e the crux of the debate between the opposing viewpoints in the debate on bilingual education models.
There has been a recent backlash against bilingual education. In the U.S. many states like California and Arizona, with large immigrant populations, experienced a political backlash against bilingual education programs. Others, and Cummins is among them, view a multicultural orientation based on inclusion of language and culture as the only means of providing a fair education to immigrant children who speak a foreign language. As Cummins (2000) argues, to adopt a lesser approach or one of assimilation (i.e. exclusion) is tantamount to the concept of identify theft: “Students’ identities are affirmed and academic achievement promoted when teachers express respect for the language and cultural knowledge that students bring to the classroom and when the instruction is focused on helping students generate new knowledge, create literature and art, and act on social realities that affect their lives” (34).
Despite Cummins’ perspective, others argue that generations of immigrant children who spoke a foreign tongue when they arrived in a distant land have done well through assimilation approaches to language and learning. Many argue that assimilation of a diversity of cultures is the main point of a democratic nation and that bilingual programs retard assimilation. They are also quick to point out that adopting a unified language does not exclude an appreciation of other cultures or languages. Critics of bilingual education also point to the poor results demonstrated in many school districts where they are employed. So, too, they are enthusiastic about test results of immigrant children in states like California. As one journalist notes, “Two year’s after the state’s voters passed Proposition 227 to ban bilingual education, native Spanish-speakers are showing significant gains in test scores. These students improved...