3.10.09

I continue thinking about culture, language, and education. We had a debate yesterday in my comparative education class about language of instruction policies. We talked about both the US and Africa and what multilingual policies would help to encourage development. As in the discussion, I will focus my remarks here on the primary level of instruction as secondary and tertiary have their own (though interconnected) challenges.

In my eyes, every child has a human right to be educated in his or her own culture and language so as to develop essential analytical and social skills. Multilingual primary school instruction policies hit closest to the mark on protecting that human right and empowering each child to be economically and culturally functional. In this respect, these policies are the most effective bridge between economic and cultural gaps in all societies. Given, the US and African countries are on different continents, have different histories, and demand separate analyses. However, these separate challenges and analyses should not be focused on whether or not multilingual policies should be implemented, but how they are to be implemented. As I have mentioned before, capitalist forces may have embarked on the road to globalization without realizing some of the social and cultural consequences. These consequences are not inherently bad, but have not been properly acknowledged to date. These roadblocks are largely the reason for the gigantic economic and social gaps that exist today in both developed and developing states. It is essential that these gaps be bridged if economic and human development is to proceed: a globalized world cannot afford the same magnitude of weights to its progress and citizens cannot afford insensitive policies that expect human rights, but do not facilitate empowerment.

So, the million-dollar question is: how do we do that? And my answer is: strong state and local leadership which ensure equal access to quality social services. And, in the context of this discussion, my answer is: we must start with education.

How can we do this in the US? I think we must ensure that immigrants receive classroom instruction in their own language for at least the first three years. Years four, five, and six should be transition years in which students transition from their native language to the administrative language of the state (in this case, English). Curriculum should also be extremely sensitive in terms of equality: cultural values (not traditions) should be taught and encouraged. Native English-speakers should receive similar cultural education: edifying, equal values to lower cultural boundaries. Ideally, English-speakers would also transition into a foreign language of choice during grades four, five, and six (such as do many Western European and Scandinavian states) to facilitate cultural equality and respect and do increase the quality of primary education in general. These programs would translate into extensive, more economically sensitive secondary programs, but that discussion is for another day.

This program would help children of all cultures and languages to be socially functional in their family and community and also economically functional in the national market through proficiency in the administrative language. Initially, I would expect a large influx of immigrants with desires to benefit from this type of program. However, whereas this influx could be too immense of a burden if the rising generation of those immigrating were almost forced to perpetuate the limited functionality of their culture and language, if that rising generation were empowered to contribute, what innovation and prosperity might be the result? But this is why I also advocate changes to the English-speaking curriculum: the empowerment of immigrants has the dreadful potential to exacerbate cultural differences. Cultural respect must be ensured through cultural-exchanging curriculum.

It may still appear to be culturally segregating from the outside, but I argue the opposite: a program along these lines stabs the fear and practice of cultural imposition and domination square in the heart. It helps to put cultures and languages on the same social level and in the same economic market. It begins to encourage them to work together and develop mutual respect. And, whereas that has been an ideal but not a necessity to human development in past years, in a global world we cannot afford current cultural boundaries. We cannot afford the conflicts and underdevelopments that are results of cultural imposition. We cannot afford the dead-weights and impossible responsibilities that are results of cultural domination. Culture, as is referenced to by Huntington, has the terrible possibility to be the battlefield of the future. It is my wish and deepest desire that it not be a battlefield, but a community. However, if we do not start to make the necessary steps now, I fear that current momentums, policies, and practices will pull culture to fulfill its most terrible potential.