than now. California’s schools have the potential to be the nation’s most abundant wellspring of those much-needed human and linguistic resources in many of the world’s languages, and especially Spanish.

It is frequently said that Spanish is the second language of the United States, and sometimes the U. S. is described as one of the world’s major Spanish-speaking countries. In Mexico people jokingly call Los Angeles their country’s third-largest city. There are numerous communities throughout the state where Spanish is the predominant language, and the number of Spanish language print and electronic communications outlets up and down the state is steadily increasing. The Latino community is burgeoning, and it is generally recognized as an increasingly important factor in the economy and in state and national politics. But the fact remains that Spanish is a foreign language. California’s Proposition 63 has legally defined it as such: English is statutorily the language for conducting official matters of civic and business life. Nevertheless, the historical reality of our state is that we are a multilingual society and an incredibly diverse people, a mixture of nationalities and cultures from across the globe. Two presidential reports cite as untapped resources language students «who by being brought into the mainstream of educational and employment opportunities» can «build on their existing linguistic resources so that they may contribute more to American education, diplomacy and international business». The institutional infrastructure for international education is already in place throughout the state at the post-secondary level. Instituting Spanish for Spanish Speakers is a relatively easy, positive educational means of cultivating and enriching California’s linguistic capital and thereby enhancing the state’s position in the international and domestic marketplace and serving the commonwealth of all citizens.

There are sound philosophical reasons for schools to offer Spanish for Spanish Speakers. Every school district in California has espoused an educational philosophy that reads something like this: «This District helps each child to utilize his/her potential as much as possible through a

––––––––   448   ––––––––

varied and flexible curriculum which reflects a concern for individual differences, and it accepts each student where he/she is with respect to his/her ambition, ability, and cultural heritage». Apart from the questions of appropriate settings and facilities, and allowing for rhetorical variations and local community values, this philosophical statement expresses the essence of American educational values; it is the animus that moves every sector of the public educational system, from pre-school through the first two years of college. Yet, many school systems overlook this same educational philosophy in regards to Spanish-speaking students who wish to study Spanish.

At the base line, Spanish-speaking students, whether they are mono- or bilingual, are able to use Spanish to satisfy nearly all of their social and physical needs. They can express their needs for care and comfort, persuade, suggest, describe and talk about past, present and future events. They have learned to pronounce and recognize the sounds, to construct and interpret phrases, sentences and conversations, and they have acquired an extensive vocabulary. They may not as yet have learned to read or write in Spanish nor have they necessarily learned how to think and talk about matters that lie beyond their limited world experiences.

At the least, this is the bench mark from which the Spanish for Spanish Speakers curriculum should be developed. It assumes linguistic skills that are beyond those which are typically developed in four years of high school Spanish classes designed to meet the needs of English speaking students. In «regular» Spanish classes the goal is language acquisition and proficiency; in Spanish for Spanish Speakers classes the goal is to develop existing language skills to a level of academic competency that is appropriate to the student’s age.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to equitably teach regular Spanish classes in which Spanish speakers are grouped with non-Spanish speakers, because neither the Spanish language needs nor the abilities of either group can be duly or successfully addressed. It is pedagogically imperative to design Spanish language programs that will specifically address the needs and abilities of the Spanish-speaking student and will, in turn, facilitate instruction in regular Spanish language courses.

If schools are going to offer a flexible and varied curriculum by which Spanish-speaking students can realize their potential as much as possible, and if schools are going to accept Spanish-speaking students where they are with respect to their ambitions, abilities, and cultural heritage, then incorporating Spanish for Spanish Speakers into the curriculum is a philosophically valid and responsive step that will have immediate practical consequences which will not unduly displace normal institutional priorities. There will be an equal or slightly increased expenditure for texts and materials for classes designed as language arts and composition courses in Spanish. Class sizes will be the same, but management procedures, goals, emphases, and methodologies will be quite different from regular Spanish classes. In a word, for schools to support their expressed educational philosophy and purpose by instituting courses in Spanish for Spanish Speakers, the investment will be the same or somewhat higher than it has been in regular Spanish language classes; the returns, in the form of academic competency derived from linguistic and critical thinking skills, will be much higher.

There are sound academic and curricular reasons for instituting Spanish for Spanish Speakers. In recent years, general college entrance requirements in California have been prescribed by a body called the Intersegmental Coordinating Council, constituted by the University of California, the California State University, private colleges and universities, and community colleges. As a matter of praxis, the Coordinating Council determines the shape and features of the high school college prep curriculum in this state. Currently, the entrance requirement is two years of high school foreign language classes, with three or more recommended. Even though Spanish-speaking students may possess comprehension, speaking, and literacy skills in Spanish that far exceed the typical English-speaking high school graduate who has taken four years of Spanish, they must still take two years of a foreign language to qualify for entrance to the University of California. Administrators and counselors commonly advise those students to take some other language, simply because they «already know» Spanish. When such advice coincides with students’ ambitions and abilities, it is appropriate and beneficial to their academic and personal development. But that same advice frequently ignores or fails to appreciate the skills and potential that exist in the Spanish-speaking student. Such advice squanders rich linguistic capital. It wastes the students’ skills, it directs them away from a subject in which they are likely to be successful and into subject areas which

––––––––   449   ––––––––

nullify their academic distinctiveness, or it forces them into Spanish language classes whose goals and procedures are utterly inappropriate to the Spanish-speaking students’ ambitions, abilities and cultural heritage. Ultimately, the failure to offer Spanish for Spanish Speakers in schools where there is a substantial number of Spanish-speaking students could possibly be interpreted by some as being a denial of their constitutional property right, which is equal access to higher education based on the criteria established by the University of California.

On another level, Spanish for Spanish Speakers can be a positive, though partial, academic remedy to a crucial educational and social problem school dropouts. State-wide and nationwide, one-half of all Latino students who enter school do not complete the twelfth grade. In some communities the dropout rate amongst Latinos is over sixty per cent. The statistics are appalling, and national studies predict that the problem will get worse.

Initial assessment and placement testing have indicated that many Spanish-speaking students have a range of comprehension and expression that is lexically and syntactically limited, and informal anecdotal surveys of student records by teachers have found that one-fifth to one-fourth of high school students entering first-year Spanish for Spanish Speakers classes have significant English language deficiencies. Even though most of those students have attended English-language schools since kindergarten, in grades 8-10 they test below grade level in English literacy. Ostensibly they are bilingual, but in reality such students are, academically speaking, bilingual: they do not have sufficient language skills to be academically competent in either language. They are accordingly placed in remedial English and non-college prep classes. Yet in required subject areas that are dependent upon language arts skills -social studies and science, for instance-, those same students must compete with peers whose English language skills are at or above grade level. Already considered to be at risk because of insufficient language competency, many find themselves in academic jeopardy and drop out of school, frustrated, angry, dispirited. Specific academic interventions, if they occur at all, are very difficult and nearly always inadequate and too late.

Though conceived only as college prep courses and not in any way as a means of academic remediation or intervention, Spanish for Spanish Speakers classes have had substantial, even profound consequences for students who are regarded as at risk. Especially in first-year classes, students commonly experience a convergence and consolidation of Spanish language skills that is so extensive that their progress exceeds the curricular goals and objectives of even the succeeding course, so they are able to advance two levels in a college prep subject area. That in itself is significant and tangible evidence of academic success, but it is not confined only to the foreign language subject area. Those consolidated language skills in Spanish frequently transfer entirely to English, so that students’ overall linguistic and academic competency increases and their performance in other subject areas improves, with verifiable results in the form of higher grades and, most important, fewer dropouts and more graduates continuing their education at the postsecondary level.

Finally, there are sound personal reasons for schools to offer Spanish for Spanish Speakers. There is a proverb that says, «He who speaks two languages is worth two men», but oftentimes, English-speaking Latino students are embarrassed, even ashamed, that they are also Spanish speakers. The reasons that underlie those feelings are complex and, sometimes very personal. Validation of language and of self is frequently one of the early serious issues that need to he resolved in Spanish for Spanish Speakers classes. Whether that resolution process is short or long, the personal and academic outcomes are always beneficial for the students. The benefits gained by English-speaking students who study a foreign language are well documented. Students in Spanish for Spanish Speakers classes realize the same kinds of benefits: their vocabulary improves in English as well as in Spanish; they score higher in reading achievement, and their reading comprehension improves in English and in Spanish; their cultural awareness and self-concept are enhanced and raised; they receive community recognition for their Spanish-language achievement; they gain greater insight into their linguistic heritage; and, most important, they take express pride in being bilingual and academically competent in two languages. They realize the truth behind the proverb: those who speak two languages truly are worth two people.

To conclude, let us be clear about who and what are at issue, and what is at stake. First, even though the Foreign Language Framework speaks of «instruction in native languages for those who speak languages other than English», we are not, for the most part, talking about students who are

––––––––   450   ––––––––

truly «natives». From the stand point of language development and curriculum planning, «natives», properly speaking, are first-generation immigrants above age ten whose language is consolidated. The great majority of California students who will be served by «native language» classes are bilingual, academically English dominant, and linguistically functional at or near the base line described earlier. Without some sort of significant social or educational intervention, their «native language» will never be consolidated. On the contrary, with time, their base line skills will erode, disintegrate, and ultimately disappear. That is a terrible loss, economically, socially, and not in the least, personally. Because of «native language» erosion and disintegration, it is not uncommon to find families in which children and their grandparents can communicate only minimally. These children are not «natives», but they possess valuable «native language». It is in our communities’ best interest to cultivate those resources to the maximum possible.

Second, Spanish for Spanish Speakers and other «native language» classes are not gratuitous add-ons to the curriculum simply to satisfy a particular constituency, nor are they a disguised form of bilingual education; they may be ancillary to some bilingual programs, but their purpose, assumptions, and functions are not the same as those of bilingual education. The purpose and function of such classes is the development of language arts in foreign languages, in the same relative proportion to the general curriculum as traditional foreign languages classes occupy, no more, no less. Foreign language maintenance is assumed, but only as a starting point. The goal is foreign language advancement. Insofar as that goal is achieved, the outcome will be students with greater personal, intellectual, academic, social, and economic viability. This is what the education reform movement of the last decade has been about. This is what the public demands and expects from its schools. And this is what our children need to meet their future. Establishing and promoting Spanish for Spanish Speakers (and other «native language» courses) in the foreign language curriculum of our schools will be a positive step toward asserting essential educational values and realizing goals which have intrinsic and assigned worth, and which we, as educators and as citizens, affirm in our actions and words -be they in English, in Spanish, or in other «native languages».

Al-Rufai, M. H. «Ability Transfer and the Teaching of Reading». English Language Teaching Journal 30.3 (1976): 23646.

American Council on Education. Report on International Education (August 1989).

Arnold, Gerald. A Profile of Illinois Dropouts. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education, Department of Planning and Research, 1985.

Barnwell, David. «Proficiency and the Native Speaker». Bulletin of the Association of Departments of Foreign languages 20.2 (1989): 42-46.

Barro, Stephen M. and Andrew Kolstad. Who Drops Out of High School? Findings from High School and Beyond. Washington, D. C.: Center for Education Statistics [OERI/ED], 1987.

Blanco, George M., et al. Español para el hispanohablante: Noción y función. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency, 1987.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. Institutional Reports on Pacific Rim Programs: Submissions by the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California in Response to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 82 (1986). Report 87-25 of the California Postsecondary Commission. Sacramento, 1987.

California State Department of Education. Foreign Language Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten through Grade Twelve (Sacramento, 1989).

_____. Model Curriculum Standards, Grades Nine through Twelve: Foreign Language. 1st ed. Sacramento, 1985.

California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. CATESOL. Position Statement on Language Policy. (1988).

Campbell, Russell N. and Kathryn J. Lindholm. Conservation of Korean Language Resources. Los Angeles: Univ. of California Center for Language Education and Research, 1987.

Commins, Nancy L. «Language and Affect: Bilingual Students at Home and at School». Language Arts 66.1 (1989): 29-42.

Commins, Nancy L. and Ofelia B. Miramontes. «A Descriptive Study of the Linguistic Abilities of a Selected Group of Low Achieving Hispanic Bilingual Students». Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., 20-24 April 1987.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. National Language Policy Resolution (19 March 1988).

Congress of the United States. Hispanic Children, Youth and Families: Challenges, Changes and Employment. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families and the Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities of the Committee on Education and Labor. House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress, Second Session (Washington, D. C., 1986).

Crawford, James. «Bilingual Education: Language, Learning and Politics. A Special Report». Education Week, special supplement (1 April 1987): 19-50.

Cummins, Jim. «Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention». Harvard Educational Review 56.1 (1986): 18-36.

_____. Empowering Minority Students. Teacher Training Project for Bilingual and English to Speakers of Other Languages, Monograph Number 5 (Gainesville: Univ. of Florida College of Education, 1987).

Díaz, Rafael M. «Bilingual Cognitive Development: Addressing

––––––––   451   ––––––––

Gaps in Current Research». Child Development 56.6 (1985): 1376-88.

_____. «The Intellectual Power of Bilingualism». In Second Language Learning by Young Children. Sacramento: Child Development Programs Advisory Committee, 1985.

Dolson, David P. «Bilingualism and Scholastic Performance: The Literature Revisited». NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education 10.1 (1985): 1-35.

Duran, Richard P. Reasoning Skills of Language Minority Students. Los Angeles: Univ. of California Center for Language Education and Research, 1987.

Escutia, Marta M. and Margarita Prieto. Hispanics in the Work Force, Part III: Hispanic Youth. Washington, D. C.: National Council of La Raza, 1986.

García, Ofelia, et al. «Spanish Language Use and Attitudes: A Study of Two New York City Communities». Language in Society 17.4 (1988): 475-511.

Hakuta, Kenji. The Causal Relationship between the Development of Bilingualism, Cognitive Flexibility, and Social Cognitive Skills in Hispanic Elementary School Children. Final Report. (Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education; New Haven: Yale Univ. Department of Psychology, 1984).

Hancock, Charles R. «Second Language Study and Intellectual Development». Foreign Language Annals10.1 (1977): 7579.

Hoeh, James A. and Dennis W. Spuck. «Effects of a Three Phase Acculturation Process of Language Skill Development and Personal Attitudes of High School French Students». Foreign Language Annals 8.3 (1975): 220-26.

Huebner, Thom, et al. «Integrating Language Education, Teacher Training, and University School Collaboration: A Pilot Project». Modern Language Journal 73.1 (1989): 23-31.

Illinois Task Forte on Hispanic Student Dropouts. A Generation Too Precious to Waste. An Investigative Report Prepared by the... Springfield: Illinois State General Assembly, 1985.

Kyle, Charles L., et al. We Have a Choice: Students at Risk of Leaving Chicago Public Schools. A Report to the Chicago Board of Education and the Illinois Attorney General (Chicago: De Paul Univ. Center for Research on Hispanics, 1986).

Landry, Richard G. «A Comparison of Second Language Learners and Monolinguals on Divergent Thinking Tasks in the Elementary School Level». Modern Language Journal 58.1-2 (1974): 10-15.

_____. «The Enhancement of Figural Creativity through Second Language Learning at the Elementary School Level». Foreign Language Annals 7.1 (1973): 111-15.

_____. «The Relationship of Second Language Learning and Verbal Creativity». Modern Language Journal 57.3 (1973): 110-13.

Lemmon, Christian R. and Judith P. Goggin. «The Measurement of Bilingualism and Its Relationship to Cognitive Ability». Applied Psycholinguistics 10.2 (1989): 133-55.

Malakoff, Marguerite E. «The Effect of Language of Instruction on Reasoning in Bilingual Children». Applied Psycholinguistics 9.1 (1988): 17-38.

Met, Myriam. «Bilingual Education for Speakers of English». Foreign Language Annals 11.1 (1978): 35-40.

Michigan State Board of Education. Hispanic School Dropouts and Hispanic Student Performance on the MEAP Tests: Closing the Gap. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education, 1986.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1983.

National Commission of Secondary Education for Hispanics. Make Something Happen: Hispanics and Urban High School Reform. 2 vols. New York: Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1984.

National Governors’ Association. «America in Transition The Education Imperative». Access 85, special issue (1989).

Ogletree, Earl J. and Vilma E. Ujlaki. «American-Hispanics in a Pluralistic Society». Migration Today 13.3 (1985): 30-34.

Ortiz, Leroy I. and Guillermina Englebrecht. «Partners in Biliteracy: The School and the Community». Language Arts 63.5 (1986): 458-65.

Orum, Lori S. The Education of Hispanics: Selected Statistics. Washington, D. C.: National Council of La Raza, 1985.

Pollock, Seymour. «La guerra del bilingüismo/The Bilingualism War». Miami Mensual/Miami Monthly (October 1986) 33-46; (November 1986), 35-44.

President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. «Strength through Wisdom: A Critique of U. S. Capability». Modern Language Journal 64 (1980): 9-57.

Robledo, María del Refugio, ed. Texas School Dropout Survey Project: A Summary of Findings. San Antonio: Intercultural Development Research Association, 1986.

Silvas, Irene et al. Spanish for Spanish Speakers Program Guide. San Jose, CA: East Side Union High School District, 1988-1989.

Smith, Donald H. Testimony to the State of New York Legislative Hearing on Dropouts (20 March 1986).

Statement on competencies in Languages Other than English Expected of Entering Freshmen: Phase I -French, German, Spanish. Sacramento: The California Education Roundtable, the Articulation Council of California, and the California State Department of Education, 1986.

Stern, David, et al. Reducing the High School Dropout Rate in California: Why We Should and How We May. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, 1986.

Valdés, Guadalupe. «Teaching Ethnic Languages in the United States: Implications for Curriculum and Faculty Development». Bulletin of the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages 11.3 (1980): 31-35.

_____. «Teaching Spanish to Hispanic Bilinguals: A Look at Oral Proficiency Testing and the Oral Proficiency Movement». Hispania 72.2 (1989): 392-401.

Valdivieso, Rafael, ed. «1980 High School Sophomores: Whites, Blacks, Hispanics -Where Are They Now?» Research Bulletin 1.1 (New York: Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1986).

Veltman, Calvin. The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States. New York: Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1988.

Ventriglia, Linda. A Functional-Collaborative Approach for the Identification of Teaching Strategies for Staff Development of Teachers of Limited English Proficiency Students. Bilingual Inservice Teacher Education Research Program Final Report. Brookline, MA: Educational Collaborative for Greater Boston, 1985.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 74, Number 2, May 1991