linguistic inaccessibility of U.S. higher education and the inherent inequity of U.S. IEPs: An argument for multilingual higher education, The

Bilingual Research Journal, Summer 2002 by Friedenberg, Joan E

Abstract

Should a diploma from a U.S. university imply that the recipient received instruction only in English? If there is bilingual and multilingual education in the K-12 system, why not in higher education? While custom dictates higher education in only English, ithas significant, if rarely discussed drawbacks. This article critically examines the popular practice of requiring higher education students inthe United States to first demonstrate English proficiency before pursuing a degree and proposes abandoning this practice in favor of a model in which university professors employ sheltered techniques, translated portions of their lecture notes, and bilingual teaching assistants to impart their instruction. In addition, concurrent English for academic purposes (EAP) instruction, closely coordinated with the academic classes, is proposed. Such a model serves language minority and international students more equitably and efficiently and provides numerous benefits for U.S. universities as well.

Introduction

The number of international students choosing to study in the United States has been declining. According to a recent survey by the Institute of International Education and National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA), enrollment by Asian students in intensive English programs in the United States has been down sharply. But this decline is not, apparently, limited to Asian students. According to the international director of the College Board, "In the past, when the supply of students from one part of the world went down, there was always another region that opened up to provide more students. But now, I'm not sure there is anybody to fill in. The situation is different from anything we've seen in the past 20 years" (Desruisseaux, 1998; p. A48).

While economic crises in Asia can account for some of the decline in international student enrollments, several other factors are likely coming into play: the amount of violent crime involving guns that is associated with the United States; reduced spending on international recruitment by U.S. agencies; increased recruitment of international students by competing English-speaking countries, such as Australia, Britain, and Canada (Desruisseaux, 1998), and more recently, terrorist attacks, which are resulting in increased scrutiny of international students and a potential fear of traveling to the United States. At the same time, there are immigrants and other language-minority populations already in the United States who have neither financial, academic, nor linguistic access to higher education, resulting in underemployment, unemployment, and poverty. Indeed, according to the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) (1990), Hispanics in the United States are almost twice as likely as the majority White, English-speaking population to live in poverty, are considerably less likely to be employed in technical or professional jobs, and have the highest high school dropout rates of any major population group in the United States. In addition, NCLR states that Hispanics with limited English proficiency are more likely to drop out of high school. Indeed, the U.S. General Accounting Office (1994) reports a negative relationship between English proficiency and high school dropout, ranging from 9.4% for English-dominant Hispanics, to 24% for Spanish-dominant Hispanics, to 52% for Hispanics who speak little English. Although these statistics address high school populations, it seems clear that linguistic accessibility, whether it is at the primary, secondary, or tertiary level, makes a great difference in educational attainment and subsequent career opportunities for Hispanics and, logically, other language minority populations in the United States.

In many respects, U.S. higher education is actually less accessible to domestic language minority populations than to international students in that college requirements in the United States are different for each group. International students with an appropriate grade-point average are required only to pass the TOEFL, a standardized entrance exam designed for non-native speakers of English; however, language minority U.S. residents and citizens must take the same college entrance exams as native English-speaking Americans, making it nearly impossible for them to compete. Obviously, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Miller Analogy Test, and Graduate Record Exam were not developed for non-native English speakers. Despite facing greater barriers to higher education than English-speaking Americans and even international students, Campbell (1987) demonstrated that Hispanics in the United States can actually benefit more from a college education than members of the majority White, English-speaking population, in that, with a four-year degree, Hispanics in the United States earn 25-37% more than Hispanics who have only completed high school, while completing a four-year degree only helps the majority White, English-speaking population earn 17.5% more. Additionally, Hispanic women with a four-year degree earn 25% more than majority White men without a college degree and earn a little more than majority White men with a college degree. And during the early 1980s, when unemployment was very high in the United States, unemployment for both Hispanics and majority Whites who had gone to college remained under 3%. This research demonstrates strongly that it is critically important to make higher education linguistically accessible to Hispanics and other language minority populations, particularly during economic downturns, and that higher education is the single best way to avoid Hispanic and minority-group poverty.