Immigrant Era: Focus on Assimilation

In this excerpt from Foundations for Multlingualism in Education: from Principles to Practice (Caslon, 2011), Ester de Jong shares an overview of the history of language policy in the United States. "Immigrant Era: Focus on Assimilation" discusses the debate around language and language instruction at the beginning of the 20th century, in the midst of unprecedented waves of immigration to the U.S.

For information about the language policies that preceded and followed this period, take a look at the following other excerpts from de Jong:

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time of industrialization, urbanization, and the advent of compulsory public education, the number of immigrants arriving in the United States grew exponentially. At 14.7%, the 1910 foreign-born population is still proportionally the largest in U.S. history (see Figure 6.1). These immigrants came from more diverse and different backgrounds than the early northern European immigrants, most of whom were Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Although previous immigrant groups continued to arrive (e.g., Swedes, Norwegians, Germans), the majority of the new immigrants came from eastern Europe (Czechs, Poles, Russian Jews) and southern Europe (Greeks, Italians). Most were Roman Catholic or Jewish and upon arrival moved into urban rather than rural areas.

Figure 6.1 Population growth in the United States, 1850-2010

 

The majority of the new immigrants did not speak English when they arrived. In 1910, 23% or about 3 million out of the 13 million foreign-born individuals 10 years of age or older were unable to speak English (compare with 7% in 2000). Their religious backgrounds and cultural habits were perceived as being distinctly different from those of the existing native "stock." These demographic and economic developments were subsequently joined by the threat of and entry into World War I (1914-1918); together they raised new questions about American identity.

The Americanization Movement

Americanization through legislation

The dominant response to the new diversity was to try to streamline it to promote assimilation into a view that defined American identity as English-speaking, Protestant, and Anglo-Saxon. The Americanization movement that emerged during these years focused assimilating the new immigrants into American society (Handlin, 1982; Hartmann, 1967; Higham, 1998; Hill, 1919). Between 1917 and 1922, more than 30 states passed Americanization laws, requiring those unable to speak or read English to attend public evening schools (Pavlenko, 2005).

This movement included proponents of nativism (opposition to any foreign influences) and reformers genuinely concerned with improving the impoverished health and working conditions of the new urban immigrants (Olneck, 1989). Americanization efforts focused on providing classes in English civics primarily to adult, male immigrants. In addition, groups pushed for legislation to limit immigration in general or exclude certain groups from entering the country. These included:

  • Anti-Catholic laws that had been passed in the early 1880s in response to the increased presence of Irish
  • The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
  • Laws restricting Japanese, passed between 1905 and 1924,
  • Laws retracting Filipinos in the 1920s and 1930s (Daniels, 1990).

Legislative anti-immigrant efforts cumulated in the Immigration Act of 1924, which put quotas on the number of immigrants allowed to enter from certain (nonwestern European) countries. By basing the quotas on the 1890 census, law makers privileged immigrants from northern European countries.

Language legislation

Language became a central issue in the immigration debate, especially as World War I approached. The 1906 Nationality Act made the ability to speak English a requirement for naturalization, and the 1917 Immigration Act excluded aliens who were illiterate (in any language) from entering. In this climate, the use of languages other than English in school was un-American and undesirable. Speaking English became a condition for being a good (real) American. Several states passed legislation that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages to young children and 37 states passed laws making English the official language of the state during this period.

Back to top

Schooling for Immigrants

Educational policies directed at immigrant children during the early 1900s were primarily ones of neglect:

  • Students were submersed in English-only classrooms without any accommodations.
  • Newcomers were often placed in 1st grade classrooms regardless of their age, causing many early dropouts.
  • Intelligence testing in English led to the disproportionate placement of immigrant children in special education classes.

In some instances, minimal accommodations were made through separate classes. Educators in New York and other major cities began to recognize that special classes were needed to help students who did not speak English. William Maxwell from the New York Board of Education argued in 1912, "It is absurd to place the boy or girl, 10 or 12 years of age, just landed from Italy, who cannot read a word in his own language or speak a word of English, in the same classroom with American boys and girls five or six years old" (quoted in Berrol, 1995, p. 49).

"Steamer" classes

New York established "C" or steamer classes for students older than 8 years who had recently arrived. Also referred to as "vestibule" classes, steamer classes, which lasted for 6 months to 1 year, segregated students from native peers and focused solely on teaching oral English skills (Berrol, 1995; Brumberg, 1986). Students were punished for using their native language. Similar classes were implemented for immigrant children in Boston and Chicago.

Schools for Mexicans

Segregated schools were the solution for the "Mexican problem" in the Southwest beginning in the early 1900s, in particular California and Texas (Gonzalez, 2001). The establishment of these Mexican schools for Spanish-speaking students had been based on the rationale that the students did not have the level of command of English needed and would hold Anglo students back and that segregation would permit more individualized instruction.

Furthermore, it was believed, "Hispanic students attended school less regularly and so disrupted classroom continuity" (Schlossman, 1983b, p. 893). Like segregated schools for African American students (and boarding schools for Native Americans), Mexican schools had fewer resources and less qualified teachers (Donato & Garcia, 1992; Donato, Mechaca, & Valencia, 1991). The schools focused on teaching English, often punished students for using any Spanish, and portrayed Mexico and the Mexican people as inferior and backward.

Limited schooling for immigrants

Many immigrant children did not finish school during this period or were allowed to graduate with only minimal skills due to a greatly reduced curriculum. While achievement patterns varied from immigrant group to immigrant group and across different cities, the typical pattern was minimal school attendance and low high school and college attendance by the majority of immigrant children. Perlmann (1990) found that 13% of 12-year-old students whose parents were foreign-born went on to high school (compared with 32% of white children of native parentage). Native-born students with English skills did much better than immigrant children in school attendance and high school graduation rates.

Poverty played a significant role in these patterns. According to Berrol (1982), "Most immigrant families, for at least two generations, needed whatever money their children could earn" (p. 38). A rapidly expanding economy that could absorb many low-skilled laborers, followed by a sharp reduction in immigration, explains the economic and social mobility that has been observed for the early 1900s rather than school success.

The myth that submersion in English and giving up cultural ties has continued, however, as part of the meta-narrative of the country's national identity. As Berrol notes, by the 1950s when black and Hispanic migrants came to New York City, "most people had forgotten… that the public schools had not been successful with most of the poor and foreign children who had come earlier" (pp. 40-41).

Back to top

Protecting languages other than English

Pluralist views were pushed far into the background during this same period. Two trends, however, that opposed the insistence on assimilationism are worth mentioning. First, the federal government changed its policy toward Native Americans, at least for a while. Ironically, whereas during the early colonial years immigrant languages were tolerated and indigenous languages rejected, this period witnessed the reverse pattern of treatment. During the 1920s and 1930s, John Collier, director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was initiated a return to on-reservation day schools and the development of native language textbooks, promoting a greater emphasis on native cultures and languages. Funding for his efforts unfortunately ended with World War II and did not return until the 1970s.

Second, some court decisions maintained a more nuanced perspective (O'Brien, 1961). In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) the Supreme Court constrained the scope of the English-only laws to those areas where the state could demonstrate a compelling interest in not allowing languages other than English to be taught. The case involved a teacher in a parochial school who was accused of teaching the Bible in German to an 8-year-old. At the time, Nebraska's English-only law forbade the use of languages other than English for children younger than 10 years of age. The Court sided with the plaintiffs because, in their judgment, the ends (teaching English) did not justify the means (restricting the parents' right to choose instruction for their children and a teacher's right to teach).

Back to top

Acknowledgements

Our policy section is made possible by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation. The statements and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Citations

de Jong, Ester. (2011). Foundations for Multilingualism in Education. Excerpt from Chapter 5, "Language Policy in the United States." (pp. 126-138). ©Caslon Publishing. Printed with permission, all rights reserved.

References

Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33 (1), 4-14.

Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for distinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1975-1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Alba, R., Logan, J., Lutz, A., & Stults, B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography, 39 (3), 467-484.

Andersson, T. (1971). Bilingual education: The American experience. Modern Language Journal, 55 (7), 427-440.

Bangura, A. K., & Muo, M. C. (2001). United States Congress and bilingual education. New York: Peter Lang.

Berlin, I. (1980). Time, space, and the evolution of Afro-American society on British mainland North America. American Historical Review, 85 (1), 44-78.

Berrol, S.C. (1982). Public schools and immigrants: The New York City experience. In R. J. Weiss (Ed.) American education and the European immigrant: 1840-1940 (pp.31-43). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Berrol, S. C. (1995). Growing up American: Immigrant children in America; Then and Now. New York: Twayne.

Brisk, M. E. (1981). Language policies in American education. Journal of Education, 63 (1), 3-15.

Brisk, M. E. (2006). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality education (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brumberg, S. B. (1986). Going to America, going to school: The Jewish immigrant public school encounter in turn-of-the-century New York City. New York: Praeger.

Castellanos, D. (1983). The best of two worlds: Bilingual-bicultural education in the U.S. Trenton: New Jersey State Department of Education.

Cho, G., Shin, F., & Krashen, S. (2004). What do we know about heritage languages? What do we need to learn about them? Multicultural Education,11 (4), 23-26.

Conklin, N. F., & Lourie, M. A. (1983). A host of tongues: Language communities in the United States. New York: Free Press.

Crawford, J. (1992). Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Crawford, J. (1998). The bilingual education story: Why can't the news media get it right? Paper presented to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, June 26. Retrieved August, 25, 2005, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage/ jcrawford/NAHJ.htm.

Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. (4th ed.) Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.

Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. (2004a). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Paper presented at Forum on Ideas to Improve the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, sponsored by the Center on Education Policy, Washington, DC, September 14, 2004. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol.misguided.pdf.

Crawford, J. (2004b). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.) . Culver City, CA: Bilingual Education Services.

Daniels, R. (1990). Coming to America: A history of immigration and ethnicity in American life. New York: HarperCollins.

Dick, G. and McCarty, T. (1997) Reclaiming Navajo: Language renewal in an American Indian community school. In N. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 69-94). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dicker, S. J. (2003). Languages in America: A pluralist view (2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual.

Donato, R., & Garcia, H. (1992). Language segregation in desegregated schools: A question Earle, C. (1992). Pioneers of providence: The Anglo-American experience, 1492-1792. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82 (3), 478-499.

Escamilla, K., Shannon, S. M., Carlos, S., & Garcia, J. (2003). Breaking the code: Colorado's defeat of the anti-bilingual education initiative (Amendment 31). Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 357-382.

Estes, J. (1999). How many indigenous American languages are spoken in the United States? By how many speakers? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87-106.

Fogleman, A. (1998). From slaves, convicts, and servants to free passengers: The transformation of immigration in the era of the American Revolution Journal of American History 85 (1), 43-76.

Francis, N., & Reyhner, J. (2002). Language and literacy teaching for indigenous education: A bilingual approach. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Galindo, R. (1997). Language wars: The ideological dimensions of the debates on bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2&3), 103-141.

Gándara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1&2), 1-13.

Gándara, P., Moran, R., & García, E. E. (2004). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the United States. Review of Research in Education,28, 27-46.

Garcia, E. E., & Curry-Rodriguez, J. E. (2000). The education of limited English proficient students in California schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposition 227 in selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24 (1&2), 15-36.

Getz, L. M. (1997). Schools of their own: The education of Hispanos in New Mexico, 1850-1940. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Glass, T. E. (1988). Federal policy in Native American education, 1925-1985. Journal of Educational Policy, 3(2), 105-121.

Gonzalez, R. D. (2001). Lessons from colonial language policies. In R.D. Gonzalez (Ed.) Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (pp. 195-219). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Handlin, O. (1982). Education and the European immigrant, 1820-1920. In B. J. Weiss (Ed.), American education and the European immigrant: 1840-1940 (pp. 3-16). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Harper, C. A., de Jong, E., & Platt, E. J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy, 7, 267-284.

Hartmann, E. G. (1967). The movement to Americanize the immigrant. New York: AMS Press.

Havighurst, R. J. (1978, March). Indian education since 1960. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 436, 13-26.

Heath, S. B. (1977). A national language academy? Debate in the new nation. Linguistics, 189, 9-43.

Higham, J. (1998). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860-1925 (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hill, H. C. (1919). The Americanization movement. American Journal of Sociology 24 (6), 609-642.

Hinton, L. (1994). Flutes of fire: Essays on California Indian languages. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research. Report 63. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.

Kloss, H. (1998). The American bilingual tradition. Washington, DC, and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learners. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 563-581.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The acquisition of academic English by children in two-way programs: What does the research say? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Bilingual Education, Albuquerque, NM. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.sdkrashen.com/ articles/the_2-way_issue/all.html.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Linton, A. (2007). Spanish-English immersion in the wake of California Proposition 227: Five cases. Intercultural Education, 18 (2), 111-128.

Lyons, J. J. (1990, March). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 508, 66-80.

Macedo, D., Dendrinos, B., & Gounari, P. (2003). The hegemony of English. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Mackey, W., & Beebe, V. N. (1977). Bilingual schools for a bicultural community: Miami's adaptation to the Cuban refugees. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

McCarty, T. L. (1993). Federal language policy and American Indian education. Bilingual Research Journal, 17(1&2), 13-34.

McCarty, T. L. (1994). Bilingual education policy and the empowerment of American Indian communities (1). Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 23-42.

McCarty, T. L. (1998). Schooling, resistance and American Indian languages. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132, 27-41.

McCarty, T. L. (2003). Revitalizing indigenous languages in homogenizing times. Comparative Education, 39 (2), 147-163.

Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521-546.

Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

O'Brien, K. B. (1961). Education, Americanization, and the Supreme Court: The 1920s. American Quarterly, 13(2), 161-171.

Olneck, M. R. (1989). Americanization and the education of immigrants, 1900-1925: An analysis of symbolic action. American Journal of Education, 97(4), 398-423.

Ovando, C. J., Collier, V., & Combs, M. C. (2003). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. New York: McGraw Hill.

Pavlenko, A. (2005). "Ask each pupil about her methods of cleaning": Ideologies of language and gender in Americanization instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(4), 275-297.

Perlmann, J. (1990, March). Historical legacies: 1840-1920. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 508, 27-37.

Peyton, J. K., Lewelling, V., W. , & Winke, P. (2001). Spanish for Spanish speakers: Developing dual language proficiency. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/spanish_native.html

Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Heritage language in America: Preserving a national resource; Language in education-Theory and practice. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Company.

Read, A. W. (1937). Bilingualism in the Middle Colonies, 1725-1775. American Speech, 12(2), 93-99.

Reyhner, J. (1993). American Indian language policy and school success. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 12(3), 35-59.

Roca, A., & Colombi, M. C. (2003). Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 7(2), 15-34.

Russell, C. (2002). Language, violence, and Indian mis-education. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 26(4), 97-112.

Schlossman, S. L. (1983a). Is there an American tradition of bilingual education? German in the public elementary schools, 1840-1919. American Journal of Education, 91(2), 139-186.

Schlossman, S. L. (1983b). Self-evident remedy? George I. Sanchez, segregation, and enduring dilemmas in bilingual education. Teachers College Record, 84(4), 871-907.

Schmidt, R. S. (2000). Language policies and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Spener, D. (1988). Transitional bilingual education and the socialization of immigrants. Harvard Educational Review, 58(2), 133-153. Szasz, M. C. (1983). American Indian education: Historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 61(1), 109-112.

Valdés, G., Fishman, J. A., Chavez, R., & William, P. (2006). Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Wiese, A.-M., & Garcia, E. E. (1998). The Bilingual Education Act: Language minority students and equal educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(1), 1-18.

Wiley, T. G. (1996). Languages and planning policies. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103-148). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiley, T. G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 67-85). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Woolard, K. A. (1989). Sentences in the language prison: The rhetorical structuring of an American language policy debate. American Ethnologist,16(2), 268-278.

Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13).

Wright, W. E. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona's Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5), 662-700.

Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 63-95.

Reprints

For any reprint requests, please contact the author or publisher listed.

More by this author

Share My Lesson. For teachers, by teachers.

National Education Association. How Educators Can Advocate for English Language Learners.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.