Review of Rosalie Porter, Forked Tongue.
(Basic Book, 1990)
Reviewed By:
Marilyn Hurtado
Illinois State University
February 16, 1995

Bilingual education in the United States of America is becoming increasingly controversial among politicians, educators, language-minority families, and interests groups and organizations. Rosalie Porter is only one of many who debate the bilingual education system. The question needed to be answered is, "Should language-minority students be allowed to speak and learn in their native tongue, or should they adopt the English language?" It seems that there is no definite or clear-cut answer. The government and educators must look at a number of variables that involve the bilingual education system. The solution will not satisfy everyone, but it can be broad enough to affect the majority. What needs to be focused is the majority of language-minority students who comprise in these various programs of the bilingual education system.
Porter lacks to recognize pragmatic situations in the United States. Her initial response is to validate research from an unlikely representation of the language-minority students in the United States. This review has explored a myriad of statements raised by Porter, yet she does not solidify any solutions.Porters' main argument or thesis is to implement English language instruction in the United States. First, to support her argument she aggregates research studies formulated in Massachusettes' school districts and does not acknowledge the variation throughout the country. Second, Porter provides historical comparisons from multiple countries to assess her belief that a complete immersion of English language will result in the equal outcome of countries like West Germany, the former Soviet Union, and Sweden. Even though she points out in only one sentence that there are substantial differences in the education systems and government between these countries, she makes a blatent avoidance that these two differences are major factors on why their bilingual or multilingual education system has been successful. Whether Porter has intentionally or accidentally forgotten these acknowledgments is clearly unreliable. To simplify her comparison or example of other countries would be to illustrate an exaggerated one. For instance, ordering a chef salad without lettuce and tomatoes.
Porter again discusses a study in 1988 consisting of parents from Asian and several Spanish-speaking backgrounds that contradict her argument of external survey conclusions. Even though she argues,"...not to make assumptions based solely on broad external survey conclusion."(p.124)there's a flipside were she puts forth documentation from narrow and limited surveys.
Porter's section regarding parents and their influence are important factors often ignored in deciding what types of programs to implement. Demographics also plays a major role in state-funding and should be decided within each community what type of program to utilize. For example, depending upon the situation of the family, a child visiting the United States with educational intentions of learning English will use a different program than an immigrant child combating obstacles in everyday life such as adjusting to a new country,culture, and way of life. In addition, a poor and criminally infested community such as inner city ghettos.These are two opposite situations, but they are very realistic and they do occur. Porter has four basic points stating why the U.S. should not use a bilingual program such as TBE. These reasons seem valid, but unsupported by reliable sources:(1) Basic goal is to teach English language skills to fit into environment;(2) Segregation of language-minority students;(3) Absence of effective teachers for different language representatives in school;(4) Failure to develop English skills for non-manuel labor jobs.
Porter tends to base her conclusions from surveys in New England states, such as Massachusets where the influx of immigrants is vastly different from that of California or Texas. Throughout the book there were sincere points advocating English programs, but they didn't seem academically sufficient in terms of facts and ideas for expansion. Porters' question, "Is the maintenance of family cultures to be a mandated responsibility of the public schools?" is answered "No." But let us not forget that we are debating for language cohesiveness and complementation, not cultural implementation in our education system.Porter has clear goals to implement English institution use, but most of her steps to achieving these goals are not supported with adequate documentation. Most of her points to promoting English instruction are parallel with the opposition. -- Marilyn Hurtado Political Science Dept. Illinois State University
--
Gary Klass..................| gmklass@ilstu.edu Associate Professor.........| (309) 438-7852 4600 Political Science......| (fax) 438-5310 Illinois State University...|moderator: pos302-l@ilstu.edu Normal, Illinois 61790-4600.|co-moderator: psrt-l@mizzou1.missouri.edu ...........................|http://WWW.ILSTU.EDU/depts/polisci/pos.htm

This page was last updated on 10/9/97 by Nigel Drayton (ndrayton@wam.umd.edu)
Questions, comments, and/or suggestions should be directed to diversity@umail.umd.edu

| Search inforM | UMD Homepage | inforM Homepage | inforM FAQ | Directory | Academics | Administration | Admissions | Campus Calendars | Computing | Highlights | Internet | Maps | MD & DC | News | Library Resources | Student | Testudo | UMD Today |

© University of Maryland.



		Review of Rosalie Porter, Forked Tongue. (Basic Book, 1990) Reviewed By: Marilyn Hurtado Illinois State University February 16, 1995 Bilingual education in the United States of America is becoming increasingly controversial among politicians, educators, language-minority families, and interests groups and organizations. Rosalie Porter is only one of many who debate the bilingual education system. The question needed to be answered is, "Should language-minority students be allowed to speak and learn in their native tongue, or should they adopt the English language?" It seems that there is no definite or clear-cut answer. The government and educators must look at a number of variables that involve the bilingual education system. The solution will not satisfy everyone, but it can be broad enough to affect the majority. What needs to be focused is the majority of language-minority students who comprise in these various programs of the bilingual education system. Porter lacks to recognize pragmatic situations in the United States. Her initial response is to validate research from an unlikely representation of the language-minority students in the United States. This review has explored a myriad of statements raised by Porter, yet she does not solidify any solutions.Porters' main argument or thesis is to implement English language instruction in the United States. First, to support her argument she aggregates research studies formulated in Massachusettes' school districts and does not acknowledge the variation throughout the country. Second, Porter provides historical comparisons from multiple countries to assess her belief that a complete immersion of English language will result in the equal outcome of countries like West Germany, the former Soviet Union, and Sweden. Even though she points out in only one sentence that there are substantial differences in the education systems and government between these countries, she makes a blatent avoidance that these two differences are major factors on why their bilingual or multilingual education system has been successful. Whether Porter has intentionally or accidentally forgotten these acknowledgments is clearly unreliable. To simplify her comparison or example of other countries would be to illustrate an exaggerated one. For instance, ordering a chef salad without lettuce and tomatoes. Porter again discusses a study in 1988 consisting of parents from Asian and several Spanish-speaking backgrounds that contradict her argument of external survey conclusions. Even though she argues,"...not to make assumptions based solely on broad external survey conclusion."(p.124)there's a flipside were she puts forth documentation from narrow and limited surveys. Porter's section regarding parents and their influence are important factors often ignored in deciding what types of programs to implement. Demographics also plays a major role in state-funding and should be decided within each community what type of program to utilize. For example, depending upon the situation of the family, a child visiting the United States with educational intentions of learning English will use a different program than an immigrant child combating obstacles in everyday life such as adjusting to a new country,culture, and way of life. In addition, a poor and criminally infested community such as inner city ghettos.These are two opposite situations, but they are very realistic and they do occur. Porter has four basic points stating why the U.S. should not use a bilingual program such as TBE. These reasons seem valid, but unsupported by reliable sources:(1) Basic goal is to teach English language skills to fit into environment;(2) Segregation of language-minority students;(3) Absence of effective teachers for different language representatives in school;(4) Failure to develop English skills for non-manuel labor jobs. Porter tends to base her conclusions from surveys in New England states, such as Massachusets where the influx of immigrants is vastly different from that of California or Texas. Throughout the book there were sincere points advocating English programs, but they didn't seem academically sufficient in terms of facts and ideas for expansion. Porters' question, "Is the maintenance of family cultures to be a mandated responsibility of the public schools?" is answered "No." But let us not forget that we are debating for language cohesiveness and complementation, not cultural implementation in our education system.Porter has clear goals to implement English institution use, but most of her steps to achieving these goals are not supported with adequate documentation. Most of her points to promoting English instruction are parallel with the opposition. -- Marilyn Hurtado Political Science Dept. Illinois State University -- Gary Klass..................\| gmklass@ilstu.edu Associate Professor.........\| (309) 438-7852 4600 Political Science......\| (fax) 438-5310 Illinois State University...\|moderator: pos302-l@ilstu.edu Normal, Illinois 61790-4600.\|co-moderator: psrt-l@mizzou1.missouri.edu ...........................\|http://WWW.ILSTU.EDU/depts/polisci/pos.htm This page was last updated on 10/9/97 by Nigel Drayton (ndrayton@wam.umd.edu) Questions, comments, and/or suggestions should be directed to diversity@umail.umd.edu \| Search inforM \| UMD Homepage \| inforM Homepage \| inforM FAQ \| Directory \| Academics \| Administration \| Admissions \| Campus Calendars \| Computing \| Highlights \| Internet \| Maps \| MD & DC \| News \| Library Resources \| Student \| Testudo \| UMD Today \|

© University of Maryland.