A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL

Threatening language

4/8/2002

WEEK AGO last Wednesday was lottery day in Framingham, when families eager to put their kindergartners into two-way bilingual classes learned whether their child's name had been pulled from the hat. The classes, in which Spanish- and English-speaking students help each other learn a new language, are so popular that after names for four classes were picked, 50 English-speaking children had to go on a waiting list.

If voters this fall approve a ballot question banning bilingual education, Framingham and other communities will no longer be able to use two-way bilingual classes to teach English. To preserve creative options like this and to improve the teaching of immigrant children across the board, a more reasonable reform of bilingual education must be adopted soon.

The state's 31-year-old bilingual education law is past due for an overhaul even if the ballot question backed by California entrepreneur Ron Unz were not threatening the status quo. No one could be content with bilingual education in Massachusetts after MCAS results showed that children with limited English proficiency failed at more than three times the rate of other students.

A draft bill backed by the two chairmen of the Legislature's Joint Education Committee, Peter Larkin of the House and Robert Antonioni of the Senate, would let school districts decide how best to educate children from non-English-speaking backgrounds as long as the districts showed progress on standardized tests. Options include two-way bilingual; structured immersion in English with brief explanations in the native language by the teacher or an aide; and the traditional bilingual program, in which students are taught subject content in their native language while learning English.

This last option is particularly condemned by Unz, though he would permit it for older students who have just arrived in the country. With such limited exceptions, Unz would permit just one year of structured immersion for foreign-speaking students, followed by mainstreaming.

For many students, traditional bilingual education, especially when taught by teachers not fluent in English, has left them ill prepared in both English and their native language. It is also true, however, that there are skilled bilingual teachers whose students achieve that rarity in US schools - a command of two languages and two literatures.

Another proposal, from Representative Antonio Cabral of New Bedford, would not give districts as much autonomy as Larkin and Antonioni's would. Cabral thinks parents have a right to be offered a choice of either traditional bilingual or two-way bilingual classes. If structured immersion is also offered, he still wants to have 30 percent of instruction in the student's native language. But this approach looks a lot like current law and could hamstring districts' ability to provide the best possible instruction with the staff they have.

Larkin and Antonioni's draft bill gives parents a voice by involving them in the choice of their child's program and by requiring parent advisory councils in the districts. But school-based parent councils would be better for immigrants unused to dealing with officialdom. Cabral is on target in calling for student progress reports in the parents' language. A bill built on sound proposals like these should help the growing number of children who come to school without English but with all the enthusiasm of young learners anywhere.

This story ran on page A12 of the Boston Globe on 4/8/2002