IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS “UNITED” AS WE THINK?

Diverse Migrant Children and Multilingual Education

As we briefly outlined in our previous study, the concept of globalization finds one of its most valuable and illustrative examples in the historical development of the United States of America. A closer examination of this history reveals that the process of colonization, which began with the arrival of the Genoese navigator Christopher Columbus in 1492, compelled the lands inhabited by indigenous civilizations—such as the Inca, Maya, and Aztec—to become the stage for successive waves of colonial expansion. This expansion process compelled the lands inhabited by Indigenous civilizations such as the Inca, Maya, and Aztec peoples to become the stage for successive waves of colonial expansion carried out by the Spanish, British, French, and Dutch, followed by numerous other nations.

Particularly Spain’s violent colonial practices, which persisted until the 17th century, led to the near annihilation of many Indigenous civilizations that had originally inhabited these lands. Following Spain’s decisive defeat by England in 1588, Spanish power began to wane, and these vast colonial territories became subject to the expansionist ambitions of the Kingdom of England, the Netherlands, and France. In the subsequent period, with the continued influx of various colonial powers as well as migrants drawn by the belief that America was a land of immense opportunity and wealth, the United States gradually evolved into the cosmopolitan society it represents today.

Within the scope of this study, when multilingual education policies in the United States are examined from their earliest periods to the present day, it becomes evident that, unfortunately, no substantial written sources regarding the educational policies of Indigenous peoples are available. Nevertheless, in light of the available data, certain limited inferences may be drawn about their educational structures. The Mayans, for instance, developed sophisticated calendars through their unique writing system and demonstrated a remarkable interest in astronomy; the Aztecs established institutions known as calmecac, where religious education was provided; whereas the Incas are understood not to have possessed a formal writing system or alphabet. Considered together, these elements allow only a constrained understanding of the educational structures of these societies. Furthermore, given the relatively homogeneous nature of these communities, preserved in part by their lack of contact with European, Asian, and African civilizations prior to the 15th century, it is difficult to assert the existence of any systematic or institutionalized bilingual education policy.

Similarly, at the outset of the colonial period, it becomes evident that the Spanish imposed policies of violent occupation, enslavement, and the transmission—whether intentional or inadvertent—of epidemic diseases brought from the mainland upon the Indigenous population. In such a context, marked by widespread death, suffering, poverty, destruction, and subjugation, any expectation that bilingual education policies would be implemented for the benefit of Indigenous communities would be exceedingly optimistic.

However, from the 17th century onwards, the United States constructed its narrative upon the displacement and destruction of Indigenous populations, while simultaneously shaping its identity around immigration and diversity, admitting millions of migrants into its social fabric. Although the country sought to impose conformity through policies such as “Anglo-Conformity” and the “Melting Pot” thereby compelling immigrants to adopt prevailing cultural norms, historical experience has demonstrated that identity is neither a substance to be molded through assimilation nor a rootless construct destined to dissolve within Anglo culture. Indeed, while migrants, seeking to leave behind past adversities and establish a new order, may have believed that they had severed ties with their homelands, symbolically marking new beginnings by affixing the prefix “New” to their settlements, the cities they founded continued to bear the imprint of their origins not only in name but also in language, belief systems, architecture, and everyday practices.

Within the framework of these policies, legislation mandating English-only instruction in both public and private elementary schools was enacted in 34 states; educators who taught in foreign languages were dismissed and compelled to seek legal redress through the courts. In particular, children from Spanish-speaking communities along the U.S.–Mexico border were often required to begin their education without any prior knowledge of English. As documented in reports of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, these children were, to a significant extent, pushed out of the education system before even completing high school, largely due to inadequate and segregated educational conditions.

However, particularly in light of the profound impact of the Great Depression on the population, the United States began, especially from the mid-20th century onwards and more markedly in the 21st century, to embrace its multicultural structure through the “Salad Bowl” metaphor and to move away from policies of homogenization. Within this adopted multilingual and multicultural “bowl,” migrant children—situated at the very core of this diversity—face language acquisition as a significant policy concern.

In particular, with the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols (1974) case, the Court determined that 1,856 Chinese-speaking students in San Francisco had been deprived of their right to equal education, as they were unable to comprehend classroom instruction and no accommodations had been made for linguistic differences. In addressing the issue, the Court held that the solution lay neither in English-only instruction nor solely in education in the native language; rather, it emphasized a third approach, whereby the relevant Board of Education should, within the scope of its expertise, develop an appropriate system and framework. Following this decision, the vast majority of educational boards in the United States came to recognize the necessity of some form of bilingual education. However, federal authorities—relying on studies in which groups were classified merely according to program labels, without due consideration of the quality of instruction provided—concluded that bilingual programs had no measurable impact on test outcomes. This approach, in turn, led to significant disparities in educational practices across states. Consequently, it became evident that the issue required a centralized and comprehensive policy framework.

Indeed, as also noted in our previous study, more comprehensive comparative research conducted by the federal government has clearly demonstrated that bilingual education constitutes a factor that enhances academic achievement. Accordingly, the enactment of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act provided an institutional response to an already existing policy need, with the aim of expanding language development programs to improve educational outcomes. Within this framework, while it was intended to foster students’ literacy and academic skills in both their native languages and English, ESL (English as a Second Language) programs were also implemented to support the listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of students who acquire English later, thereby facilitating their equal participation in the education system. As evidenced by reports of the Center for Applied Linguistics, these programs, predominantly offered at the primary school level and largely based on Spanish – English instruction, have gradually expanded at the middle and high school levels, with increasing inclusion of languages beyond Spanish. However, over the past two decades, the profile of English learners has significantly evolved; yet program designs have largely failed to keep pace with this transformation, and the educator profile has not been sufficiently supportive in this regard.

In light of all these considerations, it becomes evident that, despite having been a point of intersection for diverse nations, languages, and cultures since the 15th century, the United States failed to develop an inclusive educational policy supporting multilingualism until the mid-20th century. Although it is observed that, by the late 20th century and the early 21st century, a discourse of multiculturalism was embraced in the field of education and bilingual education was recognized at the policy level, it is clear that these programs have fallen short of adequately responding to the demands of the modern era and have remained limited in practice. In this context, the current situation leads us to the conclusion that the policies adopted have, more often than not, remained merely as expressions of goodwill articulated within the framework of political correctness, rather than bringing about a structural transformation.

SOURCES

1. Acemoğlu, D., Robinson, J.A.,(2025). Ulusların Düşüşü (101. Baskı). Doğan Yayıncılık.
2. Adıgüzel, Ö., Akagündüz, Ü., Akalın, M., Bal, M. S., Çalışkan, B., Güner, İ., Gürgen, G., Güven, İ., Kaya, M. A., Metin, M., Ocak, A., Sarıtaş, E., Uyar, M., Ünder, H., Yiğit, T. (2016). Uygarlık Tarihi (6. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
3. Capp, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., Herwantoro, S. (2005). “The new demography of America’s schools immigration and the no child left behind act.” The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf.
4. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Bilingual Education Services.
5. Çakmaklı, E. (2022). “Asimilasyon ve Çokkültürlülük Sarmalında Amerikan Kimliği.” Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 49, 123-144. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.961071.
6. Bal, M., Aksu Demiral, G. (2021). “Dünyada Dil Eğitimi Uygulamaları: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Politikalarının Göçmenlerin Dil Eğitimi ve İki Dilli Eğitim Açısından İncelenmesi.” Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 50(1), 51-77. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.959601.
7. Gándara, P., Escamilla, K. (2017). “Bilingual Education in the United States”. Bilingual and Multilingual Education.” Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer. 439-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_33-2.
8. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press.
9. Günay, H. (2024) “İspanyolların, 1492-1902 Yılları Arasında Sömürgeleştirdiği Latin Amerika Bölgesine Demografik, Sosyokültürel ve İdari Yapısına Etkisi.” Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.1403986.
10. Karabulut, N. (2010). “1945 Öncesi Süreçte Amerikan Sanatına Genel Bakış.” Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20, 35-57. https://izlik.org/JA26YA59GX.
11. Manioğlu, Oğuzhan. 2023. “Kısa Amerika Tarihi Işığında Amerikan Siyasi Sistemine Bakış”. UPA Strategic Affairs4(1): 108-28. https://izlik.org/JA22AU43PF.