Official Language Education in Ecuador: Exploring the Humanistic Outcome of Official Bilingual Initiatives
Miguel Mantero, US
Miguel Mantero, PhD, is Associate Professor of Educational Linguistics and Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Alabama. Among Dr. Mantero’s research interests are cognition and second language acquisition, language teacher identity and education, and the use of literature to enhance second language learning. He is the current vice-president of the International Society for Language Studies. E-mail: mmantero@bamaed.ua.edu, mmantero@ua.edu
Menu
Introduction
Ecuador and linguistic imperialism in South America: How do we account for language as a human right?
Identity deprivation and linguistic imperialism
Official bilingual programs in Cameroon: A humanistic view of Ecuador’s linguistic future
Conclusion
References
Bilingual Education engages teaching all of the subjects or most of them in two languages. In Ecuador the official language is Spanish and almost all of the schools which are bilingual teach Spanish and English. In order to gain knowledge in two languages, schools must have a Bilingual Program. There are different types of programs; depending on the schools and their goals. Each institution chooses the program they think will have better results (Bohannon, 2001).
As nations develop and change, language and politics seem to be two items which influence each other the most. This paper explores the question: When it comes to planning bilingual education programs, does an official bilingual education policy support our humanistic goals? We look at the specific case of Ecuador to help us investigate this question.
Throughout Ecuador’s history, the prevailing government and upper classes have controlled the indigenous groups. There are indigenous groups in each of the Ecuadorian regions: the Coast, the Highlands, and the Amazon. The Cofán community resides in the northern part of the Amazon, near the Colombian border. Before the conquest of the Spanish, the Incas controlled the majority of the Highlands. The Incas brought their language, Quechua, into the region. When Ecuador became a Spanish colony in 1532, Spanish became the official language of the area. After Ecuador gained independence from Spain in the 1800’s, “the Government proposed to eradicate all trace of Indianness” and to Christianize the Indians (King & Haboud, 2002, p. 359). Eliminating the country’s “Indianness” included emphasizing the importance of Spanish. This was the main policy for more than 100 years, until indigenous groups found ways to make their voice heard.
Recently, there have been movements among Mestizo (a Spanish and indigenous mixed race) groups to identify with their roots, as well as indigenous groups standing up for more rights. (Crain 1990). During the 1970’s, oil companies came into the Amazon, and began to take away much of the land that had belonged to the indigenous communities for centuries. This occurred in particular with the Cofán people. In addition to the oil companies, land reform laws in 1964 and 1973 promoted colonization into the Amazon region where land disputes arose in the Highlands (Hornberger 1998). Many indigenous groups fought back to maintain their land, conserve their natural environment, and maintain their basic human rights.
As the indigenous movement of the 1970’s became more popular, many people became upset at U.S. organizations in the country. For example, the organization Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) came to Ecuador in the 1950’s to translate the Bible into indigenous languages and promote adult literacy programs. The then president and vice president picked SIL as a scapegoat to please the indigenous groups. They wanted to evict SIL because some of the values they were teaching were in conflict with the indigenous beliefs. In 1981, SIL was kicked out of Ecuador and a new organization was created to continue work with literacy programs, but once again it was not led by the indigenous people. This illustrates the government’s attempt to appease the indigenous population, while at the same time keeping them under their dominate control (Crain, 1990, p48).
The presence of Europeans and North Americans in Ecuador led to linguistic imperialism throughout the country, first with Spanish and later with English. The dominating groups showed their power through language. Spanish became the means of communicating in the large cities. If anyone wanted to buy or sell goods, knowing Spanish was a necessity. Thus, indigenous groups were taught to assimilate into the new culture by learning Spanish and slowly lost their native language.
During this imperialistic era, Spanish Ecuadorians and mestizos were considered superior to full-blooded indigenous people. The demoralization of indigenous people continued as they were referred to as “children,” “lazy,” “pagan,” and “savages” (Crain, 1990, p.46). Since the indigenous people were viewed and referred to in such degrading ways, they were often denied power in their communities. Phillipson (1992) argues in that the dominating power (the government) maintains control of the “inferior” people by controlling the language system. When given such labels as those above, the indigenous groups were taught that they were not valued in the Ecuadorian society, and were convinced they needed to change themselves in order to belong in their own country.
Linguistic imperialism continues on a smaller scale within some schools. Schools in Ecuador claim to be interested in other cultures, but rarely are those cultures discussed apart from a typical world history course. Not only are students in Ecuador taught that English is better implicitly, but the surrounding community in Ecuador continues to affirm that being fluent in English, not necessarily Spanish, is how one will succeed in life. And, this usually happens at the cost of the individual’s indigenous language.
Do indigenous groups have the right to speak their heritage language in a society that is changing when learning another language is viewed as necessary to their survival? One may argue, for example, that indigenous groups in Ecuador need to learn Spanish and/or English to gain any power in Ecuador, but that does not mean they need to give up the practice of speaking their native language. Various countries in South America have felt that indigenous languages were in danger because they were not being passed down to the next generation. Some of these countries have recognized the rights these people have to continue to speak their heritage language. One of the most significant initiatives in South America concerning this topic was the Puno Bilingual Education Project in Peru. Beginning in 1975, this project served Quechua and Aymara speaking children. They hoped that through bilingual education, with teaching resources in the students’ native languages, all languages would be maintained, and students would become bilingual (Hornberger, 1998, p.443). In Bolivia, another initiative developed in the 1990’s which was based on the Puno Bilingual Education Act. The Bolivian National Education Reform of 1994 aimed to revitalize the indigenous languages of the country. This project included using 30 different indigenous languages (alongside Spanish), in various schools, to encourage bilingualism. The program also worked to produce teaching materials in those indigenous languages.
Outside South America a fight for language rights has also taken place. In South Africa, where the conflict between languages has existed for many years, a new constitution was created in 1993. The constitution claimed language was a basic human right. The United States of America has also worked to preserve Native American languages in that country. The 1990 and 1992 Native American Languages Act policy is intended to, “preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages” (Hornberger, 1998, p. 444). These ideas have also transferred into Ecuadorian policy making.
Since the 1970’s, Ecuadorian indigenous groups have fought to preserve their heritage languages. Many organizations have been formed to create a process that starts in the elementary schools. One such organization, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) , fights for indigenous people who cannot speak Spanish to still have a political voice. Other legislation has been enacted giving indigenous students the right to be taught in Quichua (or other group’s native languages). Although some work is being done in Ecuador to preserve native languages, globalization is still occurring which “endangers ‘small’ languages and cultures” and “undermines the use and status of minority languages” (UN Article 27, 1994). International law is attempting to save these minority languages. The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 27 (1994) states that minorities should not be denied the right to, “enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language” UNESCO in 1992 also declared, states shall take measure to create favorable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of law and contrary to international standards (King & Haboud, 2002, p. 381).
Although these laws are promising, they are still not being enacted, especially at AAI. Third language learners are not giving the opportunity to develop their first language other than at home. If the language is not spoken in the home, as in the case of our Cofán students, their language is at risk of being lost. With the loss of one’s language, one also loses a part of their identity.
Identity is a sense of self often defined by race, culture, language, gender, age, social status, etc. One would look at all these characteristics to help define who they are. Many indigenous groups have felt conflicted as they develop their identity when the dominant group has devalued their importance as a people group. Beck and Mijeski argue that during the colonial and more modern periods indigenous groups’ identities are defined by the controlling power:
The capacity to name and define other peoples and objects represents the ultimate exercise of power. To be called “un indio” meant that one was relegated to an immutable position at the bottom of social, cultural, economic ladders. Such a label automatically placed a person under the supervision of blancos and mestizos, who define their own identities (Beck & Mijeski, 2000, p.121)
Indigenous groups are still attempting to maintaining their own understanding of themselves, despite dominant groups trying to reshape their identities.
Often times their identity is closely associated with their native language. The elementary schooling years are especially important for the formation of a child’s identity. When a school mandates learning an official langauge , it rejects the identity that comes with other languages, meaning, and perhaps to the exclusion of the child’s most intense existential experience (Phillipson, 1992, p.189). Phillipson has found that “when the mother tongue is banned from the classroom, the teaching leads to the alienation of the learners, deprives them of their cultural identity and leads to acculturation…” (Phillipson, 1992, p.193). Language is also seen as the medium for creating a national identity and unity (Ricento, 2005; Cummins, 2003) . When students are denied the right to learn their language or to use it in daily life, they are being deprived of their identity. Identity is socially constructed around the community one lives in. If a student does not feel like they are a part of the community, their identity will be affected. This is the case at AAI, where identities are affected adversely.
The family also plays a crucial role in shaping their child’s identity outside of school. Fillmore argues that these include, a sense of belonging, knowledge of who one is; and where one comes from; an understanding of how one is connected to the important others and events in one’s life; the ability to deal with adversity and knowing one’s responsibility to self, family and community (Fillmore, 2000; DiCierbo, 2009).
This process can be hindered if parents are not able to communicate with their children who are in certain bilingual programs. For example, if a student is in a transitional bilingual program, which is subtractive, then the student is encouraged to only speak in the second language. If a student looses their first language, and their parents do not speak their child’s second language, than the family is at risk of not being able to communicate. The process of sharing beliefs, values, and knowledge can be lost between generations if members of the same family do not speak the same language. Language loss should never be the outcome for students learning a new language. Teachers must find a way to work within the system they are in to help prevent language loss.
There are multiple teaching methods that could hinder or benefit a student who is learning their second or third language. Bilingual children could be present in a classroom, but that does not mean bilingualism is occurring. The teacher needs to foster who the child is, including their language and culture, for that child to excel in two or more languages.
Language education research indicates that an L2 or L3 is better learned when the L1 is used to guide the student. This is a problem that is affecting the development of indigenous students because they rarely use their L1. Ricento proposes that students will understand how to use language more successfully when language education takes an additive approach- when students develop two or more languages together at the same time (Ricento, 2005) A child’s knowledge in one language will transfer over into their second language when a teacher fosters that ability.
Many other researchers continue to support an additive approach to language education. Phillipson argues that, “the ideal method would be for a child to learn his second language as he learned his mother tongue” (1992, p.200). Phillipson (1992) also recalls UNESCO from 1953, which stated that if a student used their mother tongue at school, it would make the transition from home life to school life smoother.
An example of an additive approach to language learning, that created culturally relevant curriculum, has been developed in South Africa at the Bilingual Additive Project (ABLE) at an Eastern Cape Community school. This literacy program worked to get the community involved with developing curriculum that reflected the culture of native languages. ABLE requested that parents and other members of the community come into classrooms and share their oral histories. The students then wrote down what they heard and created their own stories that matched what they heard. Through this process, ABLE was able to create a culturally relevant curriculum while including an additive approach to bilingual education. These lessons encouraged students to use their heritage and second language; while benefiting the maintenance of the first language and increasing the second language (Hunt, 2007).
Cameroon is unique in that the two languages it selected to be official languages are not native languages to the country. Cameroon had more than 200 official languages before gaining its independence when it chose to make both English and French official languages. It can be inferred that these languages were chosen by the Cameroonian government because they both can provide its people with more opportunities than any of its 200 indigenous languages could have (Allen, 1991; Kouega, 2005). However, since choosing to make themselves an official bilingual or multilingual country, they have struggled with developing a functional way to educate their people in two languages while ensuring the perseverance of indigenous languages (Aubin, 2002).
An experimental program in 1963 where a group of “best students” from an English speaking school and a French speaking school were brought together ended in educational chaos. Essentially, students were taught all subjects in both languages. They were taught each subject twice, once in English and once in French. After the third year of this, students had acquired enough French and English to be successful in either a French school or in an English school. Unfortunately, this program was not seen as a success for the following reasons: 1) It was a burden on the students to be taking the same classes twice. 2), Students in this program were highly gifted and therefore it created an inferiority complex in their fellow classmates when they were chosen for a special project, and 3) too many teachers were needed to teach such a small group of children in areas where there was already a shortage of qualified educators.
In 1975, after the merger of the two federated states of Cameroon, the country came up with a new action plan. An official second language (French or English) was to be taught in the last three of the six classes of primary education. French speaking children were taught in English for 2.5 hours a week (so 30 minutes a day) and vice-versa. Oddly enough, many children arriving in their first year of classes in the secondary level claimed to have never received instruction in the official L2, thus forcing the secondary teachers to teach basic language skills rather than build proficiency in their classrooms. There were two main reasons this plan failed: 1) there weren’t enough qualified teachers to teach in French and / or English, and 2) there was a lack of teaching materials available to the schools and instructors.
In 1985, Cameroon realized that the government’s official departments and administration wasn’t bilingual which made it difficult to continue implementing bilingual education and policies. Also, the staff was not bilingual and therefore not portraying an image of an official bilingual country. In an effort to remedy this, the government created language centers throughout the country for their staff and administrators. Everyone was required to complete the French or English course that they needed to demonstrate proficiency in both languages. But, there was no time limit or guidelines as to how long it would take a person to learn the language, so many workers attended courses for up to 5 years. A central problem was that the people did not receive any benefit to their career for being bilingual in the workplace (Bienvenue, 1990). That is, the government did not hire official translators, so the people who demonstrated proficiency in English or French via the programs translated documents voluntarily with no extra pay while being expected to perform their other duties.
In 2000, another language plan was put into action. This time, the French or English course would be introduced in primary school. This would be similar to the latter plan from 1975, but it wouldn’t be limited to just the last three years of primary education and the teachers would receive adequate materials. Students were evaluated by oral and written exams. Unfortunately, since most of the teachers were not bilingual, it was difficult to put into place a serious bilingual initiative (Hunt, 2007).
An important factor which seemed to have impacted the result of its bilingual goals is that the country focused its bilingual initiative on educating the social elite and some high-ranking government employee. Even the government admits most people from the lower or impoverished classes struggle with being competent in their first language (which maybe an indigenous language) and then they are now faced with learning two official languages. And, sometimes, at the expense of their first language which according to the government “becomes a distraction rather than facilitating learning one or both official languages (Kouega, 2005). If anything, this current approach has caused more frustration and stress between classes and communities. Some have argued that Cameroon’s approach to bilingual or official language education has been to the serious detriment of indigenous languages and communities (Fillmore, 2000). Other countries would do well to pay attention to the lessons learned in Cameroon when trying to implement official language, education or bilingual policies. Such may be the case with Ecuador.
What can we do to create less subtractive official language programs in around the globe where the first language is not valued? First, being aware of the cultural history of one’s students will allow a teacher to guide them better. A teacher would then be able to understand the struggle their students have been through previously, and how it shaped who they are now. When learning about a country’s history, a teacher can also start to understand the linguistic implications that could have occurred to a group like the Cofán while being dominated by another group. The teacher should be sensitive to specific words that the children may have been called or to how they might personally feel about their language. It is also important to realize that language is a tool for building a child’s identity. When we take away the use of their home language, we are also shaping that child into whom we want them to be, not who they really are. All of these elements fit together into how a teacher facilitates her classroom. If a teacher approaches a minority group with respect and a desire to learn more about their culture, then the rest of the class will model after her behavior. It can be argued that bilingualism is no more than a means to other things. Beck and Mijeski (2000) and Krashen (2009) state that bilingualism can be studied and looked at in terms of people’s vested interests. The interests can be individual or, in the case of the countries that want to achieve official bilingualism, whole group. The rewards can be either materialistic or symbolic. Material rewards include the tangible assets like income, career opportunities, and access to power. In Quebec, which was mentioned earlier as one of the only areas in Canada that is still attracting new French speakers, parents are encouraging their children to do their graduate studies in English because they feel they will have more opportunities later in life if they speak both French and English, not because of the Canadian government’s desire to be a bilingual nation. There are also symbolic rewards which include collective identity, status, honor and ideology. These are the things that help to bind a group together. One other symbolic reward is that of a “promissory note.” Basically this is a promise that certain benefits are available to you in the future. Of these rewards for being bilingual, Breton didn’t mention anything about how it would unite a nation or two groups of people.
Although official bilingual policies don’t seem to do anything more than divide the people, rather than unite them, that doesn’t mean that bilingualism on an individual level is a bad thing. Being bilingual still allows many opportunities in today’s time. Material assets include those that open the doors to more job opportunities, income, and access to power. But more than materialistic assets are the symbolic ones which provide collective identity, honor, and ideology. For many, knowing two languages, they gain access to bigger and better things while at the same time still hold a connection with their heritage by speaking the same language that their grandparents or even great-grandparents spoke. For many people, the biggest issue they had with the government enforcing bilingualism was the cost. They felt it was too high and that their tax dollars could be used better elsewhere. They said that dualism would only create conflict and disunity. British Colombia Premier, Rita Johnston, said, “What started as a well-meaning but expensive idea to bind the country together has done just the opposite.” The bottom line is that bilingualism is seen as a certified asset that provides mobility and insight, but not a means to uniting a group of people. As presented in this paper, the people in Ecuador can’t expect the government to enforce a bilingual policy in order to unite the nation. It will be up to the people of Ecuador to find other means to preserve their indigenous languages, identity, and communities.
Allen, G. (1991). Doubts about bilingualism. Maclean, 104, 18-20.
Aubin, B. (2002). Speaking in tongues. Maclean, 115, 63-64.
Beck, S. and Mijeski, K.J. (2000). Indigena Self-Identity in Ecuador and the Rejection of Mestizaje. Latin American Research Review, 35(1), 119-137.
Bienvenue, R. (1990). Symbolic and material interests in language policy disputes: a Canadian case. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 729-743.
Bohannon, T. (2001). Bilingual Education: An inquiry into Transitional Bilingual Education. Retrieve March 23, 2009 from
www.abortionessay.com/essay/files/bilingualinquire/bilingualinquire.html
Crain, M. (1990). The Social Construction of National Identity in Highland Ecuador. Anthropological Quarterly, 63(1), pp 43-59.
Cummins, J. (2003). Bilingual Children's Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important for Education? Retrieved March 25, 2009, Dr. Cummins' ESL and Second Language Learning Web: www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.html
DiCerbo, P. (2009). Common Practices for Uncommon Learners: Addressing Linguistic and Cultural Diversity. Retrieved March 26, 2009 from
www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/tasynthesis/framing/1commonpractices.pdf
Fillmore, L.W. (2000). Loss of Family Languages: Should Educators be Concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39 (4), 203-210.
Horberger, N.H. (1998). Language Policy, Language Education, Language Rights: Indigenous, Immigrant, and International Perspectives. Language in Society, 27(4), 439-458.
Hunt, G. (2007). The failure to thrive? The community literacy strand of the Additive Bilingual Project at an Eastern Cape Community School, South Africa. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(1), 80-96.
King, K.A. and Haboud, M. (2002) Language planning and policy in Ecuador. Current Issues in Language Planning, 3(4), 375-396.
Kouega, J.P. (2005). Promoting French-English individual bilingualism through education in Cameroon. Journal of Third World Studies, 22, 185-196.
Krashen, S. Why Bilingual Education? Retrieved March 23, 2009 from
www.ericdigests.org/1997-3/bilingual.html
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the ‘language-as-resource’ discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348-368.
Please check the Teachers as Leaders course at Pilgrims website.
|
