JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION, 7(1), 25–42
Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1534-8431 print / 1532-771X online
DOI: 10.1080/15348430701693374
BROWN AND
LATIN@S
AND
SOUTO-MANNING
CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
“Culture Is the Way They Live Here”:
Young Latin@s and Parents Navigate
Linguistic and Cultural Borderlands
in U.S. Schools
Sally Brown
School of Education
Charleston Southern University
Mariana Souto-Manning
Department of Child and Family Development
The University of Georgia
Throughout the United States, deficit perspectives contribute to Latino students’ failure
in terms of school success. This happens because many educators still regard bilingualism as a deficit. We examined the discourse of one family to better understand how deficit, assimilationist discourse affected them and their two children. We came to understand that, influenced by deficit messages, parents celebrated accelerated English
acquisition. Implications for teachers include the recognition and support of linguistic
and cultural diversity in the classroom. We suggest a sociocultural perspective that embraces the culture and humanity of every student and helps support the maintenance of
multiple cultures.
Key words: bilingualism, discourse, deficit, assimilation, linguistic practices, sociocultural perspectives
It was a sunny but brisk January morning when Señor y Señora Dominquez1 enrolled their children in a local English-only public school upon their arrival in the
Correspondence should be addressed to Sally Brown, PhD, Assistant Professor, Early Childhood
Education, School of Education, Charleston Southern University, 9200 University Blvd., P.O. Box
118087, Charleston, SC 29423. E-mail: [email protected]
1All names, except for the authors’ names, are pseudonyms.
26
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
United States due to a job transfer. Although Señor y Señora Dominquez were bilingual and spoke fluent English and Spanish, both of their children were monolingual Spanish speakers. Señora Dominquez clutched Teresa’s hand tightly as they
navigated the school parking lot. Both Teresa and her mother were anxious as they
opened the front door to the school. Teresa was beginning the second grade, and
her mother felt this school would be a good place for her to learn English. Previously, Teresa had attended first grade in Puerto Rico where she was an “A” student
and the curriculum was taught mainly in Spanish. Kevin, her younger brother, had
attended a preschool in Puerto Rico where Spanish was spoken, and he would have
to wait until the following year to enroll in kindergarten.
This study documents the experiences of the Dominquez family after living in
South Carolina and attending public schools for only one year. During this phase
of the study Teresa was a student in the third grade and Kevin was attending kindergarten. Señora Dominquez was employed as a teacher’s assistant at a local high
school, and Señor Dominquez continued his work on the military base. This is the
story of a college-educated Puerto Rican family’s experiences of living in South
Carolina as they navigated a U.S. public school system and the identity effects on
the family’s cultural beliefs and values.
LATINOS: GLOBAL ISSUES, LOCAL EXPERIENCES
Throughout the United States, deficit perspectives contribute to Latino students’
failure in terms of school success (Gonzalez, 2005; Schultz & Hull, 2002). A deficit lens assumes that certain groups of students (often those labeled by ethnicity,
first language, socioeconomic status, and approach to learning tasks) are seen as
“missing” certain skills or lacking background knowledge. A similar epistemological perspective is cultural deprivation. The same assumption was made at this
school in South Carolina. The focus was on what the children’s home culture failed
to provide them. From either of these perspectives, in order to be successful in
school these children must have their deficiencies corrected so they can function in
mainstream ways (Valdes, 1996). This ideology is similar to colonist ideology,
whereby colonizer attributes are regarded as superior (Hamann, Wortham, &
Murillo, 2002). Superior attributes of those in power are recycled in institutions,
thus requiring immigrants to conform to the practices and identities of the majority. In the past many immigrant groups have conformed to mainstream ideologies,
but today’s Latino population is focused more on transnational communities that
cross global borders. Valdes (1996) and Ogbu (1981) discussed the many attempts
that have been made to “fix” immigrant parents through parenting programs offered in schools. Schooling is often tied to mainstream middle-class culture, and
school policy is based on that cultural order (Hamann et al., 2002). Meanwhile,
surrounded by messages that they have deficits and/or come from inferior cultures,
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
27
many students adopt an oppositional stance toward schooling, making it possible
for those who hold the deficit model to point to school performance as evidence
that their position is well founded.
Ochs and Capps (2001) have studied how deficit discourses are incorporated in
everyday narratives. Through this study, we learn how deficit discourses infiltrate
beliefs of Latinos and are recycled intertextually in their conversational narratives.
These narratives often reflect (mis)understandings of what has to happen in order
for Latinos to function in school. Using Gee’s (1996) definition of discourse as
“ways of being in the world, or forms of life which integrate words, acts, values,
beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body positions
and clothes” (p. 127), we examined the discourses of one set of parents in order to
understand how deficit discourses played out for one family and their two children.
Furthermore, we found that despite the “30 years since solid empirical evidence
has been available on the positive relationship between bilinguality and … intellectual functioning for bilingual children, the stereotype of negative consequences
still survives” (Hamers, 2000, p. 86).
Latinos in the United States
Current statistics reveal that the Latino population continues to expand in the United
States. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, one in every eight people in
the United States is of Latin@2 origin. This amounts to 37.4 million Latinos; the majority of them emigrated from Mexico (Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2002). Projected
population estimates for the year 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) predict that approximately 16% of people living in the United States will be Latin@. This compares to projections of 13% for African Americans and 65% for Euro-Americans.
Guadalupe Valdes (2001) studied four Latino students over a period of two
years to examine the challenges of learning English, or not learning English. She
found that too often students are placed in the “ESL ghetto” and isolated from
meaningful interactions with their English-speaking peers. Valdes also found that
what was happening in the community socially and politically was directly related
to what was happening in school. Anti-immigrant sentiments, for example, were
apparent in the attitudes of community members as well as teachers and students.
Valdes concluded that at various points these Latino children had internalized the
views and perceptions of mainstream America. They saw themselves as inferior.
The South’s Latino population is the most rapidly expanding Latino population
in the United States. In South Carolina in 2002, for example, the Latino transnational population was approximately 109,000 (Phillips, 2005). Latin@s are the
2Latin@s has been used in this article to signify a hybrid of Latinos and Latinas, employing gender-fair language. This term is used interchangeably with Latino and Latinos. Although we recognize a
broader definition of Latin@, here we focus on a Puerto Rican immigrant family living in South Carolina.
28
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
state’s fastest growing population (Holland, 2005); their percentage in the state
grew 211% from 1990 to 2000 (Kochhar, Suro, & Tafoya, 2005). The booming
economy and low cost of living are attracting many of these Latinos (Holland,
2005). They include people from Mexico, Central and South America, Puerto
Rico, and Cuba. As many as 57% of these southeastern Latinos may be English-language learners (Kochhar et al., 2005). South Carolinians have a history of
struggling with equality for African Americans and are also struggling now with
equity for Latino immigrants. Anti-immigrant sentiments and racism have already
emerged (Smith, 2001).
Latinos and Education
Many of the public schools in which Latin@ students enroll have no experience with
Latino culture. Lack of funding for educational programs to support these learners is
also an issue for the state of South Carolina and Latino communities. The proportion
of ESL teachers is usually limited to as few as one per every 45 students who are English-language learners. Another challenge for this population is the perspective of
some educators who justify not investing in a “migrant” population (Jordan, 2004).
As Latino immigrants move to nontraditional areas of the United States like
South Carolina, a “new Latino diaspora” is being created (Hamann et al., 2002).
Latinos moving into these areas face racism, prejudice, rejection by communities,
and other negative attitudes and stances exacerbated by the mass media (Reyes &
Rios, 2003). Educational policies have not been designed to meet the needs of Latino families and their ways of knowing. Many of the public schools in which
Latin@ students enroll, for example, have no experience with Latino culture. Lack
of funding for educational programs to support these learners is also an issue for
states like South Carolina.
SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE: EMBRACING
THE HUMANITY OF ALL STUDENTS
A sociocultural perspective unites the academic fields of culture and cognition,
considering the role of each child’s cultural group in learning. As young children
interact with more experienced members of their culture, they develop a shared
schema and script for expressing their knowledge. Therefore, social relationships
form the basis of learning (Gregory, Long, & Volk, 2004). Cultural identity, a sense
of belonging to a certain cultural group, affects how children use and develop
literacies. Literacy development is connected to the context in which it occurs and
is always “filtered through the culture” (Perez, 2004, p. 5) of each child.
Children develop their identities as they begin to “search for words, phrases, idiomatic expressions” to express their wants, needs, and desires (Norton & Toohey,
2002, p. 115). The meanings that become attached to the words of a child stem
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
29
from the value ascribed to that child. So, learning a new linguistic system also involves learning about the culture associated with that language. This can result in a
struggle with the development of multiple identities for children who have diverse
histories (Norton & Toohey, 2002). For a child, being able to display one’s expert
knowledge directly connects to the maintenance of personal identity (Datta, 2004).
Multiple Worlds
Dyson (1993) used three spheres to examine the world of children: home, school,
and peer. Language and cultural challenges face many children as they enter the social worlds of the classroom in which English stratifies certain groups. As children
interact in the official world of school, complex peer relationships are mediated
through language. Home cultural histories affect a child’s ability to situate herself in
the social arena of the classroom. Using their own words, young children bring certain structures and overtones to their social lives that impact their roles and acceptance within the classroom community (Dyson, 1993). Peer interactions impact their
opportunities for access to classroom acceptance (Long, Bell, & Brown, 2004).
Many cultures socialize children, beginning at infancy, into community beliefs
that help children come to know who they are in the world. Through this socialization process, children learn language and appropriate ways of using language in
social situations (Romero, 2004). Sometimes the language in the world of the
classroom conflicts with a child’s respective ways of using language, thus deprivileging some voices while privileging others (Dyson, 1993). It is critical that
teachers learn about the voices of children in order to understand the complex relationship between language, identity, and learning.
Specifically, understanding the role of parents in their children’s education is
pivotal. For many Latino students, parents are the most important reason to stay in
school (Rolon, 2000). Specifically, mothers tend to create a sense of responsibility
for schoolwork and an expectation for success. Rolon found in her analysis of
Puerto Rican young women that a college education in the United States was a fundamental educational goal regardless of socioeconomic status. Often, these high
parental expectations are not understood by classroom teachers (Ada & Zubizarreta, 2001). This research also corroborated the role of the teacher as a second
mother. School success for these women was highly connected to a teacher who affirmed each student’s cultures and languages. Language maintenance is a high priority for many Latinos concerned about communication between their children,
who are being schooled in English-only classrooms, and the extended family. Societal and peer pressures cause many children to become “American,” thus altering
their identities (Ada & Zubizarreta, 2001).
Historically, public attitudes toward immigrants have been complex as cultural
factors meshed with economic and political policies. The recent influx of Latino
immigrants into the United States has raised public concern over language issues
30
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
and even resulted in English-only legislation. This response is related to the perception by many Euro-Americans that Latinos are unwilling to assimilate into
mainstream “American” culture (Cornelius, 2002). “Assimilation (often cast in
terms of the melting-pot metaphor) was … said to have robbed America’s disparate ethnic groups of their cultural heritages. Some even called it “cultural genocide” (Salins, 1997, p. 13). As early as the 1700s, “most immigrant children were
enrolled in free state-supported systems of public schools … [and] as educational
reformer Horace Mann persuasively argued, public schools were necessary, above
all, to ensure the assimilation of immigrants” (p. 7). Despite the time-span of over
two centuries, such a model continues to be prevalent as it was repeatedly articulated by the family in our study.
The above thoughts contradict Zentella’s (2002) research, in which she found
that Latin@s strive to acquire English despite the negative effects of losing one’s
native language. “Language, the medium through which all culture is learned and
transmitted” continues to be highly political (Zentella, 2002, p. 321). In their quest
to maintain a Latin@ identity, many Latin@s end up creating a hybrid version of
both English and Spanish that has a negative stereotype.
METHODOLOGY
In this study, we sought to understand how one family made sense of their schooling experiences in both Puerto Rico and the southeastern United States. The
Dominquez family was chosen for this study because Sally Brown had been
Teresa’s second-grade teacher and had established a trusting relationship with the
family. This made open dialogue possible between researcher and participants.
The Dominquez family is from Puerto Rico and had been living in the United
States approximately one year at the time of this study. The father had recently
been transferred to South Carolina by his employer. Both parents had attained college degrees while living in Puerto Rico. Both parents worked outside of the home.
Teresa was in third grade and had begun her education in Puerto Rico, where most
of her academic instruction was in Spanish. In contrast, Kevin was in kindergarten
and had never attended preschool in Puerto Rico. All of his academic instruction
has been in English.
The data for this phase of the study were collected over six months and involved
more than 20 hours of audio recordings. The methods included participant observation (Spradley, 1980), interviewing, and audiotaping. The primary data were
collected in the participants’ home, an apartment in a suburban neighborhood in
the southeastern United States. The family was visited in their home on several occasions throughout the study. A secondary set of data was collected in Teresa’s and
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
31
Kevin’s classrooms at the local primary school. The interviews selected for this
study are representative of the many conversations held during the study.
Data Analysis
We used qualitative data analysis methods to search for emergent themes and patterns in the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Analyzing data generated from informal interviews with open-ended
questions and categorizing the data according to themes kept us closely connected
to our data. As Ochs and Capps (2001) argued, we analyzed conversational narratives as a critical means of understanding the relationship of everyday talk to human development and the possibility for (de)construction of cultural norms. Our
focus during data analysis was on capturing and understanding Latin@ identity as
seen by the two parents and two children. As teacher educators working in complex linguistic and cultural educational contexts, we were particularly interested in
understanding the parents’ ideas about what was needed in order for their children
to be successful. We were therefore seeking to have an inroad into their understandings rather than looking only for key words that we wanted to find and imposing our own theories on the data. We read and reread the data to move from the actual words used in the discourse to developing a contextual understanding of the
micro and macro issues involved. We let theory emanate from the data and coded
the data openly to identify themes with the assistance of ATLAS.ti software. We
then reexamined and combined our coding system through critical narrative analysis to come up with three themes: (a) the recycling of assimilationist discourses, (b)
first-language maintenance, and (c) school is English only.
Critical narrative analysis (Souto-Manning, 2005) combines critical discourse
analysis (Fairclough, 2003) and narrative analysis (Ochs & Capps, 2001), allowing
us to assess the powerfulness of institutional discourses through analyzing conversational narratives and by verifying the presence of recycled institutional discourse
that is intertextually woven into their very fabric. By uncritically recycling institutional discourses in their own tellings and therefore buying into the ideologies they
convey, participants become subjects to language colonization (Chouliaraki &
Fairclough, 1999). Critical narrative analysis serves to critically analyze conversational narratives, a more concrete form of discourse, as they are closer to a person’s
experiences and are temporally organized. In analyzing conversational narratives
and deconstructing the different discourses present in the particular narrative, we
used critical narrative analysis to deal with real-world issues and develop critical
meta-awareness (Freire, 1970) in demystifying the social constructions of reality
with the intent of changing the way interactions work, making place for them to be
challenged and changed. “When the listener perceives and understands the meaning (the language meaning) of speech, he simultaneously takes an active respon-
32
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
sive attitude towards it” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 68). In analyzing the data, we sought to
identify larger institutional discourses intertwined in this family’s narratives.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We found that assimilationist discourses shaped the family’s decisions regarding
language use and (re)definition of terms, such as culture (see final transcript in the
next section, “Culture is the way they live here”). Also, we found that such assimilation threatened first-language maintenance, as English was seen as a superior
language that must be developed at the expense of Spanish; otherwise, the parents
argued, the children would get confused.
Assimilation of Deficit Discourse
In analyzing the data, we found clear indication of assimilation processes taking
place as the family adapted to a new culture, language, and country. They sought to
become Americans. In fact, “American style assimilation, or as they called it in the
early years of this century, ‘Americanization’” was occurring (Salins, 1997, p. 6).
The family was positioned as victims or objects of assimilationist discourses that
affirmed that to get ahead in the United States, one had to assimilate.
The transcripts below are representative of a much larger corpus of interview
transcripts and thick field notes. Together, they corroborate the epistemological
stance of language diversity as a deficit and the need to assimilate in order to succeed.
“Puerto Rico schools are behind”
Mother:
She (referring to Teresa) rated like low below grade level. That’s what
she said. Below the grade level. When she was in Puerto Rico her grades
were As. And she was having friends that got As. She was socially patient and everything. She made the grades.
Teresa:
I knew all that stuff.
Mother:
Because it was your language?
Teresa:
Yeah.
Dad:
But I notice the—
Mother:
—But it wasn’t easy. It was a private school. It was very, very competent
uh?
Dad:
But the education is different. The uh at the level the education on Puerto
Rico was kinda behind. But the one, but the education system used here
in this state, and I notice that because of the subjects, you know. She
started getting fractions and things like that. I think Puerto Rico in
Puerto Rico schools are behind on that. They don’t do that on that level. I
notice this is one thing.
Researcher: Okay
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
Dad:
Mother:
33
I think the major thing is the language. But the second thing is because
the education over there is behind. A little bit behind the education here
…
((nods head in agreement))3
In the transcript above, American schools are portrayed as superior to Puerto
Rican schools. Puerto Rican schools where Teresa was successful are seen as the
reason Teresa is not doing well in South Carolinian schools. Blame is placed on
Puerto Rican schools and not on the American school in which she is “below grade
level.” Teresa’s parents frame American schools as being more advanced and exploring more complex concepts, such as fractions, earlier on. By believing that
Teresa’s lack of success in school is due to her previous schooling in Puerto Rico,
her parents are taking away any responsibility that American schools might have in
not reaching Teresa; in considering her “below grade level,” American schools are
not seen as responsible for the very label they attributed to Teresa.
“People from different cultures um learn with having this disadvantage—the
language”
Mother:
Kevin:
Mother:
It’s a very good thing that the school has programs that helps people
from different cultures um learn with having this disadvantage –the language … my daughter she’s going to ESL and she’s enjoying it a lot and
the teacher said—
—I don’t? ((yells out))
He’s not having a problem with that cuz he’s not in ESL yet. He will be
and um the teacher say that she does not have any problem not having any
problems. But we are noticing that she is having difficult her difficult is
understanding some of the instructions because she can understand the
teacher talk but when she has to read it she doesn’t understand exactly
what it says. And then when she does the test she didn’t follow the instructions and it’s not that she didn’t know what she was doing but in part she
was just trying and she need to ask. She’s being ashamed to ask (quiet
voice). And it hurts because she is the only one in the classroom who is having this problem with speech and she doesn’t want the others to know. It’s
interesting but because the good thing about us is that she can talk to me.
The transcript above clearly points toward an epistemology of Spanish language as a deficit, as the mother indicates that “ESL”4 programs are supposed to be
3Transcription conventions used in this paper are as follows: ((behaviors are noted inside double parentheses)), ? indicates rising intonation, each period indicates .1-s pause if repeated, — indicates overlapping speech, bold indicates yelling. Stylistic notations that were not particularly relevant to the analytical framework employed were omitted.
4ESL (English as a second language) is employed due to the mother’s use of the term in interviews.
The term more commonly used in U.S. schools is ESOL (English for speakers of other languages), due
to the great possibility that English may not be a second language but a third, fourth, or fifth.
34
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
a crutch to those people with such a disadvantage. Kevin is quick to indicate that he
is not part of such a program, that he is not ESL and not having “a problem,” as his
mother voices. Based on additional data, Kevin affirms that he has a non-ESL institutional identity due to the negative stereotypes associated with these services at
his school. Affectively, the mother positions herself as a believer that her daughter
has a problem and is sad about it—“… it hurts because she is the only one in the
classroom who is having this problem with speech and she doesn’t want the others
to know.” This mother explicitly voices her perception that there is shame associated with this English problem within the context of an English-only classroom
and in society in general. This statement reflects a traditional educational model in
which language and cultural diversity are not situated as resources in the classroom, but as deficits. Within this belief system, the best solution is to get rid of the
malady, to fix what’s broken, and to seek to become as American as possible, to assimilate. The moral stance displayed is certain, reflecting assimilationist moral
values being conveyed through the telling (Ochs & Capps, 2001).
“He’s having an advantage because he speaks English … SO it is an advantage for
him and a bit disadvantage for her”
Mother:
If she tries hard and she keeps talking but the problem is not only talking
but also reading it and understanding what you read. And she’s he’s having an advantage because he speaks English right now to learn the letters
and that.
Researcher: Right.
Mother:
So? it is an advantage for him and a little bit disadvantage for her.
In the transcript above, Kevin is seen as having an advantage, as he can speak
English. Conversely, Teresa is portrayed as someone with a language disadvantage—Spanish. The mother’s use of the words “if she tries hard” tells us that putting
forth effort is equal to getting ahead in this world. The mother again attributes this
difficulty to something within Teresa and not to the schooling practices themselves.
Based on observations, Teresa is working hard to negotiate the literacy practices in
her classroom. This short transcript displays the belief that American culture and
language are cultural capitals (Bourdieu, 1977). The assimilationist discourse and
belief that Americanization is best are conveyed in this example. Clearly, it can be
noted that institutional discourses (from the media, government, or political parties; cf. Fairclough, 2003; Gee, 2001) are filtering down and being recycled in the
very narratives and beliefs of common Latin@ immigrants, such as this family.
This is further reinforced by the subsequent exchange (see next transcript), in
which Teresa asks her mother what culture is, and her mother responds that “culture is the way they live here.” This exclusivist view of what counts as culture devalues cultural diversity and situates Puerto Rican culture as a deficit, corroborating with the discourse of assimilation as cultural genocide (Salins, 1997).
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
35
“Culture is the way they live here”
Teresa:
Mother:
What is culture?
Culture is the way they live here.
As a result of devaluing their own culture and language and seeing cultural and
linguistic diversity through deficit lenses, first-language (Spanish) maintenance is
at stake. Evidence of learning English and assimilating at the expense of their first
language is presented in the following section.
First-Language Maintenance
In this section, theories that align with outdated research regarding linguistic and
cultural diversity are showcased. These emerged as we coded the data, yet they
reflect bilingualism discourses that were prevalent in the 1970s and that correlated bilingualism with negative consequences (Hamers, 2000). They reflect
off-putting pressures that exist throughout the United States to conform to the
linguistic norm of speaking English only (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002). The
transcripts undoubtedly portray the misconception of which Lucy Tse (2001)
wrote as follows:
… some believe our brains can only hold so much, and if we fit it too fully with the
heritage language, there will be no room for English. This misconception leads many
… to advocate arresting development of the native language to leave ample room for
the new language. (p. 45)
The following transcript portrays the English-only model entering the household as it is employed in nonacademic realms, such as in TV programs and movies.
“We don’t even listen to programs in Spanish anymore”
Mother:
Dad:
Mother:
We don’t even listen to programs in Spanish anymore. We’re going to
speak Spanish in the house and English on the outside with friends.
Yeah this is the way. That’s the way.
In the beginning we were just trying to speak English so they could catch
on.…
In trying to speak English to catch on, the mother conveys that they do not
watch television programs in Spanish anymore. Even though now they don’t need
it anymore, according to the mother herself, they continue to employ such a model.
Her phrasing “we’re going to” in the passage “We’re going to speak Spanish in the
house and English on the outside with friends” conveys their plans for the future.
By and large, they speak English in the house as well as at school. English acquisi-
36
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
tion and development are overvalued as the Spanish language is underrated. Yet, as
one can see below, in the rush to learn English they sacrificed Spanish-language
development to the point of losing fluency.
To demonstrate Teresa’s knowledge of Spanish, the mother asks her to say a
simple phrase in Spanish, yet Teresa says Sunday (in Spanish) for Friday. This signals the loss of first language, as Teresa moved to the United States as a speaker of
primarily Spanish.
Friday in Spanish
Mother:
Teresa:
Mother:
Kevin:
How do you say today is Friday in Spanish, Teresa?
Hoy es domingo.
What is Friday?
Viernes?
Señora Dominquez is taken aback when it becomes evident that Teresa has already lost so much of her first language. She later voices that she had been focusing
so much on English that she had no idea about her children’s Spanish language use
and understanding. Although this excerpt might convey the impression that Teresa
is not displaying enough English-language skills, it clearly conveys an attempt by
the mother to showcase Teresa’s Spanish-language skills through the above procedural linguistic exchange, and the girl’s clear confusion between domingo and
viernes (Sunday and Friday). In a classroom-like fashion, employing the common
interactional pattern of an initiation, response, and evaluation sequence (Cazden,
1988), the mother probes Teresa. In this case, however, the initiation, response, and
evaluation sequence is not completed, as Teresa can not produce the correct answer. The mother repeats the question and receives a tentative answer voiced by
Kevin. This excerpt represents many situations along the six months of data collection in which Teresa and Kevin displayed clear and dramatic first-language loss.
For example, during this same episode Teresa goes to her bedroom and returns
with her bilingual Barbie. The Barbie recites color words first in English and then
in Spanish. As Teresa listens to the Barbie and repeats after it, she begins to predict
the Spanish color words. During this task, however, she is unable to predict the
Spanish words for several of the colors. This pattern continued throughout the
study. With simple and authentic examples, the transcripts analyzed here convey a
belief that assimilationist practices at the expense of heritage cultures and languages are needed in order to succeed in the United States.
School Is English Only
The last pattern in the data can be outlined from the following transcript, which
conveys that everything about school is in English:
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
Mother:
Kevin:
Mother:
37
And … um … when we are working on homework it is in English. Everything about school. All the books that we are buying and that we are
getting we try to make them in English and sometimes and we have
books in Spanish—
—No we don’t.
But having the situation that he doesn’t want to read in Spanish. And I
understand that because I don’t want him to get confused about the
sounds and everything. He’s learning everything in English.
This transcript paints the picture of what is taking place in many American educational settings—everything is in English. When the mother voices “because I
don’t want him to get confused,” she echoes Caldas and Caron-Caldas’s (2002)
finding that repulsive forces and discourses exist throughout the United States to
abide by tacit rules that intertextually (Kristeva, 1986) urge all to speak English
only (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002). Although Kevin’s English-only practices are
a way for him to learn English, his Spanish has deteriorated to the point that he is
no longer able to keep family ties by talking to grandparents in Spanish. By receiving such messages coherent with outdated research studies, parents celebrate accelerated English acquisition at the expense of linguistic and cultural diversity.
Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of Findings
A large body of research (Halcon, 2001; Krashen, 1999; Moll, 2000) has indicated
that supporting native-language literacy results in increased academic performance in both Spanish and English. Being able to utilize two linguistic codes enhances one’s abilities and is an asset. Part of the problem arises as teachers dismiss
linguistic resources that children bring from their use of the Spanish language. The
biliteracy development of working-class Latino children in the United States is
limited by the “neocolonial education system that always seeks to fulfill other people’s purposes and interests, not theirs” (Moll, 2000, p. 265). There is intellectual
power in biliteracy, as one can interact in one language and transfer knowledge and
skills to another language. As educators of bilingual children, classroom teachers
can include the use and/or recognition of linguistic and cultural diversity in the
classroom. When such diversity is not valued, students such as Teresa feel displaced in the classroom and start conceptualizing their first language as a deficit of
which they must rid themselves. As the teacher provides an unwelcoming environment for English-language learners in an English-only classroom, students in the
classroom assume these same biases. These negative attitudes then are reproduced
in children’s play and interactions with Latino children. By promoting English-only practices or overvaluing English in and out of the classroom, we promote
cultural genocide. It is our responsibility as teachers to make every language and
cultural background count in the classroom so that students can feel successful and
38
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
don’t have to lead double lives—for example, navigating the borders of English
and Spanish, or U.S. and Puerto Rican culture.
Historically, research has documented the failure of Latino students in U.S.
public schools (Hawkins, 2005; Nieto, 2002; Zentella, 2005). In order to get at the
root of Latinos’ school failure it is critical to examine school policies, societal
problems, and politics (Martinez, 2003). Current problems in schools are only
manifestations of these factors. One significant aspect for these students is the beliefs that teachers and principals have about their capabilities. Believing that all
children can and will learn makes a positive difference in their academic lives.
Latino children are limited in their access to learning opportunities. Literacy is
the gatekeeper in society (Martinez, 2003). It limits access to opportunities in the
educational realm, which in turn limits career choice and family income. Because
social identities are formed as children interact with their peers in school, it is imperative that students have access to their cultural tools as part of their literacy development (Mercado, 2001). According to Valenzuela (1999), “Schooling is a
subtractive process for many Latino students. It divests these youth of important
social and cultural resources, leaving them progressively vulnerable to academic
failure” (p. 3). It is this process that changes positive attitudes toward schooling
into withdrawal and opposition to school authority.
Currently in education, it is a common practice to narrowly define learning
through standardized test scores (Mora, 2002; Nieto, 1999). Many educational assumptions about non-Euro-American middle-class learners are based on stereotypes that perpetuate the marginalization of certain cultures, especially those who
have traditionally had low status in U.S. society (Nieto, 2002). Education is not
neutral. We must begin to appreciate that
each is unique in their walking of this earth, each an entire universe, each somehow
sacred. This recognition asks us to reject any action that treats other people like objects, anything that thingifies human beings. It demands that we embrace the humanity of every student. (Ayers, 2004, p. 35)
If we as educators are to help eliminate such genocidal practices, we must start
problematizing (Freire, 1970) assimilationist practices, deconstructing discourses
that are not promoting cultural and linguistic diversity as resources, and embodying critical stances in our classrooms. Bringing students’ sociocultural backgrounds to the foreground is a beginning. Learning with and from students and
their families is absolutely necessary if we are to challenge our own assumptions
and start rethinking our truths. In the South, this means reinventing perspectives on
Latino families.
In addition, training classroom teachers to deconstruct classroom discourse is a
useful next step. By taking the time to conduct research on the discourses in their
own classrooms, teachers begin to unravel colonized ideologies of what it means to
be a successful student.
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
39
IMPLICATIONS
As educators, we hope that this family portrait will make readers aware of how valued teachers’ opinions, counsels, and practices are; we hope that readers will realize how discourses were taken beyond face value (Ochs & Capps, 2001) and have
affected one family’s practices and beliefs. In so realizing, we must observe,
kidwatch (Owocki & Goodman, 2002), learn from funds of knowledge (Moll &
Greenberg, 1990), and challenge our own assumptions. We advocate a sociocultural perspective to language acquisition and development that embraces the
humanity of each student. Only when we move beyond simple acknowledgement
of Latino culture to celebrating the uniqueness of every individual will we be able
to incorporate, value, and respect a multitude of languages and cultures inside and
outside educational settings. Only then will we be able to get past archaic assimilationist discourses.
For parents, this portrait reminds us how easily and quickly first languages can
be lost. It is imperative for bilingual interactions to continue to occur in the home
as a way to maintain first languages. The discourses from these transcripts reveal
that even parents can become victims of the ideology positioning English-only as
superior to English-plus. Creating parent seminars explaining bilingual research in
simple terms is a way to begin a dialogue that helps bridge school and home connections. Many parents, like those in this family, remain unaware of the fact that
their children are losing their first language, the implications of such a loss, and the
value of bilingualism. Awareness is a basic first step in the process of disrupting
the cycle of myths.
As parents think about their child’s future, success can be framed as a larger picture—success in life. Educators can support parents’ attempts to maintain a first
language at home while learning English. This means appropriate resources must
be available to provide families with materials to read in both English and Spanish.
Maintaining a sense of worth and cultural identity are far more rewarding in the
long term than giving in to assilimationist ideas in the short term.
Legislators and school policymakers need to become better informed and aware
(Freire, 1970) of the benefits of bilingualism and first-language maintenance. Educators can promote change by better informing policymakers and recasting linguistic and cultural diversity as capital for all children. Continuing to develop educational options to support linguistically and culturally complex populations (Ball,
2006) is imperative within the current conjecture.
REFERENCES
Ada, A., & Zubizarreta, R. (2001). The cultural bridge between Latino parents and their children. In M.
Reyes & J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives in literacy for Latino students (pp. 229–244), New York: Teachers College Press.
40
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
Ayers, W. (2004). Teaching toward freedom: Moral communication and ethical action in the classroom. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University Press.
Caldas, S., & Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics, 23, 490–514.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Cornelius, W. (2002). Ambivalent reception: Mass public responses to the “new” Latino immigration to
the United States. In M. Suarez-Orozco & M. Paez (Eds.), Latinos remaking America (pp. 165–189).
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Datta, M. (2004). Young children as cultural and linguistic experts. In E. Gregory, S. Long, & D. Volk
(Eds.), Many pathways to literacy: Young children learning with siblings, grandparents, peers, and
communities (pp. 129–141). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Dyson, A. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: Taylor & Francis.
Gee, J. (2001). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Gonzalez, N. (2005). Children in the eye of the storm: Language socialization and language ideologies
in a dual-language school. In A. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strengths: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 162–174). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (2004). A sociocultural approach to learning. In E. Gregory, S. Long,
& D. Volk (Eds.), Many pathways to literacy: Young children learning with siblings, grandparents,
peers, and communities (pp. 6–20). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Halcon, J. (2001). Mainstream ideology and literacy instruction for Spanish-speaking children. In M.
L. Reyes & J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino
students (pp. 65–80). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hamann, E., Wortham, S., & Murillo, E. (2002). Education and policy in the new Latino diaspora. In S.
Wortham, E. Murillo, & E. Hamann (Eds.), Education in the new Latino diaspora (pp. 1–16). Westport,
CT: Ablex.
Hamers, J. F. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, M. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity, work and academic literacies in early schooling.
TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 59–82.
Holland, J. (2005, August 27). Hispanics becoming economic force in S.C. The State. Retrieved September 3, 2005, from http://www.thestate.com
Jordan, M. (2004, December 9). Report warns influx of Hispanics in south creates school crisis. Wall
Street Journal, p. B1.
Kochhar, R., Suro, R., & Tafoya, S. (2005, July). The new Latino south: Context and consequences of
rapid population growth. Paper presented at the Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
Krashen, S. (1999). Condemned without trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
LATIN@S AND CULTURE IN U.S. SCHOOLS
41
Long, S., Bell, D., & Brown, J. (2004). Making place for peer interaction: Mexican American kindergarteners learning language and literacy. In E. Gregory, S. Long, & D. Volk (Eds.), Many pathways to literacy:
Young children learning with siblings, grandparents, peers and communities (pp. 93–104). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Martinez, M. (2003). Missing in action: Reconstructing hope and possibility among Latino students
placed at risk. Journal of Latinos in Education, 2, 13–21.
Mercado, C. (2001). Reflections on the power of Spanish: Confessions from the field. In M. L. Reyes &
J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives in literacy for Latino students (pp.
168–183). New York: Teachers College Press.
Moll, L. (2000). Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic experiments in education. In C. Lee & P.
Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through
collaborative inquiry (pp. 256–268). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mora, J. (2002). Caught in a policy web: The impact of education reform on Latino education. Journal
of Latinos in Education, 1, 29–44.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2002). Identity and language learning. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 115–123). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Ogbu, J. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development,
52, 413–489.
Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Perez, B. (2004). Literacy, diversity, and programmatic responses. In B. Perez (Ed.), Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Phillips, N. (2005, March 4). Hispanics in S.C. becoming economic force. The State, p. B6.
Ramirez, R., & de la Cruz, P. (2002). The Hispanic population in the United States: March 2002 (Current Population Reports No. P20-545). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Reyes, X., & Rios, D. (2003). Imaging teachers: In fact and in the mass media. Journal of Latinos in Education, 2, 3–11.
Rolon, C. (2000). Puerto Rican female narratives about self, school, and success. In S. Nieto (Ed.),
Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools (pp. 141–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Romero, M. (2004). Cultural literacy in the world of pueblo children. In E. Gregory, S. Long, & D. Volk
(Eds.), Many pathways to literacy: Young children learning with siblings, grandparents, peers, and
communities (pp. 208–220). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Salins, P. D. (1997). Assimilation, American style. New York: Basic Books.
Schultz, K., & Hull, G. (2002). Locating literacy theory in out-of-school contexts. In G. Hull & K.
Schultz (Eds.), School’s out: Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice (pp. 11–31).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, B. (2001, December). The new Latino south: An introduction. Retrieved September 12, 2005,
from www.highlandercenter.org/pdf-files/new_latino_south_intro.pdf
Souto-Manning, M. (2005). Critical narrative analysis of Brazilian women’s schooling discourses: Negotiating agency and identity through participation in Freirean culture circles. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Harcourt Brace College.
42
BROWN AND SOUTO-MANNING
Tse, L. (2001). Why don’t they learn English: Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate.
New York: Teachers College Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Retrieved
September 12, 2005, from http://www.census.gov
Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press.
Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U. S.–Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Zentella, A. (2002). Latin@ languages and identities. In M. Suarez-Orozco & M. Paez (Eds.), Latinos
remaking America (pp. 321–338). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Zentella, A. (2005). Perspectives on language and literacy in Latino families and communities. In A.
Zentella (Ed.), Building on strengths: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp.
1–12). New York: Teachers College Press.