Globalization has brought significant changes not only to educational settings of mainstream societies, but also to education in minority ethnic communities. Immigrant families belonging to a certain minority ethnic group in the United States face challenges on a daily basis to preserve and maintain their heritage language. English as the mainstream language is not only considered, but still preferred as a means of communication in public educational settings (Yilmaz, 2016).
The monolingual intent of the U.S. laws can further be seen by constraints on the use of students’ home (heritage) languages in public educational settings (García &
Kleifgen, 2018). In the sheltered or structured English immersion classrooms, only just a limited use of the home (heritage) language is being made and all instructional materials to teach content or literacy are still mostly in English. The recommendation that school districts place English language learners from different ethnic backgrounds together in the same ENL classroom further seeks to limit the use of home (heritage) languages in the multilingual classroom (Csillik, 2019a, in press).
In contrast of this governmental English-only norm, according to the 2013 U.S.
Census, the number of people speaking a language other than English at home is estimated to be around 60 million, making up 21% of the population of the United States (Mori &
Calder, 2015; García & Kleifgen, 2018). Furthermore, 13% of the United States population is foreign born and over 188 languages are spoken by them (Choi, 2013). With regards to education, currently 20% of students enter the general education mainstream system speaking a language other than English (LOTE) at home; and this number is predicted to double by 2030 (Choi, 2013). The following questions still remain the same:
3 Also known as heritage language schools, supplementary schools, and community language schools.
Why does the United States government take minimal interest in low-incidence heritage language transmittance and maintenance in general? What options immigrant families belonging to a low-incidence ethnic community have to maintain their heritage language and culture?
Whether English language learning children of low-incidence heritage language speaking families are placed in a bilingual (TBE or DL) or an English as a New Language (ENL) program in formal educational of the host (mainstream) society, the survival of the heritage language and culture in the young generation of these low-incidence ethnic communities strongly depend on the effort and motivation of the ethnic community itself, and overall on the attitudes and motivation of the minority families (Mori & Calder, 2013). On the basis of previous research results (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, 1985; Dörnyei, 2005) on attitudes and motivation in language learning, Singleton (2014) strongly believes in the key role of motivation in language learning. He firmly stands behind that good results can be achieved in second language learning at any age if the language learner persevers. Erika Mária Tódor and Zsuzsanna Dégi (2016) suggested that attitudes and motivation are strongly intertwined. Following their findings, a positive attitude towards the language itself and to its speakers could lead to increased motivation to learn the language; which then would result in better learning achievement and a positive attitude towards learning the language (Tódor & Dégi, 2016).
It is important to mention the increased attention to revitalize heritage language teaching and learning in recent years (Kondo-Brown, 2005; Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001; Valdés, Fishman, Chavez, & William, 2006; Li Wei, 2011). Most heritage language classes that are offered through formal schooling in the mainstream society involve classes for college students, although high schools are still offering classes for native speakers of high-incident heritage language(s) or world language speakers (e.g. Spanish, French) (Roca & Colombi, 2003; Thiery, 2019).
In most cases, however, for school-age children heritage language maintenance efforts are community-based and hence fall outside the realm of federal or state educational policies. The growth in the number and range of heritage language programs or community-based language schools illustrates the value and the importance that parents and ethnic communities continue to put on heritage language and cultural maintenance, despite the pressure of quick assimilation from the host society (Cho, Shin,
& Krashen, 2004).
All in all, heritage language schools have an essential role in the education of the children of high-, or low-incidence minority ethnic families and in the maintenance and transmittance of their heritage language and culture. I prefer using the term ‛heritage language school’ to acknowledge the fact that these schools are established by members of the minority ethnic community. Their purpose and goal is to primarily strengthen the maintenance and transfer of heritage language and culture to the members of the younger generation of the ethnic community. So, the quality of education in heritage language schools plays an even more significant role in the survival of the heritage language and culture in the ethnic community due to the language shift that occurs between generations of immigrant communities (Bartha, 1995a, 2005). Paulston (1994) reported about a very common assumption according to which mother-tongue shift in immigrant setting reaches its end over three generations.
Heritage language schools are community-based schools, formed voluntarily and work on their own without any governmental funds from the host country to maintain the minority ethnic group’s language and culture far away from the home country. In most cases, they use compulsory government-prescribed curriculum and government-certified textbooks from the home country (Doerr & Lee, 2009). Their aim is not only to teach language, but also to develop the proficiency and use of reading and writing in the heritage language.
In these heritage language schools, the limitations are countless, e.g. limited number of students, limited number of skilled pedagogues, limited time, space, and resources for instruction, and limited financial resources. Their budget depends on low tuition fees, collected donations, raised funds, or funds coming from tenders from the home country. Due to the extreme limitations that heritage language schools face, classes are formed by immersing minority ethnic students with different linguistic backgrounds, so, most likely different students’ different language repertoires get in contact with each other.
In low-incident heritage language immersion programs (where the heritage language is the target language), it occurs regularly that L1 speakers are mixed together with L2 speakers based on their age and not on their linguistic competence (Hickey, 2001;
Hickey et al., 2014) as a result of the low number of attendees and their wide dispersal in the host country. However, the mixing of native heritage language speakers (L1) with heritage language learning English speakers (L2) in an immersion program offers both an opportunity and a challenge for all participants. While providing an opportunity for L2
learners to interact with native heritage language speakers (L1), it presents a challenge to pedagogues have to support and enrich the L1 mainstream language skills of the native speakers in a situation of language contact.
Hickey (2001) found that the linguistic composition of immersion programs significantly affects the frequency of heritage language usage by the L1 speakers and bilingual speakers. However, it has less effect on the use by English (L2) speakers compared to their L1 speaking counterparts.
Wong Fillmore (1991) discussed this problem of heritage language speakers L1 being gradually eroded as a consequence of learning English. She suggested to provide the development of mother tongue skills in early education programs before introducing English to these students.
Jones (1991) observed that when primary school L1 speakers of Welsh were mixed with L2 learners, the Welsh speakers tended to accommodate to the interlanguage of the learners, rather than the L2 learners adapting to the norms of the L1 speakers. L1 minority students tended to be more motivated to acquire and switch to the higher status language than the L2 learners (struggling with their low-level competence in the lower status target language) were to learn the target language.
Li Wei (2011) concludes that however most heritage language complementary schools follow either the One Language Only (OLON) or the One Language at a Time (OLAN) ideology, both the teachers and the students use a great deal of English as they frequently code-switch. They exploit the full sets of their linguistic and modal resources to showcase their flexibility and creativity, which the heritage language school’s safe environment makes it possible (see Blackladge & Creese, 2010).