TOPIC: Debating the Pros and Cons of Bilingualism in the United States and in our classrooms.

THEME OR ESSENTIAL QUESTION: How does language reflect and/or influence our culture? How do we make language acquisition easier to learners?

TIME REQUIRED: 45-90 minutes

SUGGESTED GRADE LEVEL(S): Grades 9 - 12

INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS: Social Studies, English, World Languages, and E.S.L.

NEW JERSEY CORE CONTENT STANDARDS: Language and Art Literacy 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and3.4. Social Studies 6.4 and 6.5, and World Languages 7.2

INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES: The students will be able to research, critically read about, and debate the topic of bilingualism in the United States and education.

STRATEGIES:

1. As a start-up activity, ask the students if they know what bilingualism is in the context of school as well as the country. (Perhaps ask the students for examples like E.S.L. classes in school and phone messages in more than one language, etc.) Also bring up the fact that this topic has become a subject for debate in the country and many states have passed legislation against bilingual education (most notably California) and organizations like English First have been founded.
2. For a 45 minute period, split the class into 4-6 groups and hand each at least one of the documents or articles below and give everyone the general article on bilingualism. Have them make a list of arguments for and against bilingualism (based on their article/documents alone) in their groups. After doing that, have the students move all the desks to the side of the room and stand up. Everyone with “pro” arguments on one side of the room and everyone with “con” arguments on the other. Taking turns for each side, have the students read off one of their arguments for or against the topic. Instruct the students that if one of their classmates says something that they agree with (even if it doesn’t entirely sway their opinion on the topic as a whole) they should change sides of the room. I find that when I, as the teacher, also change sides of the room with the students that they get more into the lesson and get very excited if they say something that made me move.
3. After all the arguments have been presented, have the students return to their seats and have a debriefing discussion: Did you end up on the opposite side of the room than you started on? What makes this topic so debatable and controversial? How do you think you would feel if you were moved to a different country tomorrow? How would you like to learn the language of that country? You may also want to discuss the controversial ad that Pat Buchanan used in the 2000 election with the person choking and unable to reach 911 because of all of the different language choices (see http://www.englishfirst.org/13166/13166buchananad101000.htm) and compare that to the October 2001 episode of E.R. that had a Latino woman die because she could not understand the English on her prescription bottle (see http://www.nbc.com/ER/episode_guide/86.html).
4. As a closing activity, have the students write their own newspaper editorial on the subject based on how they feel on the topic after debating it.
5. For two 45 minute periods or one 90 minute block, have the students investigate the topic on their own using the internet or print sources available in the school, especially if this is a hot topic in your state and there are more local articles for them to use. Use the same format for the debate and discussion.

MATERIALS: Run off copies of the articles for the group or internet access.

REFERENCES: See the articles attached.

ASSESSMENT: The follow-up discussion and newspaper editorial.

The Bilingual Education Debate: Part I

Thirty years after its introduction, bilingual education is still generating controversy. In a move designed to blunt an anti-bilingual education measure on California's June ballot, the Sacramento Bee reports that a San Jose lawmaker has drafted a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar the state from dictating uniform methods of teaching.

Assemblyman Mike Honda (D) introduced the measure -- referred to as the "School Board Bill of Rights" -- which would guarantee "local control" when it comes to deciding on the most effective teaching methods. The proposal is a response to a June primary initiative spearheaded by businessman Ron Unz. Unz's measure, the Bee reports, would largely replace bilingual education in California public schools with an "English immersion" program for limited English proficient students.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION SPARKS CONTROVERSY

In recent years, bilingual education has sparked as much controversy as any other education issue. Most educators and parents agree that the main goals in educating students with a native language other than English are mastery of English and of content in academic areas. But a heated academic and political battle rages over how best to reach those goals and how important it is to preserve the students' original language in the process.

Teachers use several methods to instruct students whose English is limited -- including immersion, transitional bilingual education, and developmental, or maintenance, bilingual education.

• In immersion, students learn in English. Teachers generally use simple language that is tailored to let students absorb English while learning academic subjects.
• Transitional bilingual education offers students some instruction in their native language while simultaneously providing concentrated English-language instruction. At least in theory, students make a transition from transitional bilingual programs to mainstream English programs within a few years.
• Developmental bilingual education attempts to build on students' skills in their native language as they learn English as a second language.

THE ROOTS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Special services for limited-English-speaking students were few and limited until the 1970s. At that point, language-minority speakers and their advocates were arguing for bilingual education as a civil right. They argued that students were being deprived of an education if they were taught in a language they didn't understand. The push for bilingual education blossomed as a fight for students' overall rights. Bilingual programs were seen as fostering respect for the non-native English-speaking students' culture. As one of the organizations backing bilingual education, for example, the New York State Association for Bilingual Education maintains it is important to foster "the awareness and appreciation of biculturalism and bilingualism as an integral part of cultural pluralism in our society."

In 1968 Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act to provide for the growing number of linguistically diverse students who, because of their limited English proficiency, were not getting an education equal to that of their English-proficient peers. The Bilingual Education Act revisions of 1974 recast provisions of the 1968 legislation. The 1974 law created the National Advisory Council on Bilingual Education to articulate a plan for a national policy in bilingual education.

In the language of the federal law: "Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students."

According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, "the role of bilingual education is grounded in two knowledge-based principles:

• All children are capable of engaging in complex thinking tasks.
• Developing and maintaining the [student's] native language in no way interferes with English language acquisition. On the contrary, research over the last decade in bilingual classrooms with established models of instructional excellence indicates that utilization of and facility in the primary language enhances the acquisition of a second language."

GROWING OPPOSITION

Yet in the past few years, some language-minority speakers -- even some Hispanic parents who have historically been strong advocates for bilingual education -- have expressed doubts about the success of bilingual programs. A focus on students' civil rights and cultural integrity is, in some cases, giving way to concern that some non-native English speakers are acquiring insufficient mastery of the English language. But critics of bilingual education often speak from very different points of view. Organizations such as English First seek to make English the U.S. official language and to "eliminate costly and ineffective multilingual policies." The politically charged issue of whether to mandate an official U.S. language clouds the academic questions surrounding bilingual programs.

Focusing on academic issues are the less strident but still determined critics who say many non-native English speakers are graduating from school systems with poor reading skills in both English and their native language. They cite low test scores to support their argument.

Backers of bilingual programs defend them by arguing that becoming proficient in any second language takes longer than one or two years. They also point to the shortage of well-qualified, fully bilingual teachers. The problem with bilingual programs, they say, often lies in the teaching, not the curriculum. They acknowledge programs could be improved by the hiring more teachers who are fully qualified. Students should not, they admit, remain in special bilingual programs longer than really necessary.

In the process of debate over bilingual programs, hot-button, politicized issues often push academic concerns into the background. Part II of this article looks at specific movements for and against bilingual programs in school systems and how states and communities have, or have not, managed to resolve them.

To be continued next week...

Article by Sharon Cromwell
Education World
Copyright © 1998 Education World

Related Resources

• Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups by Stephen Ternstrom, Ann Orlar, and Oscar Hanlin (Harvard University Press, 1980). An excellent reference that provides background information on various ethnic groups.
• Multicultural Teaching: A Handbook of Activities, Information, and Resources, 3rd edition, by Pamela L. Tiedt and Iris M. Tiedt (Allyn and Bacon, 1990). Includes lesson ideas for all academic areas and nationalities as well as more than 50 references to other books and materials.
• Multicultural Gamebook by Louise Orlando (Scholastic Professional Books, 1993). Games from 30 different countries are featured in this book. Educators can use it to enable students to appreciate various cultures.
• Experiences with Literature: Thematic Whole Language Model for the (K-3) Bilingual Classroom by Sandra Nevares, Raquel C. Mireles, and Norma Ramirez (Addison-Wesley, 1990). Reading activities for the Hispanic bilingual classroom make this an excellent resource.

Related Sites

• Bilingual Education Network (BiEn) BiEn focuses on the effective use of programs and funds to strengthen services to linguistically and culturally diverse students. A list of resources is included. BiEn is a section of the California Department of Education Web site.
• Bilingual Education Resources on the Internet This site provides links to bilingual education resources, including government services, journals, schools, and projects online, etc.
• Primary Education (K-3) Resources for Bilingual Educators This Web site contains many links to online activities for bilingual elementary students.
• National Clearinghouse on Bilingual Education (NCBE) A clearinghouse of information on educating linguistically and culturally diverse populations. The information includes searchable databases and full-length articles.
• English for the Children This site focuses on support for teaching English only in schools and effectively ending bilingual education.
• KidPub Bilingual students can have their writing published on the World Wide Web by submitting their works to this site.
• Bilinguatec-Bilingual Publishing Information is provided on where to find magazines, books, and other works written in a completely bilingual format, and on the cost of the items.

01/19/1998

English Goes Long Way to Students Learning It

The district has more 1,000 students who don't speak English as their first language, said Michael Vanhouten, coordinator of the elementary English for Speakers of Other Languages program.

Colleen Wixon
Vero Beach Press Journal
Sunday, October 7, 2001

Sofia Martinez has been learning more than just third-grade math and writing in the past seven weeks. She also has been learning to converse with her teacher and classmates.

Having moved to Fellsmere this summer from Mexico, Sofia can chatter away in Spanish. And since enrolling at Fellsmere Elementary, she's been learning English as well.

She's starting with the basics, said Emilia Jacobs, an English for Speakers of Other Languages teaching assistant. She can say "hello" and ask her teacher to use the restroom. She also can count to 100 in English, knows her colors, the days of the week and is working on learning the months, Jacobs said.

Sofia is learning English by a method called immersion; students who don't speak English are placed in a regular classroom and pick up English along the way.

"She's doing fine," said her teacher, Nicole Benson. "I try to 'buddy' her with someone who can translate."

Students such as Sofia who don't speak English also get help from a teaching assistant such as Jacobs. Jacobs works with a group of third-graders in reading and writing at the same time other third-graders also are learning those subjects. The non-English speaking children are grouped together with Jacobs while the regular classroom teacher works with the rest of the class on writing. They learn the same lesson, just with some extra assistance.

For reading, Jacobs usually takes her group of about six students to another room where it's less noisy and she can give them more individualized attention.

The rest of the day, the students are back with their regular classrooms. But the teaching assistant may go into their classrooms to give them help in reading math problems or other areas.

All teaching assistants for non-English speaking students are bilingual in Spanish, the No. 1 language spoken by non-English speaking students who come to the district, said Michael VanHouten, coordinator of the elementary English for Speakers of Other Languages program. The district has more than 1,000 students who don't speak English as their first language, he said. More than 27 different languages are spoken in the district, so often teachers hired to help non-English speaking students can't converse with students in their native tongue, he said.

For every 15 students in a school who speak the same language, a teaching assistant for non-English speaking students is assigned.

VanHouten said immersion is the best way to teach a child English.

"Through immersion, it's phenomenal at how they learn the language," he said.

Students learn by following the example of their classmates, he said. For example, if the teacher tells the class to take out their math books, the non-English speaking student will follow suit.

"Modeling is a big key," he said. Some students learn to communicate by drawing pictures if they don't understand printed words. Hands-on activities and working with peer tutoring groups also helps them, he said.

"Students are like books on a shelf. All we have to do is open them up," he said. Classmates help the non-English speaking student as well, he said.

Jacobs came to this area at the age of 7 from Cuba and learned English through immersion.

"I know how they feel," she said. Jacobs said she learned to speak the language within a year, but her classmates always seemed to be ahead of her academically.

"It took me years to catch up to the other students," she said.

Children pick up the language, she said.

"Some students catch on in a few months. Others don't start speaking in sentences until the end of the year," she said. Some students may be able to read very well, but not completely understand the words, she said.

Non-English speaking elementary students used to be sent to schools that offered comprehensive instruction in teaching children to speak English. In Indian River County, students attended either Highlands or Fellsmere elementary schools, considered "centers" for non-English speakers. But in 1990, a group of non-English speaking parents sued the state, saying their children were being discriminated against and bused only because of a language issue. The centers were phased out, VanHouten said.

"Now students go to the school that's in their neighborhood," he said. Every school has a program for non-English speaking children, he said.

In 1994, more than 2.1 million public school students - about 5 percent of all public school children - were considered to be limited in English, according to information found on the National Center for Education Web site. A report on the U.S. Department of Education Web site showed that by 2000, that figure was expected to grow to 3.4 million children.

About 76 percent of public schools with children who had limited English proficiency had programs in which non-English students are grouped together and given special instruction in English, while 36 percent had bilingual education programs, in which students are taught in their native language and English, the National Center for Education Web site said.

About one-third of schools with children who had limited English proficiency had both type of programs, while 13 percent of the schools with these students had no such program. About 42 percent of all public school teachers have at least one student with limited English proficiency, the web site said.

The Fountain Valley School District in California designed a program in 1986 that provided a more structured version of immersion, said Marcia Brechtel, director of training for Project GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design). Classroom teachers are specifically trained in how to teach students with limited English proficiency, she said. Student tutors also are used, she said.

The program helps students learn the language at a more rapid rate, she said.

"It works," she said. Students learn English within two or three years, she said.

The California school district previously used a system in which the students were placed in a regular classroom and were pulled out every so often for English instruction.

"These kids were receiving this five minutes here, five minutes there," Brechtel said. "It wasn't working."

In Indian River County, students have to be tested first so that teachers can gauge their English-speaking abilities, VanHouten said. They can stay in the program for three years, he said. At the end of the program, the student is tested again and tracked for two more years, he said.

Kindergarten students usually fare better than other students, he said. That's because their peers, even those who speak English, also are learning basic skills, such as letters and numbers.

"What they're learning is no different from what others are learning," VanHouten said.

But older students learn quickly as well, he said.

"It's pretty amazing what they pick up on a social level," he said.

Usually within a couple of years, a student can become socially fluent, which means they can speak the language. Academically, meaning writing and reading, may take a few more years before a student becomes fluent.

First-Graders' Scores Surge in Reading Test

Education: Supt. Roy Romer credits the year-old Open Court program for raising results to the 56th percentile nationally.

Richard Lee Colvin
Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, October 10, 2001

Good things, they say, come in small packages.

So it is perhaps fitting that it is Los Angeles first-graders who are providing some of the best news the Los Angeles Unified School District has received in some time.

The district reported Tuesday that its first-graders are for the first time performing above average in reading and spelling, scoring in the 56th percentile nationally. That figure represents an improvement of 21 percentile points from two years earlier in reading and 18 points in spelling. Supt. Roy Romer and his aides are confident those gains prove that the district's year-old Open Court reading program, with its structured lessons bolstered by teacher training, is paying off.

"The proof is in the pudding and this is the first taste of the pudding," said an ecstatic Romer. "To pull this district above the national average in that short of time is remarkable."

The good news could not have come at a better time. Ten of the district's schools are being investigated by state teams for their failure to make academic gains. And the district is stepping up its oversight of 14 other schools that the state has warned may be investigated next year.

Most of those schools are high schools or middle schools, which Romer and several aides said are more difficult to reform than elementary campuses. Only one in five of the district's ninth-graders passed the first round of the state's high school exit exam--demonstrating the district's failings over the last decade.

But Romer said the new scores indicate the district is turning a corner. He pointed out that all ethnic groups helped fuel the first-grade gains.

More than 60% of the district's first-graders are still learning to speak English, but even their rank in reading rose from the 33rd percentile nationally to the 48th percentile in one year.

Those students have been taught mostly in English because of Proposition 227, the 1998 measure that ended bilingual education. Romer declined to speculate on the impact of that change on students' scores.

The reading scores for African American students also rose sharply, from the 45th percentile to the 55th percentile. Scores for white and Asian students rose significantly as well, by 9 and 8 points respectively.

Most of the district's elementary schools adopted the Open Court reading program for kindergarten and grades 1 and 2 a year ago. The district invested in an intensive teacher-training program and also hired 300 coaches to help teachers monitor their lessons and their students' progress.

This year the district intensified its reading improvement effort by extending Open Court through fifth grade, adding an additional 275 coaches and installing the computer-based Waterford reading program to provide students with individualized phonics lessons.

Not all teachers like the Open Court system, which they say is too prescriptive and limiting. But Romer said the new results show the approach works.

"We can now go to everyone in the elementary grades and say 'We can do this all across the board.' "

Dist. 54 second-language instruction not needed so early

Greg & Judi Mirochna
Chicago Daily Herald
Wednesday, November 7, 2001

As parents of fourth- and sixth-graders at Enders-Salk Elementary School, we were already greatly concerned about Spanish as a Second Language being added to our curriculum, and shared our concerns with our principal last June. Reluctantly, and under protest, we agreed to allow our children to participate, having no viable alternatives. Recent Daily Herald headlines stating, "State math scores better, but reading, writing slip" (Sept. 5); and, "Students' test results disappointing" (Sept. 7), have only enhanced our concern and strengthened our disapproval, and prompts us to share our concerns and opinions publicly with our community and governing bodies.

We agree a second language can be valuable to a student's future employment in certain business sectors, although the opportunity to acquire this in junior high, high school and college is soon enough.

If this were offered as an extra-curricular option, or as a curriculum enhancement for those students already exceeding state standards, we would certainly welcome it. Our main concern is the 90 minutes per week it will take out of the existing curriculum.

Although this point was addressed by district personnel during an information session at our school, we are not convinced that it's wise to take even a small portion of the "language block" of time now spent learning English grammar, writing and communication skills in order to implement SSL, which is conversational - not grammatical, and not graded.

A strong knowledge of the English language is much more crucial to a child's future success in the business world than the acquisition of a second language. Equally, improved math and science knowledge would be more beneficial than a second language, as well. If we can truly spare 90 minutes a week, perhaps our students would be better served with increased time in those two subjects instead.

Yes, the rest of the industrialized world teaches elementary school students a second language, so our government says we should, too, and is handing out hefty grants for it. But the second language being taught in the rest of the world is most often English. Likewise, the predominant language of global business is English.

As for the social aspects touted by our district, the children would enjoy the variety this adds to their day, and would appreciate being able to communicate with the growing Hispanic population of their school. We see where this could have a positive social impact, but are more than a little concerned that "social" was the No. 1 reason listed on the district's presentation.

Citizens learning a foreign language in order to enhance the social atmosphere in elementary schools, at the expense of other, more important elementary curriculum, shouldn't be a necessity. We blame this necessity on our government, for devising yet another way to accommodate immigrants by further eliminating the need to acquire the common language of our country.

It's difficult to know which "education experts" to believe when it comes to language acquisition. Our state mandates that limited English-proficient, native-Spanish students have to be in a self- contained, transitional bilingual education program (instead of English immersion), because they have to be literate in their native language before we can expect them to acquire a second language.

Then we implement dual-language and SSL, where native-English students will be immersed in a second language starting in kindergarten, and we're told the best way to acquire a second language is through immersion; we are also told that young children can acquire a second language more readily.

Aren't these direct contradictions? Which is factual? I suppose it depends on what idea you're trying to support (or sell) or which grant you have available to spend. It seems Californians figured out that bilingual education was teaching their children just enough to work at McDonalds. Now that it's been abolished, test scores are improving in leaps and bounds, and many states are considering similar plans (not Illinois).

Yet our federal government recently quadrupled the budget for bilingual education. Our district, and our government, is only "immersed" in one thing: smokescreens, double-speak, and confusion. No surprise here.

Many changes have occurred at our children's school over the last several years, without parent community input or awareness, such as the decisions to make our school a bilingual "center," and to implement a dual language program. At the time, we didn't concern ourselves with it too much; it didn't directly affect our kids.

In hindsight, we now realize there was a direct effect - in the subtle shift in our administrations' focus and priorities, changing staff, etc. If we'd seen the writing on the wall, we could have made choices then that are not feasible now. This time we were notified, even given the opportunity to choose, which we are grateful for.

We believe our principal made an honest attempt to get community consensus this time, yet it missed the mark. Notices to parents were misleading, and insinuated overwhelming support to implement the SSL program. Was this intentional? Probably not, but in a school with frequent evidence of parental apathy toward written communiques, be it a flyer, PTA newsletter, or other announcement, no response does not necessarily equate to a show of support.

Notices about the SSL program could have been more concise and straightforward, yet they were written in a way that probably caused many recipients to merely scan them or not read past the first paragraph. And why was our "new educational program" not mentioned in the Daily Herald article about new programs in District 54 schools? (Aug. 31)

We believe if more parents had understood, and openly shared their concerns, we would now have more viable educational options available for our children. District 54 loves to brag about the choices available to its students. Last spring we thought we would have a choice, too. But we didn't, not really, and only found out the week before school started.

It's too late now to attempt to ask our district and school team to reconsider how this will be implemented, or to make sure parents were truly aware; the lessons start Sept. 17.

A final note to our district administrators: Next time the "opportunity" for a new program is available to "enhance" the education of our students, give it to the school with a majority of students who already exceed our state's standards. Only then is it truly an enhancement.

Stating the case on bilingual education

Two sides argue merits and failings of ballot initiative

Eun Lee Koh
Boston Globe
Monday, November 5, 2001

In a school district that educators have hailed as a successful model of bilingual education, the debate over a state ballot initiative to end such programs was brought into sharp focus last night as representatives of both sides presented their cases to residents and educators in a heated discussion at a Democratic Town Committee meeting.

Lincoln Tamayo, a former Chelsea High School principal who argued in favor of the initiative, and state Representative Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat who argued in favor of bilingual education, both acknowledged that the face of bilingual education in Framingham would change if the initiative on the November 2002 ballot passes, but disagreed over how and by how much.

The ballot initiative, sponsored by California entrepreneur Ron Unz, would require school districts to place students who don't speak English into one-year immersion programs, instead of bilingual education programs that are taught in both the students' native language and English.

Unz, who has argued that bilingual programs have been a colossal failure, has gathered enough signatures in Massachusetts for his measure to be on the November 2002 ballot.

"Framingham is a state model, if not a national model, for bilingual education," Barrios said. "This ini tiative would do a huge disservice to the kids, not only in Framingham but all over the state, if something like this passes."

Tamayo, citing his own experience immigrating to the United States from Cuba as a child, said one-year immersion programs can be successful.

"I have no doubt in my mind that even kids in Framingham will succeed after just one year of immersion," he said.

Although the debate over the merits of bilingual education is taking place all over the state, the issue is of particular importance to a town like Framingham, where nearly a third of the 8,739 students speak a first language other than English, and about 1,500 of them participate in some variety of bilingual education, which includes an English immersion program.

Barrios and various local educators argued that the current bilingual education program, as it exists in Framingham, would not be allowed to exsist if the new initiative passes. On average, students who have been through the district's bilingual program perform just as well as native English speakers on standardized exams.

Barrios argued that the reason why the town's model has been so successful is that it offers a variety of different programs, instead of just the one-year English immersion programs.

"Kids don't come in one shape and size," Barrios said. "Kids of different ages learn languages differently. Children who come from countries with different levels of English and different subject-area knowledge are going to be able to learn English at different rates."

Tamayo, the in-state leader of the initiative sponsored by Unz, argued that the proposed law is not "one size fits all" as described by opponents.

"The whole notion of one size fits all is misguided one," Tamayo said. "This program does have room for choice. If a child needs more help than one year to adjust, then the child can have it."

Under the Unz initiative, parents who wished to enroll their children in another year of immersion classes would be able to apply for a waiver, and school districts would be allowed to provide other support structures, such as native language tutors.

Tamayo also argued that Framingham's Two-Way program, where native Spanish speakers and native English speakers are taught in both languages from kindergarten to 12th grade, could still exist under the Unz initiative.

The current state transitional bilingual education law mandates that schools create bilingual classes if at least 20 students speak a similar native language. Tamayo argued that in communities like Quincy or Randolph, where there are not enough students to trigger a bilingual education class, those students are left behind, but that under the Unz initiative, the students would receive one year of English education.

Diverse Population Fuels Need for Good Bilingual Education

Karen Hayes
Boston Globe
Sunday, October 7, 2001, Front Page

When Johnny Liang came to Randolph High School from China in 1998, he spoke virtually no English. He was put into bilingual classes, where he studied typical high school subjects in his native Chinese, while learning English at the same time. Today, Liang is excelling in all so-called mainstream classes - those taught by English-speaking teachers to English-speaking students.

"I totally understand my teachers," said Liang, now an 18-year-old senior.

In Randolph schools, where 16 percent of the student population speaks a language other than English - 51 languages among them - at home, Liang is a bilingual-education success story. But Massachusetts' bilingual education system could become a thing of the past if Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz has his way. Unz wants to scrap the current system, which allows students to take classes in their native languages for up to three years while studying English, and replace it with one year of English immersion before students join regular classes. That could mean big changes in Randolph schools, unique among south suburban schools for their diversity.

"If you look at the contiguous towns to Randolph, you would find it's not even close as far as the demographics go," said Superintendent Arthur Melia. "Randolph is a pocket of multiculturalism."

Last year's enrollment by race listed 42 percent of the student population as white, 36 percent black, 12 percent Asian, 8 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent American Indian, he said.

A total of 402 students, or about 10 percent of Randolph's 4,200 student population, was enrolled in either bilingual or English as a Second Language classes last year. A total of 235 students spoke Haitian-Creole as their primary language and 136 spoke Chinese. Of those students, 42 took bilingual classes taught in Haitian-Creole, while 37 took classes taught in Chinese.

Another 323 students were enrolled in ESL classes, taught in English to students whose native languages range from Spanish and Vietnamese to Twi and Tagalog.

According to state law, public schools must provide classes taught in a student's native language if the system has 20 or more of those students who cannot pass a basic English proficiency test. That is why Randolph offers Haitian and Chinese bilingual education. Randolph schools also ran a Vietnamese program two years ago, but dropped it after student enrollment dipped below 20, Melia said. Now, many of those students are in ESL classes. Some are in regular classes, but get extra support from ESL staff.

Although agreeing that improvements could be made, Randolph bilingual and ESL teachers said they do not support a complete overhaul of the system, and questioned whether a year of English immersion was the answer.

"There is always room for improvement. But I think some students come to us without any literacy in their own culture," said Othnel Pierre, Haitian community liaison and teacher.

"If you take those students and bring them here without any bridge, then they will be lost. They are well protected here."

But Melia, who has been superintendent for the past six of his 29 years in Randolph schools, sees merit in Unz's ballot initiative, which has passed overwhelmingly in California and Arizona. In Massachusetts, 57,000 signatures are needed for the initative to be on next November's ballot.

"The bilingual law as it is now is severely flawed," he said. "The faster the kids learn English, the better they perform overall."

ESL specialist Rachel Zalocha, who has taught in four Massachusetts school systems, said some districts, including Randolph, are better than others at teaching non-English-speaking students. The successful schools offer plenty of support and work to integrate the students into the general school community.

Along with language skills, Randolph schools try to help students from other countries handle traumas from their past, such as that experienced by one student who witnessed civil war in his native Sierra Leone, they said. Last year, a trauma specialist was brought in to advise staff.

Flor Lopez, a 19-year-old senior who entered Randolph High from her native Peru last year, said she has picked up a lot of English, but needs more.

"I understand some words, but not all," she said. "With some teachers, I can't understand anything they say."

Restricting bilingual education a public policy failure

Proposition 227 is a policy failure

Jill Kerper Mora
San Diego Union-Tribune
Wednesday, August 29, 2001

Three years ago, in the June 1998 primary election, 61 percent of the California electorate approved Proposition 227, a ballot initiative intended to restrict bilingual education in the public schools and replace it with English immersion.

An exit poll conducted by CNN/Los Angeles Times estimated that 63 percent of Latino voters opposed the initiative. School districts are required under federal law to provide special language instruction services for students with limited English proficiency so they can learn English and also recoup academic deficits they may incur while learning the language. Proposition 227 did not alter federal law requirements stemming from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for public schools to take "appropriate action" to overcome language minority students' barriers to equal access to the curriculum due to lack of English proficiency.

Proposition 227 went into force beginning with the 1998-1999 school year. The law regulates education for 1.4 million students who are classified as limited English proficient, termed English language learners (ELLs). ELLs comprise 25 percent of California's total student population. Eighty-two percent of these students are native Spanish speakers.

We are now in the third year of implementation of Proposition 227. A number of editorials and commentaries have been published recently proclaiming Proposition 227 and English immersion a resounding success. However, the public is largely unaware that many university researchers, educators, parents and community leaders do not agree with these editorial opinions regarding Proposition 227's impact. In fact, educators and professional organizations with expertise in programs for educating language minority students have declared Proposition 227 a public policy failure.

Proposition 227's objective was to end the practice of using languages other than English, predominantly Spanish, as a medium of instruction in public schools. Proponents claimed that bilingual education was retarding students' English language learning and therefore causing academic failure and increased school dropout rates, especially among Latinos.

The media rarely informed the public that respectable, controlled scientific studies consistently show that well-implemented bilingual programs are effective. Accounts of bilingual education's successes appeared infrequently in the media, which focused on the politics of educating immigrant students as a "wedge issue" in the primary election campaign. Proposition 227's impact on local control and decision-making power of Latino parents in choosing how best to educate their children was lost amid strong jingoistic rhetoric about the importance of English and assimilation of immigrants into mainstream American culture.

In truth, bilingual education was never the problem, so eliminating it as a means of educating our growing language minority population has not led to a solution. Most analyses of the bilingual education controversy in the media fail to point out the fact that only 15 percent of all Latino students were ever enrolled in a bilingual program. Yet, voters were led to believe that dismantling bilingual programs would be the solution to the educational problems facing Latino youth.

In a comprehensive study of the SAT-9 test results, Professor Kenji Hakuta and his colleagues at Stanford University found that reports attributing score increases to implementation of Proposition 227 by politicians and the press are baseless and that it is "misleading" to use SAT-9 data to evaluate the impact of the law. Only 18 percent of the ELLs in California schools moved from bilingual classrooms into English immersion following passage of Proposition 227. However, SAT-9 scores increased at the same rate for all students, including those in bilingual programs and those who never had bilingual education. Hakuta found several school reform factors that could account for test score improvements for all California's students, as were evidenced in the overall test results.

Proposition 227 has made bilingual education a scapegoat for fears about immigration and society's ambivalence about our growing cultural diversity. It is disingenuous and irresponsible to declare the anti-bilingual education policy a success based on inadequate assessment and misleading information. We must consider factual evidence and expert opinions in evaluating its broader educational and societal consequences.

Policy-makers, together with educators, parents and community leaders, must reassess the impact of Proposition 227 and garner the courage to repudiate a law that limits the educational opportunities of thousands of our most disadvantaged students in our public schools.

Mora is associate professor of teacher education at San Diego State University.

ERIC® Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools

Why Bilingual Education?

by Stephen Krashen
Temporary Clearinghouse Accession Number RC 020 895 (ED number pending)

Bilingual education continues to receive criticism in the national media. This Digest examines some of the criticism, and its effect on public opinion, which often is based on misconceptions about bilingual education's goals and practice. The Digest explains the rationale underlying good bilingual education programs and summarizes research findings about their effectiveness.

When schools provide children quality education in their primary language, they give them two things: knowledge and literacy. The knowledge that children get through their first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read by reading that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994) it is easier to learn to read in a language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general.

The combination of first language subject matter teaching and literacy development that characterizes good bilingual programs indirectly but powerfully aids students as they strive for a third factor essential to their success: English proficiency. Of course, we also want to teach in English directly, via high quality English-as-a-second language (ESL) classes, and through sheltered subject matter teaching, where intermediate-level English language acquirers learn subject matter taught in English.

The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream. In advanced levels, the only subjects done in the first language are those demanding the most abstract use of language (social studies and language arts). Once full mainstreaming is complete, advanced first language development is available as an option. Gradual exit plans, such as these, avoid problems associated with exiting children too early (before the English they encounter is comprehensible) and provide instruction in the first language where it is most needed. These plans also allow children to have the advantages of advanced first language development.

Success Without Bilingual Education?

A common argument against bilingual education is the observation that many people have succeeded without it. This has certainly happened. In these cases, however, the successful person got plenty of comprehensible input in the second language, and in many cases had a de facto bilingual education program. For example, Rodriguez (1982) and de la Peña (1991) are often cited as counter-evidence to bilingual education.

Rodriguez (1982) tells us that he succeeded in school without a special program and acquired a very high level of English literacy. He had two crucial advantages, however, that most limited-English-proficient (LEP) children do not have. First, he grew up in an English-speaking neighborhood in Sacramento, California, and thus got a great deal of informal comprehensible input from classmates. Many LEP children today encounter English only at school; they live in neighborhoods where Spanish prevails. In addition, Rodriguez became a voracious reader, which helped him acquire academic language. Most LEP children have little access to books.

De la Peña (1991) reports that he came to the United States at age nine with no English competence and claims that he succeeded without bilingual education. He reports that he acquired English rapidly, and "by the end of my first school year, I was among the top students." De la Peña, however, had the advantages of bilingual education: In Mexico, he was in the fifth grade, and was thus literate in Spanish and knew subject matter. In addition, when he started school in the United States he was put back two grades. His superior knowledge of subject matter helped make the English input he heard more comprehensible.

Children who arrive with a good education in their primary language have already gained two of the three objectives of a good bilingual education program literacy and subject matter knowledge. Their success is good evidence for bilingual education.

What About Languages Other Than Spanish?

Porter (1990) states that "even if there were a demonstrable advantage for Spanish-speakers learning to read first in their home language, it does not follow that the same holds true for speakers of languages that do not use the Roman alphabet" (p. 65). But it does. The ability to read transfers across languages, even when the writing systems are different.

There is evidence that reading ability transfers from Chinese to English (Hoover, 1982), from Vietnamese to English (Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, Green, & Tran, 1984), from Japanese to English (Cummins et al.), and from Turkish to Dutch (Verhoeven, 1991). In other words, those who read well in one language, read well in the second language (as long as length of residence in the country is taken into account because of the first language loss that is common).

Bilingual Education And Public Opinion

Opponents of bilingual education tell us that the public is against bilingual education. This impression is a result of the way the question is asked. One can easily get a near-100-percent rejection of bilingual education when the question is biased. Porter (1990), for example, states that "Many parents are not committed to having the schools maintain the mother tongue if it is at the expense of gaining a sound education and the English-language skills needed for obtaining jobs or pursuing higher education" (p. 8). Who would support mother tongue education at such a price?

However, when respondents are simply asked whether or not they support bilingual education, the degree of support is quite strong: From 60-99 percent of samples of parents and teachers say they support bilingual education (Krashen, 1996). In a series of studies, Shin (Shin, 1994; Shin & Gribbons, 1996) examined attitudes toward the principles underlying bilingual education. Shin found that many respondents agree with the idea that the first language can be helpful in providing background knowledge, most agree that literacy transfers across languages, and most support the principles underlying continuing bilingual education (economic and cognitive advantages).

The number of people opposed to bilingual education is probably even less than these results suggest; many people who say they are opposed to bilingual education are actually opposed to certain practices (e.g., inappropriate placement of children) or are opposed to regulations connected to bilingual education (e.g., forcing teachers to acquire another language to keep their jobs).

Despite what is presented to the public in the national media, research has revealed much support for bilingual education. McQuillan and Tse (in press) reviewed publications appearing between 1984 and 1994, and reported that 87 percent of academic publications supported bilingual education, but newspaper and magazine opinion articles tended to be antibilingual education, with only 45 percent supporting bilingual education. One wonders what public support would look like if bilingual education were more clearly defined in such articles and editorials.

The Research Debate

It is sometimes claimed that research does not support the efficacy of bilingual education. Its harshest critics, however (e.g., Rossell & Baker, 1996), do not claim that bilingual education does not work; instead, they claim there is little evidence that it is superior to all-English programs. Nevertheless, the evidence used against bilingual education is not convincing. One major problem is in labeling. Several critics, for example, have claimed that English immersion programs in El Paso and McAllen, Texas, were shown to be superior to bilingual education. In each case, however, programs labeled immersion were really bilingual education, with a substantial part of the day taught in the primary language. In another study, Gersten (1985) claimed that all-English immersion was better than bilingual education. However, the sample size was small and the duration of the study was short; also, no description of "bilingual education" was provided. For a detailed discussion, see Krashen (1996).

On the other hand, a vast number of other studies have shown that bilingual education is effective, with children in well-designed programs acquiring academic English at least as well and often better than children in all-English programs (Cummins, 1989; Krashen, 1996; Willig, 1985). Willig concluded that the better the experimental design of the study, the more positive were the effects of bilingual education.

Improving Bilingual Education

Bilingual education has done well, but it can do much better. The biggest problem, in this author's view, is the absence of books in both the first and second languages in the lives of students in these programs. Free voluntary reading can help all components of bilingual education: It can be a source of comprehensible input in English or a means for developing knowledge and literacy through the first language, and for continuing first language development.

Limited-English-proficient Spanish-speaking children have little access to books at home (about 22 books per home for the entire family according to Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991) or at school (an average of one book in Spanish per Spanish-speaking child in some school libraries in schools with bilingual programs, according to Pucci, 1994). A book flood in both languages is clearly called for. Good bilingual programs have brought students to the 50th percentile on standardized tests of English reading by grade five (Burnham-Massey & Pina, 1990). But with a good supply of books in both first and second languages, students can go far beyond the 50th percentile. It is possible that we might then have the Lake Wobegon effect, where all of the children are above average, and we can finally do away with the tests (and put the money saved to much better use).

Clinton's Tower of Babble

Lawyers will litigate; taxpayers will tremble.

By Jim Boulet, Jr. Executive Director English First

Most of us are no longer surprised when we telephone a government agency and get a recording which begins, "To proceed in English, press 1." Get ready for a lot more of this sort of thing and hold onto your wallet. The Clinton-Gore administration has just declared the United States government officially multilingual.

While Bill Clinton was flying to Los Angeles for the Democratic convention on Friday, August 11, he took a moment to sign Executive Order 13166.

It is now this nation's legal duty to make sure you still get your welfare checks, food stamps and all other government benefits should you choose not to trouble yourself to learn the American tongue.

While there is plenty of this sort of thing going on already, Executive Order 13166 breaks considerable new legal ground. The theory underlying this sweeping new policy is that to provide services solely in English could "discriminate on the basis of national origin."

The Clinton Executive Order 13166, as interpreted by the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice, requires every recipient of federal funds, including "a federally assisted zoo or theater…to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access" by Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals.

What might these reasonable steps consist of? Walter Olson's book on employment-discrimination law, The Excuse Factory, reported that one activist from Yale has actually suggested that America must accommodate "difference of speech" by "forcing employers to hire supervisors familiar with the languages their workers wish to speak in and banning the practice of preferring workers with readily understood accents."

The track record of the civil-rights industry and its allies in government suggests more good reason for concern. The Americans with Disabilities Act has provoked litigation over alcoholic airline pilots and half-blind truck drivers. A Rand Corporation study found that an employer can expect to spend $12,000 or more defending against these frivolous lawsuits.

Concerns about the potential costs of compliance with Executive Order 13166 have already proven themselves to be amply justified. Those incorrigible optimists who think translating a few documents into Spanish or Chinese will make the government happy should take note. According to the new Justice Department guidelines, if English speakers can talk to a clerk in the office, persons who speak any other language must have the same opportunity:

The Clinton-Gore Administration has magnanimously allowed the subject of cost to be raised as a defense. However, "claims of limited resources from large entities will need to be well-substantiated." In other words, good luck. Cost, even extravagant cost, has seldom proved a defense in civil-rights cases.

The impact and cost of these new rules will not just fall on places one tends to think of as immigration centers since "programs that serve a few or even one LEP person are still subject to the . . . obligation" (emphasis added). Imagine the impact on your local government (and on your local tax bill) of designing services and policies for each of the 300+ languages spoken in our land.

Given the Clinton-Gore administration's proclivity for Constitution-bending, Executive Order 13166 may seem like relatively small potatoes. But Executive Order 13166 has enshrined into law the most radical interpretation of linguistic entitlement in American history.

According to America's recess-appointed civil-rights czar, Bill Lann Lee, a lack of translation services in every possible language available 24 hours per day suggests racist motives — a hate crime, if you will:

[T]he failure to address language barriers may not be simply an oversight, but rather may be attributable, at least in part, to invidious discrimination on the basis of national origin and race. While there is not always a direct relationship between an individual's language and national origin, often language does serve as an identifier of national origin.

The bottom line here is that to be unable or unwilling to speak English is no longer a personal problem but an entitlement to service in the language of your choice. This is an open invitation for all sorts of litigation.

Of course, there has been plenty of litigation on this subject during the Clinton-Gore era. In Minnesota, a class-action lawsuit was filed last year demanding translation of welfare forms and Medicaid applications into languages other than English. The Montefiore Family Health Center in the Bronx section of New York City has come under the scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights for failing to have a Khmer translator on the premises when Chay Lay Tiang happened by one day.

The main problem with multilingual government is that each time materials are translated into one particular language, the trend toward universal linguistic entitlement grows stronger. For once the government offers services in one language in addition to English, it has little reason to oppose further demands for providing those same services in additional languages.

New Mexico confronted this problem five years ago. The state ceased giving driver's license tests in Spanish after a court ruled that if the license test was offered in any language other than English, it must be made available in every language. (A lawsuit has since been filed demanding restoration of the Spanish version of the test.)

What most people do not realize is that the cost of multilingual government goes well beyond the price of extra printing and the salaries for multilingual staff members.

The question of translation accuracy seldom arises. It should. If a government agency's "official" translation turns out to be wrong, what does that mean legally?

Anyone who has attempted to translate materials from one language to another knows that mistakes are inevitable and important nuances can be overlooked.

This question of government translation error is hardly theoretical. In 1994, the New York Times reported that in New York City election "ballots last year, the city erroneously printed the Chinese character for 'no' as a translation for 'yes.'"

HUD spokeswoman Ginny Terzano resorted to blaming errant subcontractors for the agency's infamous Haitian Creole pamphlet, Rezedents Rights and Rispansabilities (signed by "Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo fella") since "we don't translate and we don't print."

Bill Clinton and Bill Lann Lee may well have seen Executive Order 13166 as an opportunity to enshrine the culture of linguistic entitlement into every nook and cranny of American life. Instead they have may have provoked a much-needed debate on language issues in the Congress and even on the campaign trail this year.

Ultimately, the English Language Amendment to the Constitution (H. J. Res. 21) may well be necessary to uproot the culture of mandatory multilingualism that has spread throughout our government institutions.

A nation of immigrants needs an official language. Congress, please take note.

Published Friday, May 4, 2001

President to 'reach out' with speech in Spanish - Historic radio address is Saturday

BY FRANK DAVIES
fdavies@herald.com

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will deliver his weekly radio speech in Spanish as well as English on Saturday, a historic move that recognizes the political power of Hispanics and thrusts the president into the sensitive issue of language and government.
Radio Unica, based in Miami, will carry the three- to five-minute speech on its 54 Spanish-language stations on a holiday of great importance to Mexican Americans -- Cinco de Mayo. In South Florida and the Florida Keys, seven stations will carry Bush's talk in Spanish.
White House spokesmen Thursday would not reveal the subject of the speech.
Bush often used a few words of Spanish during his presidential campaign, as he did while running for governor of Texas. But he avoided full speeches and interviews in that language.
"He's not fluent, but he likes to make the effort," said Karen Hughes, counselor to the president. "He doesn't get to practice as much as he did in Texas. It's a little bit of `Tex-Mex' Spanish."
If Bush's pronunciation isn't perfect, his politics are right on target, according to GOP leaders and operatives who read the latest census numbers and saw the importance of the burgeoning Hispanic vote.
"This is a superb move, and it has substantial symbolic value," said Whit Ayres, an Atlanta-based Republican pollster. ``This shows he's trying to reach out to all Americans."
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, said the president's use of Spanish will be taken as a sign of respect for Hispanic culture.

HISPANIC VOTES
"Hispanic clout is rising exponentially, and this shows the Republican Party is going after the Hispanic vote in the next election," Ros-Lehtinen said.
Joaquin Blaya, CEO of Radio Unica, said it was ``surprisingly easy" to arrange the broadcast with the Bush White House. The Clinton White House passed on the idea of a simultaneous translation of Clinton's radio speeches.
"The impetus behind this [for Bush] is simple -- whoever picks up more Hispanic votes gets elected," Blaya said.

DEEDS, NOT WORDS
The president's venture into Spanish was greeted by skepticism from Hispanic Democrats who said Bush's deeds don't match his words, and a group that advocates "English only" by government said Bush's bilingualism was ``a disturbing sign."
"Bush is well-intentioned, but this is a dangerous road to go down," said Jim Boulet, executive director of English First.
"It puts a White House imprimatur on a culture of mandatory multilingualism," he said.
English First is leading the charge against an executive order from President Bill Clinton in August that directed federal agencies to ensure that non-English speakers have equal access to federal services.
Agencies are now considering guidelines on what language services they will have to provide.
A White House spokesman said this week the administration has no plans to rescind the order -- despite growing GOP opposition to it in Congress.
So far, 51 House members, including four GOP committee chairmen, have signed on to a bill to repeal the Clinton order.
Bush's speech "gets him into the whole language issue, but I don't think there's much downside," Ayres said. "For Republicans, it's a plus."

POLICIES CRITICIZED
Meanwhile, leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are sharply criticizing Bush policies and the administration budget.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes of El Paso, caucus chairman, will deliver the Democratic response Saturday after Bush. He complains that the Bush budget freezes spending for bilingual programs in schools and migrant education at a time when schools' immigrant populations are exploding.
"He says `Leave no child behind,' but he's leaving hundreds of thousands of children behind with this budget," Reyes said.

ON IMMIGRATION
Hispanic groups say they're closely watching Bush policies on immigration. An official with the League of United Latin American Citizens said the administration "did the right thing" this week by seeking to extend the deadline for undocumented aliens to apply for visas to stay in the country.
"But we're concerned that it was late -- they waited to say that after the [Monday] deadline passed," said Gabriela Lemus, director of policy for LULAC.
Lemus said she was ``thrilled" to hear that Bush would give a speech in Spanish because ``it supports the importance of being multilingual."
"I hope it's not just symbolic -- that there's something substantive behind the words," Lemus added.
Symbolic or substantive, Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates a Mexican battlefield victory over the French in 1862, is suddenly getting a lot of attention in Washington. It became an official celebration Thursday on Capitol Hill with top leaders of both parties.
Today the White House will host the first Cinco de Mayo fiesta on the South Lawn, with Mexican officials and entertainers ranging from Emilio Estefan to Don Francisco, host of Univision's Sabado Gigante.
Also expected is George P. Bush, son of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who campaigned heavily in Hispanic communities during the election.
Ron Hutcheson of The Herald's Washington Bureau contributed to this report.

WHY DO WE NEED TO CHANGE CALIFORNIA'S BILINGUAL EDUCATION SYSTEM?

• Begun with the best of intentions in the 1970s, bilingual education has failed in actual practice, but the politicians and administrators have refused to admit this failure.
• For most of California's non-English speaking students, bilingual education actually means monolingual, SPANISH-ONLY education for the first 4 to 7 years of school.
• The current system fails to teach children to read and write English. Last year, only 6.7 percent of limited-English students in California learned enough English to be moved into mainstream classes.
• Latino immigrant children are the principal victims of bilingual education. They have the lowest test scores and the highest dropout rates of any immigrant group.
• There are 140 languages spoken by California's schoolchildren. To teach each group of children in their own native language before teaching them English is educationally and fiscally impossible. Yet this impossibility is the goal of bilingual education.

COMMON SENSE ABOUT LEARNING ENGLISH

• Learning a new language is easier the younger the age of the child.
• Learning a language is much easier if the child is immersed in that language.
• Immigrant children already know their native language; they need the public schools to teach them English.
• Children who leave school without knowing how to speak, read, and write English are injured for life economically and socially.

WHAT "ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN" WILL DO:

• Require children to be taught English as soon as they start school.
• Provide "sheltered English immersion" classes to help non-English speaking students learn English; research shows this is the most effective method.
• Allow parents to request a special waiver for children with individual educational needs who would benefit from another method.

WHAT "ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN" WON'T DO:
It will:

• NOT throw children who can't speak English into regular classes where they would have to "sink or swim."
• NOT cut special funding for children learning English.
• NOT violate any federal laws or court decisions.

WHO SUPPORTS THE INITIATIVE?

• Teachers worried by the undeniable failure of bilingual education and who have long wanted to implement a successful alternative--sheltered English immersion.
• Most Latino parents, according to public polls. They know that Spanish-only bilingual education is preventing their children from learning English by segregating them into an educational dead-end.
• Most Californians. They know that bilingual education has created an educational ghetto by isolating non-English speaking students and preventing them from becoming successful members of society.

WHO OPPOSES THE INITIATIVE?

• Individuals who profit from bilingual education. Bilingual teachers are paid up to $5,000 extra annually and the program provides jobs to thousands of bilingual coordinators and administrators.
• Schools and school districts which receive HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of extra dollars for schoolchildren classified as not knowing English and who, therefore, have a financial incentive to avoid teaching English to children.
• Activist groups with special agendas and the politicians who support them.
  
  

  ALICE CALLAGHAN
  Director, Las Familias del Pueblo

  RON UNZ
  Chairman, English for the Children

  FERNANDO VEGA
  Past Redwood City School Board Member

Proposition 227 imposes one untested method for teaching English on every local school district in California.

Proposition 227 puts limited English speaking children of all ages and languages into one classroom.

The California PTA opposes Proposition 227 because it takes away parents' right to choose what's best for their children.

The California School Boards Association opposes Proposition 227 because it outlaws the best local programs for teaching English.

California's teachers oppose Proposition 227--teachers can be sued personally for teaching in the children's language to help them learn English.

Outlawing decisions by parents, teachers, and school boards on how to teach children English is wrong.

Children in California must learn English.

In thousands of classrooms all over California, they are. Good teachers. Good local school boards. Good parent involvement.

Those successes are not the result of one instructional method imposed on every school by state government.

Sadly, there have been failures too. However, these failures can best be remedied by reasonable program changes that maximize local control.

California should be returning more decisions to parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards.

A growing number of school districts are working with new English teaching methods. Proposition 227 stops them.

The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial said it best: "School districts should decide for themselves."

We urge you to join us, the California PTA, the California School Boards Association, and California's teachers in voting "NO" on Proposition 227.

JOHN D'AMELIO
President, California School Boards Association

MARY BERGAN
President, California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO

LOIS TINSON
President, California Teachers Association