On this page you can find different editorials related to bilingual education or language policy. These are usually not state specific but rather editorials that refer to bilingual education or language policy as a national concern. I feel it is a losing battle because so many just simply ignore research and facts and base what they think on opinion. Take a look at this great editorial cartoon about Ron Unz, the millionaire who has taken it upon himself to fund legislation to destroy bilingual education in California and Arizona and also currently fighting to dismantle bilingual education in New York, Massachusetts and Colorado. Unz cartoon
To view editorials that I have written, mostly in response to completely one-sided arguments against bilingual education, click My Editorials.
One of the most prolific letter writers defending, among many other things, bilingual education, is Dr. Stephen Krashen. To view some of his more recent editorials and short articles, go to Dr. Krashen's Opinions, and here as well. Another very productive and frequent writer is Dr. Domenico Maceri. His editorials plus links to many more can be seen on this page.
Para ver unos excelentes editoriales en español, pulse aquí y acá o Editoriales en español.
Well for years now, the only thing that proponents of English immersion can talk about has been the apparent rise in test scores for kids in English immersion. However, there is more to this story notwithstanding the other facts that the kids are not learning English in one year as promised nor are they reclassified as English fluent any faster than under bilingual education. Here is a great letter by Dr. Jill Kerper Mora.
Dear Editor,
The Times cheerfully declares that Proposition 227, which became law in 1998, has accomplished the goal of “prodding children to learn English” based on the statistic that 18% of English language learners (ELL) have reached English proficiency in three years. Let’s remember the Prop. 227 campaign promises and do the math. An 18% increase in English fluency in three years equates to an “exit rate” of 6% annually. Ron Unz claimed that the 6% exit rate before Prop. 227 meant that bilingual education, in which only 30% of all ELL were enrolled, had a 94% failure rate. Now that only 12% of all ELL are in bilingual programs and the exit rate is still 6%, you claim that Prop. 227 has achieved the goal of increasing English learning. In reality, all of the campaign rhetoric and linguistic theories behind Prop.227 have been proven wrong. Bilingual learners are not entering the mainstream after a year of “transition” and are not learning English any faster than they were before. Meanwhile, Prop. 227’s mean-spirited provisions for lawsuits against bilingual teachers and the restrictions on parents’ access to well-designed and effective bilingual programs have taken their toll. The “magic bullet” of Prop. 227 is a blank.
JKM
My thoughts on this op-ed.
What Mr. Rodriguez says here is not
surprising. There is a weird paradox working here. Many Americans covet bilingualism yet are unwilling to do what it takes to make
future generations bilingual. It would require a huge paradigm shift.
This article also reminds me of a study done by the University of Michigan and
Princeton from '91-'98 that surveyed children of immigrant parents. The
study concluded that children prefer English. It also made note that
measures such as Prop. 227 and like legislation are not necessary and irrelevant
since the study shows that with bilingual education students as well as other children not in these programs still learn English. This is
something we already know.
The Overwhelming Allure of English
April 7, 2002
By GREGORY RODRIGUEZ
LOS ANGELES
A generation of large-scale Latin American immigration has
turned Spanish into the unofficial second language of the
United States.
In early March, Texas held the nation's first-ever
gubernatorial debate in Spanish. President Bush never
misses an opportunity to show that he, too, can speak the
language of Cervantes. Meanwhile, with the press of a
button, most automated teller machines can communicate with
customers in digital Spanish. From the streets of Miami to
Los Angeles, it sometimes feels as if Spanish is giving
English a run for its money.
But even with this proliferation of Spanish, the United
States is still, in the words of one prominent sociologist,
a country that is a "language graveyard" for foreign
tongues. While many Americans fret over the state of their
nation's primary language, there are signs everywhere that
English is triumphant both at home and abroad.
As the United States strengthens its position as the
world's economic superpower, the global reach of its
popular culture - and accompanying English language - only
grows. By mid-century, half the planet is expected to be
more or less proficient in English, compared to roughly 12
percent now. Why should the American-born children of
immigrants be somehow immune to the rising power of the
international language of diplomacy and commerce?
Still, there is a growing concern that the rise of Spanish
threatens the pre-eminence of English in America. Last
month, Iowa became the 27th state to declare English its
official language - the 10th since 1995. While The Des
Moines Register dismissed the act as "an embarrassment"
perpetrated by a "bunch of yahoos in the Legislature," four
out of five Iowans supported it.
To be sure, the United States' proximity to Latin America
combined with the sheer size and continuous nature of
Latino migration has changed the nation's cultural
landscape. Mass media, modern transportation and the
Internet all nurture Spanish in the United States in a way
inconceivable to earlier waves of immigrants. And unlike
those who came before, today's immigrants can hear their
native tongue on morning drive-time radio and watch soap
operas from their homeland in the evening. Over the last
decade, Spanish-language TV and radio boomed in the
nation's largest media markets.
But while immigration has powered the rise of
Spanish-language media, a new demographic trend is already
shifting the balance in favor of English - even in the
heaviest immigrant media markets in America. In Los
Angeles, home to the nation's largest Latino immigrant
population, Spanish-language radio stations routinely
topped the charts for most of the 1990's. But the growth of
Spanish-language radio leveled off in the last few years.
For the past nine months, KROQ, an alternative,
youth-oriented rock station, has snagged the region's
highest overall ratings. It is the first time since 1991
that an English-language station has remained No. 1 for
three consecutive ratings periods. A fragmented
Spanish-language radio market helped KROQ, but the station
has a fundamental trend on its side.
"The Hispanic share of our listenership has increased
gradually over the past 10 years," says Trip Reeb, KROQ's
general manager. Without actively seeking to broaden its
ethnic appeal, the station, long considered "white," now
has a 40 percent Latino audience. In fact, a growing number
of mainstream English-language radio stations find
themselves with sizable Latino audiences. "Right when
everyone is discovering the importance of using Spanish,
we're seeing Latinos become the backbone of the
English-language audience," said Patricia Suarez, president
of Suarez/Frommer & Associates, an advertising firm in
Pasadena, Calif.
Sometime in the 1990's, demographers say, the foreign-born
portion of the Latino population reached its peak. In other
words, on the basis of current projections, from now on the
immigrant or first generation will be a smaller percentage
of Hispanic America. According to Barry Edmonston, the head
of the Population Research Center at Portland State
University, the fastest-growing segment of the Latino
population is the third generation, which is projected to
triple by 2040. The second generation, is expected to
double. "In every immigrant experience, there is a shift
from immigrant culture to ethnic American culture," said
Mr. Edmonston. "Hispanics are in the middle of that shift
right now."
As American Latinos now become less an immigrant market and
more an ethnic market, the equation of Latinos with Spanish
is beginning to fade. While slower to make the shift than
other immigrant groups, Latino linguistic assimilation is
not entirely unlike that of immigrants at the turn of the
20th century. According to the 1990 Census, fully
two-thirds of third-generation Latino children spoke only
English. And while bilingualism does persist longer within
Latino families, particularly along the border region,
there is no indication this precludes the use of English as
the primary language.
As in past waves of immigration, the first generation tends
to learn only enough English to get by; the second is
bilingual; and the third tends to be English-dominant if
not monolingual.
"The big picture is that bilingualism is very difficult to
maintain in the U.S., and by the third generation it is
extraordinarily difficult to maintain," said Richard Alba,
a sociology professor at the State University of New York
at Albany. "This is because English is so dominant and so
highly rewarded."
It makes sense that the shift to English is being felt
first in the youth entertainment market. A two-year-old
study by Nielsen Media Research shows that even in
households where the adults speak Spanish, younger Latinos
prefer to watch television in English. In fact, the
preference for English over Spanish becomes more lopsided
the younger the demographic. Nickelodeon, the children's
cable network, has embraced mainstream Latino characters
more than any other network.
Two years ago, the Walt Disney Company failed in the first
large-scale effort by a Hollywood studio to broaden its
domestic Latino base. But after simultaneously releasing an
English and Spanish-language version of the animated film
"The Emperor's New Groove" in 16 theaters, the studio
pulled the dubbed version for lack of interest. "The Latino
audience clearly came out for the movie, but that audience
definitely preferred to see it in English," said Richard W.
Cook, chairman of Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group.
Similarly, even as the Latino population exploded,
Spanish-language movie theaters in Southern California were
closing. In the last half of the 1990's, a company that
screens foreign and dubbed films cut the number of its
movie houses dedicated to Spanish-speaking audiences by
more than half. Like Americans at large, the average Latino
moviegoer is a teenager. And the average Latino teenager is
American-born and more eager to see a contemporary
English-language action film than the art-house fare from
contemporary Latin America. In fact, a recent study of the
children of immigrants found that by the end of high school
9 in 10 preferred to speak English and 98 percent spoke it
proficiently.
AT the same time, Spanish is certainly not going away in
the regions of the country that serve as gateways to new
immigrants. American-born Latinos can enjoy Latin-American
soap operas or old-fashioned boleros on the radio. But like
children of immigrants in the past, the descendants of
today's newcomers will negotiate their work lives and
create art and music in the language in which they are
schooled. While bilingual education is often blamed for the
persistence of Spanish in the United States, most such
programs are designed to shift the child into
English-speaking classes within three or four years. In
addition, a few elementary school years in Spanish do not
give students adult-level proficiency. Even in Miami, the
nation's quintessential bilingual city, international
corporations complain of a shortage of fully bilingual
workers to conduct business with Latin Americans in
professional Spanish.
Thus, despite the obvious benefits of bilingualism in a
globalizing world, English still overwhelms the languages
that immigrants bring to these shores. Not unlike previous
large waves of immigrants, Latinos are introducing words
and phrases of their native language into mainstream
English. But within generations of arriving in America,
Latinos eager to read the classic works of Cervantes or
Gabriel García Márquez will most likely do so through
English translations.
My thoughts: I couldn't agree more and we
need to hear more from people like this!
Being bilingual is a great asset
Kenny Cargill's March 15 commentary, "English helps bridge education social
gaps," brought back memories of my experiences as a product of bilingual
education.
It also strengthened my belief that bilingual education played a major role in
reinforcing my education and in allowing me to break down social barriers
created by language.
Cargill assumes bilingual education merely consists of teaching students in
their native language, while avoiding teaching them the English language.
On the contrary, bilingual education allows students to augment their grasp of
the English language while learning in a structure in which the student can
understand the language.
I doubt anyone would argue the importance of learning English.
As a youth, I was not limited to interaction with only one peer group. Instead,
my success in bilingual education enabled me to interact with all groups, both
monolingual Spanish speakers and monolingual English speakers.
This is a great asset in a country that is completely intertwined with the rest
of the world.
Javier
University of Arizona student
I received this from the AZBLE listeserve of which I am a member. This is a great article about Dr. Stephen Krashen and it does go into the bilingual debate a bit.
See:
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/northeastvalleyopinions/articles/0629scudder0629.html
A different view of reforming education
Recently, Craig Cantoni wrote in these pages about a meal he enjoyed with an
educational "expert" - namely, Johanna Haver. Cantoni wrote about a
number of suggestions Haver has to fix public education. To no great surprise to
many of us, these suggestions all leaned to the far right of educational reform.
When I read that article, I vowed that the next time I dined with an educational
expert I would similarly describe the conversation.
I had just such a meal recently with Dr. Stephen Krashen, an author, professor
and educational thinker. And let's just say his suggestions on literacy and
English-as-a-second-language instruction are a bit different from Haver's.
Furthermore, before you write him off as too progressive, please read Krashen's
ideas carefully. There may be no stronger advocate for
"evidence-based" educational practices, a philosophy that the Bush
administration has emphasized consistently. Krashen's educational suggestions
are based, not merely on his opinion, but on enormous amounts of valid research.
In an era of harsh cuts to school libraries, Krashen's work on literacy is
disturbing. We don't need to spend money on fancy, new reading programs of the
week. Agreeing with first lady Laura Bush, Krashen says, "We need more
books and better libraries." The commonsensical truth is that when students
read more books their fluency, comprehension and grammar improve. Also, research
by Keith Curry Lance shows that school libraries with more books and better
staffing are related to higher reading test scores.
Put another way: surround kids with interesting reading material and encourage
them to read it, and the results are nothing short of literacy. Not to mention
that they actually learn to enjoy reading which, of course, fuels more reading.
No population needs this more than the poorest among us. The lowest
socioeconomic areas, of course, tend to have the least books in the home and the
worst libraries. Krashen argues that it is nearly impossible for these children
to develop a thirst for literacy in such a desert of reading material.
He does not dismiss the use of phonics for reading. He points out, however, that
most of our knowledge of phonics comes from reading. There is a limited role of
phonics knowledge, which makes text more comprehensible, so there is nothing
wrong with teaching a child basic sound-spelling correspondences and rules. But
this is a far cry from the systematic-phonics-will-save-all fanatics of recent
years.
I am reminded here of a friend who swears by systematic phonics for her
daughter. Her daughter can recite numerous phonics rules and, by all measures,
can read remarkably well for her age. Of course, the little girl also lives in a
house full of books, is read to on a daily basis, and is taken weekly to the
library. Oops.
So, how would Krashen pay for all of this literacy reform? Probably raising
taxes, right? Wrong. He points out that there is already plenty of room in the
educational budget for better libraries and more books. With a more judicious
use of our technology budgets and a reduction of testing, there would be plenty
of funding to develop literacy. Notice that he didn't say, "Eliminate
testing." He is opposed not to testing, but to excessive, inappropriate
testing. Of which, as any teacher can tell you, there is now plenty.
Krashen's most fascinating work, however, is in the politically charged area of
ESL. Amidst the controversy of
A plethora of research, which Krashen is happy to cite, shows that bilingual
education is as effective, and oftentimes more effective, than immersion. And
forget the
my-grandfather-succeeded-without-bilingual-education argument. The immigrant
children who came to the
So, why don't we use more bilingual education? The ESL debate as it relates to
the ballot box, like so many political issues, is rarely about what works and
what doesn't. Frankly, most people don't understand the issue. As I told Krashen,
a frighteningly large number of people I talked to who voted for Proposition 203
thought they were voting to make English the official language of
So that is it for my meal with Stephen Krashen of the
John Scudder lives in
These letters appeared in the Arizona Republic, Northeast Valley section. One is an attack on Dr. Stephen Krashen. The others are in response to the attack including one from Dr. Stephen Krashen. These letters were posted to the AZBLE listserve of which I am a member.
The first letter is a an attack by Johanna Haver, a
self-appointed English immersion watchdog who abhors bilingual education but has
very few facts to back up her ideas so she usually results to these ad hominen
attacks to mask her lack of knowledge in the area.
The attack:
Educator flunked
July 06, 2002
John Scudder wrote about his recent encounter with Stephen Krashen (My Turn,
"A different view of reforming education," June 29). It is lucky that
Krashen found Scudder because Krashen is not very popular in his home state of
In the early '80s, when federal money for bilingual education was flowing out of
What happened is history. The Hispanic children, unlike any other immigrant
group in this country, have not progressed educationally nor economically in
more than two decades - although tens of billions of dollars have been spent
annually on bilingual education programs on their behalf.
Krashen's new cause to improve libraries has merit. Perhaps Krashen is willing
to fund this project with the millions of dollars he has made off of the
theories he espoused that haven't worked! Johanna Haver
Johanna Haver
Here are the responses
Facts show bilingual ed works in
If Johanna Haver (Letters, July 6) could muster evidence to support her
position, she wouldn't need to engage in character assassination, malicious
gossip and libelous statements about Steve Krashen.
Haver claims, for instance, that Hispanic children have not progressed
educationally due to a long history of bilingual education.
That would surprise successful Hispanic children in
>From 1919 to 1967,
In 1967,
But don't trouble Haver with the facts. She's much too busy inventing her own
and doing her best to silence highly respected and talented scholars like
Stephen Krashen by telling lies about their life and work.
Jeff MacSwan, Ph.D.
Assistant professor
College of Education
Arizona State University
______________________
In self-defense
Johanna Haver's attack on me (letters, July 6) is full of distortions.
I have never recommended that "literacy in English be put off until third
or fourth grade" in bilingual programs. In the program designs I have
worked with for limited English proficient children, English and English
literacy are introduced immediately, and subjects are taught in English as soon
as they can be made comprehensible. The first language is used in ways that
accelerate English language development.
Contrary to Haver's assertion, I have never called for the elimination of
phonics and grammar. Some phonics instruction can help make texts comprehensible
for beginning readers, and some teaching of grammar is useful for older students
as a help in editing texts and appreciating the structure of language. While
both phonics and grammar instruction have a place, they are not, however, the
central means of helping students develop language ability and literacy. This
occurs when students understand what they hear and read, when they receive
quality instruction in school and read quality texts. The evidence for this
conclusion is overwhelming.
Haver is also wrong when she claims that bilingual education has not worked. It
has: Scientifically controlled studies consistently show that children in
well-organized bilingual programs do at least as well in English as children in
all-English immersion programs, and usually do better.
There are two possible sources for Haver's errors. The first is that she has not
read my work. If this is true, it means that she willing to make claims based on
ignorance. The second is that she has read my work but has not understood it,
which means that she has serious problems in understanding language. Both are
disturbing traits for a professional educator.
Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern
California
_______________________________
Let Hispanics decide
John Scudder's June 29 opinion piece on respected researcher Stephen Krashen is
sure to draw fire from conservatives. Like proverbial wolves in sheep's
clothing, they bleat and cry about their concern for poor Hispanic children in
When poor English-only education led our children to work almost exclusively as
laborers, that was OK; it kept education and labor costs down. Now that we own
businesses, enroll in universities and vote in larger numbers, conservatives are
in a panic because we demand a say about how our children are taught.
Parents who expect their children to develop strong skills in English and
academics through quality bilingual education programs have a right to make that
choice. The concern expressed by conservatives is very touching, but they should
decide for their own children and let us decide for ours.
Banning Spanish only closes
doors
O. Ricardo Pimentel
Arizona Republic
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Let us first agree that learning English is a very good and necessary thing.
It does not follow, however, that knowing and speaking Spanish is a bad thing.
Yet this is the message that
According to a recent story, Principal Lesa Thomas asked the school's teachers
to not speak Spanish to students on the playground, in the cafeteria and in
hallways. This in a district that is 95 percent Latino.
Let's be clear. She told this to teachers, but the students were the target.
This is a tool to discourage students from using Spanish outside the classroom.
Proposition 203, which in 2000 banned bilingual education in
Let's give the benefit of the doubt to Thomas and Isaac Elementary School
District Superintendent Paul Hanley. Let's assume that their actions stem simply
from educators' desire to have students learn English.
The problem: We've already limited the tools available to teach English to
immigrant children - eliminating bilingual ed in favor of structured English
immersion. Similarly, sending the message that Spanish is bad will have the
effect of retarding English instruction.
Self-loathing is not fertile ground to plant those English seeds. There is
sometimes a thin line between encouragement and discouragement. This school has
crossed that line.
This edict, no matter how tenderly stated - or restated as simply an attempt to
get the teachers to "use good English whenever possible" - tells the
students that being themselves is just no good.
This message is in keeping with a long-held belief hereabouts that Spanish is a
disease whose only cure is English.
Hanley and Thomas also told the newspaper that the school is simply following
the spirit of the initiative that outlawed bilingual education.
Unfortunately, the initiative was decidedly mean-spirited, limiting teachers'
ability to make themselves understood by children struggling to learn English.
It removed from our educational arsenal a worthy weapon to teach English - the
goal of bilingual education.
Instead of fixing the flaws in bilingual education programs, Arizonans elected
to send a message about the primacy of English and the inferiority of the
language these children will speak on the playground, in the cafeteria, in the
hallways and at home with their parents, siblings and other relatives.
Please, let's not fool ourselves. The students will continue to speak Spanish in
these settings no matter what handcuffs the school places on its teachers.
What everyone needs to remember here is that speaking Spanish doesn't mean you
can't learn English. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Kids will learn English if schools start doing a better job of teaching it.
They're doing a miserable job.
It's more complicated than putting a reading book in front of a kid and then
listening and correcting as he or she plods torturously through it aloud in a
classroom. This classroom, by the way, is likely so overcrowded that, even with
teaching assistants, scant individual attention occurs.
But essentially telling this kid that his or her native language is unacceptable
only adds to the torture. Instead of honing Spanish skills while developing
English ones, we treat these kids as linguistic lepers.
OK, the school hasn't told the kids they can't speak Spanish outside the
classroom. It told the teachers.
No matter. The message is the same. Spanish is so unacceptable we won't even let
adults use it for as simple a purpose as effective communication on the road to
English mastery.
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jaime Molera was quoted as supporting the
school's ban and denying that this has anything to do with election opponent Tom
Horne's charge that he is soft on teaching English to immigrant children.
Horne's charge is patently false, made only in the spirit of political
opportunism.
But I'd feel much better if Molera had simply told the district the truth. Such
a ban is as shortsighted as the initiative that banned bilingual education in
the first place and unworkable to boot.
Here is another excellent column by Mr. Pimentel
Bilingual-ed
issue turns on money
O. Ricardo Pimentel
Arizona Republic
The facts don't matter a whole lot. Money and a carefully tailored message do.
The issue is bilingual education generally but, specifically, the first election
to stop the Ron Unz "English-for-the-Children" juggernaut.
Measures to ban bilingual education and replace it with one-year English
immersion have made it to the ballot in four states. Only one,
On the same day,
No, it isn't a great revelation that facts don't necessarily matter in politics.
If they did, we probably would have seen very different election results last
week.
And there's a reason why the 97.1 percent of the folks who spent more money than
their opponents in last week's congressional races ended up winning.
But there's a lesson to be learned here nonetheless on the specific issue of
bilingual education. That's because Unz, the software millionaire who has
spearheaded these initiatives, isn't likely to go away despite the
So, here's the lesson.
The facts are on the side of bilingual education. Properly resourced, this
program works. Its goal is to transition non-English speakers to English while
maintaining their competencies in core topics by teaching them in their own
language. It simply works better than English immersion, say the
language-acquisition experts.
And none of this matters.
Campaigns, unfortunately, are often not about who has the facts, but about who
has the most effective message. There's a difference.
John Britz is one of the consultants who crafted the strategy to defeat the Unz
initiative in
He tells me that the campaign researched what happened in
One conclusion, difficult for activists on this matter to fathom: You don't win
this kind of election on the facts. There won't ever be enough time in your
standard campaign to educate folks on the complexities of language acquisition.
Simplicity is on the side of "English for the children," a slogan that
is evocative, ripe in imagery and just so easy to demagogue.
OK, obviously, future campaigns need to do better jobs of unmasking Unz and his
backers, right?
Not exactly. A demonization campaign will likely turn off fence-straddlers -
folks who might feel strongly about English, by God, being the language of this
country but who also might be swayed by such issues as parental choice and basic
fairness. Base a campaign on calling Unz a racist, an outsider/interloper - or
as they did in
So, under these circumstances, what's the "right" message? Fairness?
Cost? Not entirely. Efficiency? Nope.
In
Unz promptly accused the anti-initiative folks of scare tactics and
race-baiting. (Which strikes me a lot like the pot calling the kettle black).
But truth is a defense here. Kids in English immersion are more likely to be
pushed into the mainstream before they're ready. It's why so many educators
oppose efforts to dismantle bilingual ed.
Yes, "chaos in the classroom," as the commercials were tagged,
probably wasn't intended to appeal to
But what good is a message if you can't get it out? Money is another big reason
anti-Unz folks prevailed in
In
But the English Plus coalition in
Simply, a billionaire trumps a millionaire.
Not fair? Probably. But neither have been English-for-the-Children campaigns
that relied on simplistic, coded and well-funded messages to elicit knee-jerk
reactions.
The following was written in the Taipei Times in response to needed changes in teaching English. One of the suggested changes is to respect the mother tongue.
Published on Taipei
Times
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/01/15/191091
Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003,Page 8
English teaching woes
Your editorial made several excellent points concerning English-language
education in
Firstly, the memorization problem is driven by our archaic notions about
learning, which have been carried over from the old test-centered mandarin
examination system. It really can't be effectively applied to evaluate language
skills and functional competency.
Secondly, teaching methods are also driven by testing requirements, which are by
and large a static approach to language acquisition.
Thirdly, we really need to change this teaching approach from static to dynamic.
By dynamic, I mean that we need to learn to use the language instead of studying
it solely to pass tests.
To be able to use the language we need to learn to speak the language first.
From my own teaching experience, I disagree with your view that English-language
acquisition can't be achieved through English without the aid of explanations in
another language. As a matter of fact, we all learned our mother tongue through
our mother tongue. It is the method that counts. (Using real objects in live
situations initially will resolve the problem of guesswork, as you contended.)
Yes, if our teaching methods and preoccupation with testing remain unchanged,
what would be the point of hiring foreign teachers at a high salary? It might be
a waste of time and would deplete our national treasury which is not so full at
this point in time.
Chang Yen-chung
Taoyuan,
These two editorials, one pro bilingual ed the other against, appeared in the San Jose Mercury News. I find it ironic that the anti-bilingual letter continues to bash the length of time some kids spend in bilingual ed while, at the same time, Prop. 227 has never lived up to its promise of moving kids out of Structured English Immersion in one year. And could someone please tell me what research supports English immersion? Ms. Mujica claims that there is research on the subject or maybe she is just using more political rhetoric to appear to make a point.
Examine gains in English proficiency
April 5, 2003
The news that that
California's limited English proficient (LEP) students are making big gains in
learning English (Page 1B, March 27) is a validation of the benefits of teaching
children in English rather than in their native tongue.
The role of the schools should be to provide students with the English language
skills necessary to succeed in American society. This is even more important
today given that 21.3 million people ages 5 and above who live in the United
States speak English less than very well. This includes over 6.2 million
Californians.
The more quickly LEP children learn enough English to transfer into mainstream
classes, the better off they are. For too long in California, many LEP students
were trapped in programs that taught them too little English. That is why our
group supported Proposition 227, the successful initiative to reform bilingual
education.
Despite the claims of bilingual education proponents, research has proven that
English-intensive instruction is much more effective than native language
instruction in helping LEP students learn English and succeed academically. The
recent test results are a testament to this. Hopefully, other states will take a
cue from California.
Mauro Mujica
Chairman/CEO, U.S. English
Examine gains in English proficiency
April 5, 2003
We should all be glad that students are showing progress in learning English.
Yet, the claim that it had anything to do with Proposition 227 (the
anti-bilingual education initiative) cannot be made by the evidence available.
First, only about a third of English learners were in bilingual education
before, and most of them did not have fully qualified bilingual teachers. When
we compare then to now, we are mostly comparing students who were in
English-only then to English-only now.
Second, much has changed besides Proposition 227 in the last few years, such as
high stakes testing, lower elementary grade class sizes and changes in the
training of new teachers. Maybe those are the causes.
Third, there is enormous evidence that short-term test gains often do not
translate into long-term gains, so claims of success should be taken with a
grain of salt.
Fourth, learning English is only one part of what students need to learn.
Hopefully these gains are supporting gains in academics, not being made at their
expense. Again the evidence does not tell us anything about this. Virtually all
longitudinal research comparing bilingual to English-only education shows those
who receive strong forms of bilingual education outperform those in
English-only, both in the learning of English and academically.
Nicholas Meier
Aptos
What is so ironic is that I could ask the same of the lady who wrote the letter asking for facts about bilingual education instead of testimonials. It seems that the English immersion crowd only offers testimonials instead of facts. The lady is on the right track asking for facts but she states that studies show English immersion to be superior. Which studies?
Sent to
the
Letter writer Brenda Prefling wants "facts, not anecdotes" (March 31)
when it comes to bilingual education and immersion. OK Brenda, here are the
facts: Scientific research shows that children in bilingual education programs
typically acquire more English than those in immersion, and at worst do just as
well.
The recent performance of English learners in
The vast majority of these children have been in all-English programs for longer
than one year.
Stephen Krashen
Try facts, not anecdotes
After reading the article Friday about state Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Horne enforcing the English immersion program, I am confused.
Anecdotal stories are not generally considered evidence of whether something
works or not.
Does English immersion work? Studies are pretty clear that it does. Studies show
that it is much more effective for language acquisition than bilingual
education.
Isn't that the goal? To use the most effective methods? Personal
"stories" and emotional viewpoints are not to the point and are better
for op-ed pages, not reporting.
I think most of your readership wants facts, not testimonials.
I know I do. - Brenda Prefling
Typical letter from
someone who knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about how children acquire a
second language. Check
out his last line. His
only concern seems to be how well they can pronounce the language.
What about the academics????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
English-only
works just fine
Approximately 80 years ago, my mother, later to become Ester Yard, arrived in
Bisbee fresh out of college in
Her principal assigned her a first-grade class of all Hispanic students, none of
whom could speak English. She exclaimed, "I am a German-Swede from
The principal replied, "We know that, and that is the very reason you are
to teach this class. These children will learn fast if you just teach in
English."
By the end of the school year they were all speaking English, even though they
spoke Spanish at home because their parents, in most cases, could not speak
English.
I went to
So much for the elitist attitude of some very narrow educators. - Phil Yard
Sent to Foxnews.com,
Joanne Jacobs ("Iraqi Textbooks and the English Language," April 11)
notes that in
Unnoticed is the fact that Proposition 227 promised proficiency in one year. If
Prop. 227 had kept its promise, all of these children would have reached the
proficient level this year. This didn't happen. Not even close.
It should also be pointed out that
Jacobs also notes that "Five years after the voters limited bilingual
education, the state education department hasn't analyzed the progress of
students who remain in bilingual (with parental waivers) and similar students
educated in English. " Readers may be interested in knowing that WestEd did
exactly this comparison last year and found no difference in gains in English
from grades
Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of
Jacobs' article is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83934,00.html
Denis O'Leary, LA Times
The Times interprets gains in test scores for English learners as a mark of
success because "many" children with only a "slight grasp"
of English last year are now considered proficient (editorial, April 5).
Proposition 227 was touted to be common sense, stating that students would learn
English "like sponges." Bilingual education was called a failure.
Proposition 227 was promoted in 1998 as the salvation for generations of future
students to become English-fluent in one year.
Five years after the "English for the children" law passed, only 32%
of students in the intensive English immersion program can speak in basic
English, according to the California English Language Development test. At a
higher level of expectation, the California Department of Education states that
only 7% of these students can understand a school textbook at grade level,
according to the Stanford 9 test. If Proposition 227 had kept its promise, all
of these children would have reached the proficiency level in 1999. Five years
later, the vast majority of students are being left behind. Proposition 227 has
failed.
Denis O'Leary
Education Advisor
National Far West Region
League of United Latin American Citizens,