Blog about a Landmark Case Ruling
Our assignment for this blog was as follows:
ProMISE means: “ A proactive journey towards examining and understanding Moral, Intellectual, Social, and Emotional foundations required for racial healing to occur”, (Singleton & Linton, , 2006, p.r151). Highlight sections that correspond to the 4 points. The text should be provocative and should lend itself to reflection and interpretation.
I chose the landmark case, Aspira v. New York for this blog. According to Colorin Colorado, "Aspira V. New York was a legal action taken by Puerto Rican parents and children in New York in Aspira v. New York (1975) resulted in the Aspira Consent Decree, which mandates transitional bilingual programs for Spanish-surnamed students found to be more proficient in Spanish than English" ("Landmark Court Rulings Regarding English Language Learners", Colorin Colorado). I did some quick research online, found the original decisions, and looked through the information on the Aspira website. The article that I focused on is:
De Jesús, Anthony, y Pérez, Madeline, y "From Community Control to Consent Decree: Puerto Ricans Organizing for Education and Language Rights in 1960s and '70s New York City." Centro Journal, vol. XXI, no. 2, 2009, pp.7-31. Redalyc, https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=37720842002
This case was interesting to me because it set in motion events that would provide equal opportunities for Puerto Rican students so that they could fully realize the promise of the "American Dream" (De Jesus, 5). The article reviews the history of the neighborhoods of Harlem, the Lower East Side and Brownsville, and how desegregation affected the NYC schools. The result of this court case was the Aspira Consent Decree which forced the schools to create bilingual programs for students who were proficient in Spanish.
When I look at this case from the ProMISE lens, it is clear that racism is at the heart of the issues. But this case had positive influence on law and on the lives of the families and students it represented. Historically, Puerto Rican students had been forced into schools where their language was seen as a detriment to their learning. They were forced to learn in only English, with no supports. Spanish speaking students were often placed in lower level classes because they were thought to be slower than their English speaking peers. They weren't given the opportunities that we take for granted today in our public schools (supports, scaffolds, and accommodations). According to DeJesus, schools thought that "the educational difficulties of Puerto Rican students were a result of their presumably inferior culture, language, and socioeconomic backgrounds" (10). Today we know this was a horribly wrong, racist attitude (well, they knew it then, too, but too many people in positions of power held these beliefs for there to be real change). Due to studies in the last 30 years, we know that students who acquire more than one language are activating more of their brain. We have read over and over again in our textbooks that being proficient in their home language is an asset to second and third language learning students. Despite studies and recommendations that urged NYC schools to provide support for these students, they didn't. As a result, organizations, like ASPIRA, emerged to provide programs to help Puerto Rican students and their families (DeJesus, 12). Desegregation was still inherent in the NYC school system in the late 60s and early 70s, and the Board of Education wasn't providing what the law required. None of this was surprising to me as I read about the case. But it is infuriating. I know it was a different time period, but the inherent racism and bias against Spanish speaking students in the schools, despite the other landmark cases like Brown and Lau, just struck me as particularly hard to understand. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in schools, but it continued in NYC.
Interestingly, I recently watched the beginning of the remake of West Side Story. The original Jerome Robbins version is troubling, as it promotes many stereotypes and used white actors to portray characters with ethnic backgrounds. This new version is much more "accurate" and it realistically demonstrated the racist attitudes of the white cops and gang members, the hostility they directed towards the Spanish speaking newcomers. I can imagine this atmosphere as I read about this court case and the struggles of the families to get what their children need from their schools. One of the cops says, "We speak English here" among the many examples of these racist attitudes.
What astounds me, over and over, is that the schools themselves were perpetuating the racist attitudes towards non-English speakers. Teachers are supposed to be nurturers, supportive of students. According to Antonia Pantoja, a social worker and the founder of ASPIRA, "This brings me to the fact that the schools have mounted an attack on the child who speaks Spanish and who is different; an attack to force him to give this up. What happens as a result is that the child is ashamed of himself and his parents, and ashamed of his speaking Spanish. This hurts these children’s motivation and ability to learn" (DeJesus 12). Morally, this is reprehensible, but this is what was done to immigrants coming to America for over 100 years. Italian immigrants in Providence were made to feel the same way, which is why my grandmother learned English and not Italian. My great-grandfather insisted that his children learn only English. I don't know whether this made them ashamed of him and themselves, but I imagine it would have, to some degree. I can only imagine what they might have become, what choices they would have had, if they had been encouraged to learn both Italian and English (I can only think of my cousins in Canada, who were not forced to give up Italian, and who continue to speak Italian in the home, with children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren learning both languages).
In New York, the parents and communities rallied, over the course of the decade before the ASPIRA case, to create community schools where the parents could have influence over the quality of the education their children received. This was in response to the Board of Education's lack of action on Desegregation. They ended up setting up three special schools that would be community run instead of centrally run (DeJesus, 18). Although ultimately this failed, it did have one benefit: "Although the Por los Niños slate was eventually defeated as a result of limited resources and the resistance of elected officials, educational bureaucrats, and leaders from the teachers union, it was successful in increasing awareness of the educational needs of black, Latino, and Asian schoolchildren, and especially the needs of English language learners" (DeJesus, 19). Finally, the needs of the students for a culturally sensitive curriculum were beginning to be seen as important. And Spanish speaking teachers were seen as crucial to this fight. "Fuentes also supported bilingual education because he believed that an increase in Spanish-speaking teachers strengthened the home-school-community connections in the Lower East Side" (DeJesus, 21). Unfortunately, at this time, across the nation, having a first language other than English continued to be seen as a "deficit" rather than a benefit (Affirming Diversity, 12).
As we have read in our texts and articles, this notion of a students' first language prevailed well into the 2000s. When I first started teaching, I can remember hearing teachers tell students to "speak English" in their classes only, no Spanish allowed. I don't think this changed until the last 10, maybe 15, years in Providence. And really, it wasn't until I started my TESOL certification that I learned how detrimental this is to our students.
As I have continued in my coursework, I have lamented that I don't know a second language. I wish I could teach in a bilingual classroom. I wish we had a high school program in dual language or bilingual. I have a student this year who is brilliant. She is a high achieving student in Spanish, but in English she is truly caught in the middle. She writes her work in Spanish and translates it, checking the Google Translations for fluency and competency. She would thrive in a dual language or bilingual program, as would many of my students. Today in NYC there are Dual Language programs in all grade levels all over the city- in Spanish, Chinese, French and Russian- and that's just in Manhattan!
The Court case and the Aspira Consent Decree were the result of the hard work and political action of ASPIRA, a program to "aspire" youth in the Puerto Rican community (DeJesus 22). They wanted bilingual programs and teachers to aspire their children.
"The ASPIRA Consent decree mandated that the Board of Education provide English-language learners with access to a bilingual program and that ELL students be identified and classified as such annually (by no later than the first week of enrollment). It specified that these students receive the following: (1) a planned and systemic program designed to develop their ability to speak, understand, read, and write the English language; (2) instruction in substantive courses in Spanish so that they do not receive instruction in any substantive courses in a language that prevented their effective participation in any of those courses; and (3) a planned and systemic program designed to reinforce and develop their use of Spanish (ASPIRA 1974: 3)" (DeJesus 23).
The social action of ASPIRA and other groups that began in the 60s and 70s continues to today. They laid the foundation for continuing efforts by other ethnic groups to advocate for equality in education and other areas of society. The Decree continues to be in effect and therefore, dual language, bilingual and ENL (English as a New Language - which is what it is called in NYC) programs are available to Latino and other language communities.
Providence (and the urban districts) would be better served by offering greater access to Dual Language programs. Currently, there is no high school program, and only a few elementary/middle schools offer dual language or bilingual programs. The state is investigating increasing the number of dual language programs in RI. According to Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green, “Growing up multilingual is a strength, not a shortcoming, and we’re excited to provide our MLL students with programs that affirm that principle" ("Rhode Island Foundation and RIDE Announce Bilingual/Dual Language Program Planning Grants to Four RI School Districts"). Considering that the Commissioner sees that advantage of such programs, I hope that we will see more in the future. We know that these programs are better for students, that being multilingual is an advantage in our world, and we need to turn the narrative around so that everyone sees this as a strength, not a deficit.
