Click here for AABE State Conference April 1-2, 2004--ASU West Phoenix, Arizona

01/02/2006 03:06 AM -0800 

The following letters were published or sent in response to printed articles:

Published in the Metro West Daily News, June 27,  2003
To the editor::

The Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL) found Sharon Pinardi McCauley 
misinformed ("ESL common ground and sense," June 20) about bilingual  education. The primary goal of bilingual education is not to "assist 
students in maintaining their native language" and it does not "delay the process of learning English."

Bilingual education uses the child's first language in ways that accelerate English language development. Children taught to read in their first 
language learn to read much more quickly, and this ability quickly transfers  to English. Children taught academic subjects in their first language have 
an easier time understanding instruction when it is presented in English, which accelerates their English language development. The average time of 
students in bilingual programs was 2.9 years, which seems reasonable for students to learn another language.

Sharon Pinardi is equally misinformed on two-way bilingual programs. The beneficiaries are both groups of student, English and Spanish speakers. Just 
consider that the longest functioning programs in Framingham, Cambridge, and Boston boast outstanding MCAS scores for the Spanish and English speakers. 
These programs are proving time and time again as highly successful at the education of English language learners. Such success should be rewarded by 
being exempt from the immersion requirements.

Scientific research shows that bilingual education works. In the most recent published review of the research, Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute 
concluded that bilingual education is superior to all-English approaches for English language development. It is tragic that Massachusetts' voters were 
not made aware of these facts and more tragic that the misinformation continues.

Sincerely,
Zoe Morosini
President MATSOL-Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages
(MATSOL) Commonwealth Corporation, Business Incubator
The Schrafft Center
529 Main Street Suite 1M10
Boston MA 02129-1125
MATSOL phone: (617) 242-1756
MATSOL fax: (617) 886-6056
matsoladvocacy@yahoo.com
www.matsol.org

Sent to  LA Daily News June 26, 2003 
One size doesn't fit 
Re "Nation's worst readers," June 20: 

After 10 years of phonics and five years of English immersion,  California can only say, "Thank God for American Samoa!" Critics 
attacked whole language in 1992 when California was cited for its low  reading scores. In 1998, voters dismantled bilingual education, citing 
the "common sense" approach of "learning English in English." Now experts are blaming the low reading test scores on the high numbers of 
English language learners. Proposition 227 has falsely claimed success in teaching English, and phonics should have taken care of everyone 
else. We have once again found that one size does not fit all. 

Denis O'Leary 
Oxnard 

Published in the Arizona Daily Star-Sunday, June 29, 2003: http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30629sunletrpckg.html

The Star makes an excellent point about Arizona Department of Education policy ("Rating schools fairly," June 22).  Officials should have known
that duration of enrollment is a critical factor in judging school performance.

But since the goals of the state's plan are based on the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind, even greater mistakes lie ahead.
To be appropriate, education goals must be high, productive and attainable. The federal plan's goals are rife with trite, noble-sounding absolutes
that reveal their absurdity only upon thoughtful examination.

For example, consider just two of the many ridiculous policies that our society would have to adopt to actually ensure-without exception-that
"every child will read by third grade."  First, every non-English speaking immigrant child beyond the age of 8 or 9 would have to be banned from
entering the country.  Secondly, every deaf student in America would have to learn the sound-based system of English literacy at exactly the same
rate as hearing students.

When a goal can be attained only through the imposition of bizarre, inappropriate or destructive policies, that's a pretty good indication
that the goal itself is inappropriate, no matter how "lofty" it sounds. 

Salvador Gabaldón
Oro Valley, AZ

Published in the Los Angeles Daily News, June 21, 2003

Phonics and "skill-building" didn't work.
June 25, 2003
Stephen Krashen, LA Daily News

California's fourth-graders still rank among the lowest in the United States in reading according to recent test results ("Nation's worst readers," June 20). When this happened in 1992, critics blamed whole language. This is no longer possible, as whole language has been dropped. Now some experts are saying that our low ranking is because California has a higher percentage of English learners than other states. But this was true back in 1992 as well. There is another possibility, unmentioned by any of the experts quoted in the Daily News' article: The fanatic rush to phonics and "skill-building" didn't work.

Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education, USC
Los Angeles
 

Published in the Boston Globe, June 21, 2003

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2003

The recent report of the results of the NAEP (National Association of Educational Progress) reading tests shows that California's fourth graders still rank at the bottom of the country, and there has been no significant progress since 1992, the first time NAEP test results were reported for individual states.

According to the LA Times ("State reading scores remain dismal," June 19), state education officials attribute these results to the "dramatic" increase in the number of English learners in school in California.
This increase cannot explain the lack of improvement.  In 1992, 19% of California's students were English learners and in 2002, 25% were. According to my calculations, this 6% increase would lower scores about 1.5 points, not very much (the range of scores for fourth graders is about 150 to 265).

There is another explanation for the lack of improvement: California's move to "systematic, intensive" phonics had no effect. The state continues to ignore the real solution: increased investment in libraries. Study after study shows that access to print and library quality is strongly related to literacy development, and California's school libraries and public libraries continue to rank among the worst in the country.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education, USC
 

Published in the Arizona Daily Star, June 18, 2003 http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30618wedletrpckg.html

Unfair way to judge schools

Re: your June 14 article "Fewer TUSD schools may 'underperform.' "

After reading the list of Tucson Unified School District schools that fall into this category, I realized the majority of these "underperforming" schools contain a significant bilingual population.

I do not dispute educating these youngsters, but after some investigation, I find that these students must also take the AIMS test and that their scores are averaged in with the scores of the English-speaking students.

No wonder these schools are underperforming. That just isn't fair.

Ken Wright
Retired teacher

Published in the LA Times, June 18, 2003  

Fallout From the Loss of Bilingual Education

"Dropout Rates High for Immigrant Latinos" (June 13) mentioned that the Pew Hispanic Center found that the lack of proficiency in English and the need to send money home contributed to the high dropout rates for immigrant Latinos. Another component leading to their dropout rates is the lack of programs that assist limited-English-speaking students in taking the required courses to graduate from high school.

After dismantling the bilingual program, students now have to wait until they are proficient in English to take the required science, history and math courses to graduate. In the meantime, they are placed in elective classes knowing that they are not going to graduate without the required courses. It is no wonder they leave school early.

Jacqueline Borja
Counselor, Gabrielino High School, San Gabriel

Published in the Ventura County Star, June 18, 2003

Dubious investigation
Re: your June 10 article, “Grand Jury faults Rio on bilingual goals”:

I found the Grand Jury’s investigation in Rio School District to be offensive on several levels. First, its investigation makes it appear that it is a co-conspirators in the politically motivated attack on the Rio superintendent. This seems to be a very inappropriate use of the Grand Jury, and as a resident and taxpayer, I find that offensive.

Second, the California Department of Education compliance unit has already found that Rio’s procedures for placement in bilingual programs are compliant with state law and the Education Code.

Why is the Grand Jury’s time being used to investigate issues that have already been investigated (by people who have much more expertise than the Grand Jury)?

Lastly, I am offended by the Grand Jury’s assumption that parents need to be bribed to place their children in bilingual programs. Many, many parents in Ventura County request bilingual programs for their children because they know that in the long run, their children will have a stronger academic foundation if they are taught in a language they understand, while they are gaining English fluency.

They have seen the success of the program firsthand in the children of their neighbors, friends, and relatives. I find it offensive that the Grand Jury and the Rio school board are using bilingual education as a scapegoat to further what seems to be a personal vendetta by some local politicians.—Marcia Turner, Ventura

Published in the Ventura County Star (letters@insidevc.com), June 8, 2003:

Supervisor’s actions create disharmony in Rio school
June 16, 2003
Denis O’Leary and Guillermo Terrazas, Ventura County Star

The phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child.” seemed so sensible when then-first Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton used it as a title of her then best seller book that the message is often used as a common sense fact that stands on its own. Yet, the question can be posed, how many people does it take to destroy that villages education?

In the case of immigrant students who are learning English and academics as first generation Americans it only takes one or two people. This seems to be the case in the Rio School District. Have you, that one person needs some support from the village, but Supervisor John Flynn has been collecting IOU’s for the last 27 years.

Public attacks on non-elected public educators has hit a crescendo when Mr. Flynn targeted Rio School District Superintendent  Yolanda Benitez. Some argue that the deciding moment was when she backed Mr. Flynn’s opponent in the 2000 election, others believe that it was when the previous school board did not support Flynn naming the Rio Community Gym after himself.

Mr. Flynn came away from the gymnasium public brouhaha with his name in large letters on the building’s medical clinic and took an active stand to have Yolanda Benitez fired. Even before the election it was reported in the papers that Flynn was upset with his relationship with the school district employee.

The election won, Mr. Flynn swore-in his two board members and turned to the public announcing his office’s willingness to offer its services to the public school district.

The new Rio School Board came out of the gate with a series of actions which showed that the new majority was indeed setting a path to unleash Mr. Flynn’s wrath upon Yolanda Benitez. The hiring of a new law firm with ties to Mr. Flynn’s office and a confusion of public announcements and shutting out public comment immediately caught the attention of the District Attorney’s office who made a strong statement that the Flynn supported majority must consider pubic input in its proceedings.

In front of hundreds of supporters at the March board meeting Ms. Benitez was sent out by a Ventura County Sheriff Department escort. The School Board then continued in the same 3-2 split vote to hire a new auditor to find wrongdoing by Ms. Benitez.

The financial books clean, the Flynn supported board members then brought in racism to leverage Ms. Benitez’s firing. Bilingual education and too many Hispanic teachers became the excuse for her removal. The school board followed with threatening all school principals that they may lose their positions. Six of the seven principals are currently Latina.

The Ventura County District attorney’s office already having warned the Rio School Board to follow the law and allow public comment, Supervisor Flynn needed an authority of his own to show muscle. Call in the Ventura County Grand Jury.

The Ventura County Grand Jury was contacted to reinforce the argument that no person in their right mind would possibly allow their loved child in a bilingual classroom. Interviewing individuals who oppose bilingual instruction, the Grand Jury found that there was a great divide between those who want only English heard in schools and those who use Spanish to keep the student up to par academically while they are taught the English language.

Have you, a Grand Jury report against bilingual instruction is no surprise. No Grand Jury has cited in support of bilingual education at least since Mr. Flynn first became County Supervisor some 27 years ago. Grand Jurys seem not to get it, and every year a new call to diversify the Grand Jury panel to reflect the community’s demographics is unmet once again.

Between Mr. Flynn’s ego and Rio School Board President Ron Mosqueda’s arrogance, the Rio School District is becoming a wasteland for academic advancement through micromanagement and intimidation.

Flynn’s vengeance has created an environment of educational destruction which has not given thought to children’s education, parental rights under the law nor the community who want the children to succeed.

The Rio School District has 6 feeder schools, each with at least 4 bilingual classrooms going to one junior high school with one bilingual classroom. The fact is that children are becoming English fluent in El Rio. Parents support bilingual education’s success because they see its results. Parents also see the dismal failure of English only classes.

California is now about to delay the high school exit exam because up to 20% of students may fail. English immersion has failed no less than 90% of its students for the past 5 years in the state of California yet government agencies such as the Ventura County Grand Jury seem surprised that parents don’t want their children in these classes.

The only reason the high school exit exam will be delayed is because Anglo children may not be given their high school diplomas after putting in their 12 years of school. On the other hand the failed English immersion policy has been declared a success by the same non-hispanic community. This is racism. And this is what brought politically motivated complaints to the County’s Grand Jury.

Saying that they want to better the education of students rings hollow from Mr. Flynn’s political machine when education is being attacked. The community outcry has been stifled since Mr. Flynn began his march on the Rio School Board and publicly offered his office’s services to the district.

Mr. Flynn has in the past been laughed at for his political attacks against non elected officials with the “fire in the belly” excuse. It has been said many times that Mr. Flynn has an Irish temper. It’s time he controls his temper.

As for the immigrant parents of El Rio and Ventura County, the law allows the parents choice.

The Ventura County Grand Jury is correct in its findings, the community is even more divided over the issue of bilingual education than before. English only speaking American citizens seem to not mind the dismal 90% plus failure rate of English only classes, immigrant parents on the other hand want to see their children succeed.

Denis O’Leary is director of District 17, and Guillermo Terrazas Jr. is president of the South Oxnard Council, of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Sent to the Boston Globe, June 12, 2003
Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages
(MATSOL) Commonwealth Corporation, Business Incubator
The Schrafft Center
529 Main Street Suite 1M10
Boston MA 02129-1125
MATSOL phone: (617) 242-1756
MATSOL fax: (617) 886-6056
matsoladvocacy@yahoo.com
www.matsol.org

To the editor:

In regards to “Tamayo Targets Bilingual Changes” (6/12/03), the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL), representing 1,200 educators of English language learners in Massachusetts, wishes to express its disappointment that more information was not presented about two-way bilingual programs to balance the opinon of Tamayo, currently a non-resident and non-voter of Massachusetts. .

Two-way bilingual programs place English and Spanish speakers in the same classrooms to learn the two languages from each other. These highly successful programs boast some of the highest MCAS scores for both English and Spanish speakers. Research abounds documenting the benefits of the program for both students. Students become bilingual and biliterate in these programs. The waiting lists for the programs are often in the hundreds because parents know the economic value of their children learning two languages. To exclude Spanish speakers from the two-way program destroys the principle of the program that students have peers with whom they can learn and practice the languages. While the state works to offer educational choices for parents through charter schools and district choice programs, two-way bilingual programs should be an option for parents who want it.
We encourage the legislature and governor to take a closer look at these programs and support the exemption of two-way bilingual programs, preserving a valid choice for parents.

Sincerely,

Zoe Morosini
President MATSOL

Sent to the National Review Online, May 31, 2003

Stephen Moore, in “Sunset spending , not the tax cuts,” (May 30), asks if we should be investing in bilingual education, “when all the research shows that foreign-language classes stunt the learning of English by immigrant children?” Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the scientific research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay P. Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects, and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.” Research done in other countries confirms that bilingual programs are good for second language acquisition. Studies  also show that children in bilingual programs drop out less than comparison students in all-English programs.  Mr. Moore needs to take a closer look at the research.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2003

How does Regina Powers (letters, May 25) know that “government-funded bilingual programs don’t work”?  She certainly hasn’t looked at the scientific research. Nearly every major review of research in bilingual education shows that students in bilingual programs acquire English as well as or better than students in non-bilingual programs. In addition, a study published by West Ed last year confirmed that dumping bilingual education did not increase English proficiency among minority language children in California. Bilingual education is a great way to produce the bilinguals Ms. Powers feels we need.  Children in these programs acquire English  and they continue to develop their first language at no extra cost.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California
 

Published in Rethinking Schools Volume 17 No. 4 - Summer 2003 Letters
Bilingual Ed Struggles:

In regards to “Colorado Upholds Right to Bilingual Education,” the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL) adds our own experience in fighting a similar voter referendum here in our state this past election year. We are a professional organization of 1,200 educators working with English language learners from kindergarten to adult across the state of Massachusetts, one of many organizations which came together to fight to preserve bilingual education in our state.

The battle against our own version of the Ron Un-sponsored initiative in our state was similar to that of Colorado. We organized grassroots organizations, held demonstrations, and did leafletting and phone banking. Our arguments against the initiative were similar: It is too costly, punitive for teachers, and destroys parent choice. We were even successful in passing a new law that would have reformed the education of English language learners. That new law has now been superceded by the Unz initiative. We lacked the resources to have our message heard on the grand scale that Colorado had, specifically a single $3 million donation. However, 94 percent of Latinos in exit polling voted against the question, indicating that those communities most affected by the dismantling of existing programs supported the programs and their schools. The democratic process failed our communities and thus gives the appearance of tyranny by the majority.

While we by no means wish to diminish the organizing success of the efforts of our colleagues in Colorado, the contrast between the two states shows that money does matter. Our communities, while mobilized to do battle against this initiative, lacked significant resources to accomplish the job. We, however, are ready to continue our work, because as Cesar Chavez said, “Our struggle is not easy. Those who oppose our cause are rich and powerful and they have many allies in high places. We are poor. Our allies are few. But we have something the rich do not own. We have our bodies and spirits and the justice of our cause as our weapons.”

Carlos Matos and Margaret Adams Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages

Published in Rethinking Schools Volume 17 No. 4 - Summer 2003 Letters
Bilingual Education Works

Padres Unidos (“Colorado Upholds Right to Bilingual Education,” Spring 2003, p. 20) noted that different groups were approached with different reasons for voting against Amendment 31, the anti-bilingual education initiative, and they listed several very good reasons: The Unz proposal was indeed too costly, too punitive, and too restrictive, and it would have hurt development of the heritage language.

A very important reason for supporting bilingual education, however, was missing, a reason that should appeal to everybody: It works. Children in bilingual education program acquire as least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs, and typically acquire more. Research done in the United States shows this is the case, and research done in other countries confirms that bilingual programs are good for second language acquisition. Research also shows that children in bilingual programs drop out less often than comparison students in all-English programs.

Campaigns such as the one we just experienced in Colorado are an excellent opportunity to tell the public about this little-known fact. If we fail to take advantage of such temporary platforms, we encourage future attacks on bilingual education that simply avoid the costly, punitive, and restrictive aspects of Amendment 31.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Published in the Arizona Republic, May 24, 2003

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0524satlet6-241.html

Bilingualism and the Promise of America:

When Ginny Kalish, one of Arizona’s best teachers, expressed her disagreement with Superintendent Tom Horne’s effort to impose immersion on all English learners, Horne shamefully characterized her comments as an attack (“English immersion study…”  May 10).  Then Horne has invited Rubén Beltrán, the Mexican Consul General, to speak in favor of language immersion at an Arizona Department of Education conference later this month.  Perhaps the Superintendent saw this as a counterattack.

I suppose he figured that a high level Mexican bureaucrat would go along with Horne’s idea to restrict bilingual education, since local school
board elections do not exist in Mexico and parents have virtually no power to influence such matters as textbook adoption or curriculum design. 

If so, Horne miscalculated badly, and General Consul Beltrán has politely cancelled his appearance.  Horne must have been unaware that Mexico is justly proud of the bilingual education programs it provides for the thousands of its indigenous citizens developing literacy in such
languages as Nahuatl and Zapotec while they also acquire Spanish. 

Here in Arizona we have a tradition of respecting the decisions parents make about their children’s education.  That is one of the great
promises of America: the freedom to choose the type of education we want for our own children.  Whether through bilingual education or immersion, all immigrants want their children to acquire English, the language of opportunity.  Now a growing number of parents are choosing an even higher standard, realizing that bilingualism combined with biliteracy offers even greater opportunity.

The idea that all children seeking to acquire a language must do so in exactly the same way is as silly as limiting all mechanics to using only
one tool, all doctors to prescribing only one treatment, or all athletes to eating only one food.

Immersion classes may be sufficient for some children but less effective for those who find it too difficult to learn literacy, math and other
subjects in a language they haven’t mastered.  Conversely, bilingual education accelerates language acquisition for most children, though
some may find it too challenging to learn literacy, math and other subjects in two languages.

That’s why in November of 2000, when voters in the state of Arizona made immersion the primary option for acquiring language, they reserved for themselves the right to bilingual education through waivers. This year morethan 13,000 families exercised their legal right to have their children learn English in that manner, and Horne finds himself in the awkward position of having promised to “enforce the ban on bilingual education” when no such ban exists.

In Horne’s view, the voters erred in allowing waivers.  He’s especially dismayed that a child can demonstrate good English language skill with an oral score “approximately at or above the state average for his grade.”  To subvert that provision, Horne hopes to replace the standard established in the law with a national standard created by test publishers.

No matter how much Horne tries to twist the law, he cannot rewrite it.  We Arizona parents-natives and immigrants alike-value our children’s future too much to let him get away with it.

Sal Gabaldón

Published in the Arizona Republic, May 16, 2003

Let’s have that in English

After reading Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne’s letter Saturday, I find it difficult to believe that there are many English-immersion schools where 85 percent of the children who are labeled English-language learners are becoming proficient in English after one year of sheltered English-immersion instruction.

If you look at the Arizona Department of Education numbers from last year, of the 136,414 children enrolled in sheltered English immersion, only 12,961 scored high enough on proficiency tests to be reclassified as fluent in English at the end of the school year. This is less than 10 percent of the children in English-immersion instruction.

My question for Horne is: How many schools in Arizona are reaching an 85 percent rate of oral English proficiency among children who are learning English in a sheltered English-immersion classroom within one year?

Susan Kovarik
Phoenix

Sent to the Arizona Republic, May 16, 2003

At night when I sit and sort through all my thoughts, I can enjoy watching my children dream quietly in their beds. They make all my struggles meaningful. Like most parents, I work, love, laugh, and cry for my children as much as for myself, and I want my children to enjoy unlimited opportunities.

That’s why I believe in bilingual education. It seems like just yesterday I was enrolling my oldest in a dual language program and feeling so
proud the first time he read to me in Spanish. His face glowed with excitement.

My dad was very proud of him, too. I will carry that day with me forever. My son was only five then, but he understood that he had accomplished something wonderful. That was four years ago. Over the last two years he has lost some of that glow. He still reads and understands Spanish, but now he doesn’t want to speak it. He senses that there must be something wrong with Spanish. Now, on the rare occasions when he uses it, he only whispers to his grandfather so no one else can hear him.

It makes me sad to see him act like that. Schools shouldn’t make children ashamed of their language and culture. I hadn’t planned on becoming politically active, but I refuse to allow Tom Horne or anyone else deny me the right as a parent to decide what is best for my children’s education. I won’t accept being bullied-and that’s something else I want my children to learn.

Alicia Alvarez
Phoenix

Sent to the Houston Chronicle, May 15, 2003

The Chronicle reported that almost 61% of low-income families have no books for their children in their homes (“Reading opens gates,” editorials, May 15). This figure is shocking but it agrees with a great deal of research. Susan Neuman, former Assistant Secretary of Education, recently reported in a major journal that middle class children are often “deluged” with books, but children from poor neighborhoods “ have to aggressively and persistently seek them out.”


This issue is very important: Research shows that access to books means more reading, and more reading means better reading, a larger vocabulary, better grammar, better writing, better spelling, and more knowledge in general.

Leadership Houston is doing the right thing in providing more books for children. It is crucial to continue to improve school libraries. The school library is often the only source of books available to children of poverty. A recent study by Ester Smith of school libraries in Texas reported the same result found in several other states: The better the school library (better staffing and more books), the higher school’s reading scores.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Published  Education Week, May 14, 2003

Who is ‘Ignorant’ on Bilingual ed.?
To the Editor:

Tom Horne, in his letter of April 30, 2003 (“A Clarification on Bilingual Claims”), accuses Sean Fleming of showing, in an earlier letter, an “amazing ignorance” of research in bilingual education (“Arizona Is Wrong on Bilingual Rules,” Letters, April 2, 2003) because he did not cite an article that appeared in the Fall 2002 edition of Education Next. Mr. Horne claims that article shows that immersion students do better than bilingual education students in the long run, earning more money and entering higher-status occupations.

Mr. Horne needs to take a careful look at this paper, written by Joseph M. Guzman. It has serious flaws.

The largest flaw is Mr. Guzman’s definition of bilingual education. Subjects in the study were defined as participating in bilingual education if they ever studied a subject taught in a foreign language. This could be one class, part of a class, or 10 years of study-we have no idea. Mr. Guzman also defined bilingual education as excluding classes in English as a second language. All properly organized bilingual programs include ESL. Mr. Guzman also did not consider the kind of bilingual education his subjects experienced; it has been established that some kinds of models of bilingual education are more effective than others.

Finally, subjects in Joseph Guzman’s study participated in bilingual programs in the early 1970s. At this time, bilingual programs were rare and not well developed. He himself refers to his definition of bilingual education as “coarse.” It is more than that: It is wrong.

Tom Horne does not mention the massive scientific evidence in favor of bilingual education. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the scientific research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay P. Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects, and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”


Stephen Krashen
Emeritus Professor
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif.

See also:  S. Krashen, “Is bilingual education bad for you? Another
bogus argument against bilingual education”
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/article6.htm
 

Sent to the Arizona Republic, May 10, 2003:

First Lady Laura Bush says, “If parents can make sure that their children are bi-literate—if they can read and write in English, and read and write in their native language—then they have a huge advantage.” Are Arizonans listening? Governor of Florida Jeb Bush is bilingual. President of the United States George W. Bush is bilingual.
Mrs. Bush does have a point!

Christine Rademan

Sent to Ventura County Star, May 9, 2003  
Immersion classes failing

Re: Thomas D. Elias’ April 30 commentary, “Doubts over  English-immersion classes begin to evaporate”:

The English for the Children’s California campaign of 1998 promised students would become fluent after “one year of intensive English immersion.”

There were 1.4 million students not fluent in English in California. At the end of the 1998-99 year, only 7.6 percent of them became fluent, up from 7 percent the year before when proponents called it a 93 percent failure rate. By the way, 76 percent of English Language Learners were already enrolled in immersion classes before Proposition 227 passed.

This is exactly the reason educators and teachers unions opposed Proposition 227. It wasn’t the money teachers would lose as Proposition 227 author Ron Unz proclaimed, it was, in fact, the proven failure already leaving children behind without English and academics for years that convinced academia.

Mr. Elias calls bilingual education supporters “laughingstocks.” Proposition 227 author Unz has called such advocates “educational terrorists, human vampires and cultists.” Both Elias and Unz consider Proposition 227 a resounding success. Yet, over the past five years, more students have become English fluent in bilingual education classes than their celebrated English immersion classes, even though bilingual-educated students only make up 10 percent of this student body.

Proposition 227 was sold as a common sense program to make all students fluent in one year, not a five year program that would still fail 93 percent of the students. This failure rate would not be tolerated in any other segment of our society but here it is being celebrated.

Today, more than 1.5 million students are non-English fluent in California. Those celebrating English immersion’s success in California are going in direct contrast to those who are sitting in the “one year” classes for up to a fifth year, and teachers who are calling attention to this dismal failure are being called names once again.—Denis O’Leary, Education adviser, National Far West Region
League of United Latin American Citizens
Oxnard

Sent to La Voz, May 8, 2003

Estimado Sr. Arreortúra:

Gracias por informar al público sobre la manera en que se trataron los padres de familia que esperaban participar durante la reunión realizada en el Departamento de Educación el mes pasado.  Permítame indicar que el primer párafo no debería de decir que la ley “elimina la educación bilingüe.”  Esto es algo que los medios de comunicación en nuestro estado han repetido tanto que el público lo acepta como verdad, aunque en el mismo reporte lo contradice Margaret García-Dugan.  Sería mejor y propio indicar que la ley permite participación en programas de educación bilingüe únicamente en ciertas circunstancias.  Lo único que se averigua es la manera en que se determinarán esas circunstancias.  Lo que es más, la ley también describe circunstancias bajo cuales las escuelas públicas estarían obligadas a ofrecer programas de educación bilingüe.  Esto es algo que raramente se menciona pero que es un detalle importantísimo porque sirve para comprobar que la educación bilingüe no se ha prohibido.

Atentamente,

Salvador Armando Gabaldón

Published in the Arizona Republic, May. 3, 2003 12:00 AM

Bilingual position distorted

Johanna Haver (“Mixed up bilingual signals,” Tuesday letter) distorts the information presented in my letter (“Column was misleading on California test scores,” April 19).

Thirty-two percent of California’s English learners scoring proficient in 2002 is indeed only a “modest gain.” Ms. Haver does not mention that 83 percent of  these students scored “intermediate” or better on a similar test the year before. California’s Proposition 227 (similar to Arizona’s Prop. 203) promised that students would move from zero to full proficiency in English in one year. Even with a huge head start, that didn’t happen.

Haver’s comments on Jeff MacSwan’s letter (“Flawed tests are ruining ‘English only,’ “ April 26) are also unwarranted. MacSwan argued that Arizona’s tests are too hard for English learners and provided clear evidence this was so. Haver claimed that the Arizona tests are “no more demanding” than the California tests. To our knowledge, no study has been done comparing the tests. We invite Haver to inform us of such studies.

In addition to her gross distortions and unsubstantiated claims, Haver closes her letter with an outrageous statement, accusing “education professors” of working to prevent student success. Apparently, Haver does not understand that honest people can disagree.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
The writer is professor emeritus of education, University of Southern California.

Published in the Arizona Republic May 2, 2003

As a long time Arizona teacher, I have carefully followed Johanna Haver’s many articles and letters regarding English language learners. While I have disagreed with her, it was her letter to the editor that appeared in Tuesday’s paper that finally caused me to respond. I am deeply offended by her statement that only she and Superintendent Tom Horne want to give English language learners the chance to succeed. Ms Haver implies that anyone that disagrees with her does not have the best interests of students at heart. And, that’s exactly the problem with the new interpretations of the waiver process of Proposition 203 that Superintendent Horne is trying to impose upon the state. It does not allow for the fact that parents might just know what is best for their children. Does Ms. Haver really believe that parents and hard working teachers don’t want their students to succeed? As a long-time teacher of English language learners, I am deeply offended by such narrow thinking that does not allow for the possibility that not every child learns the same way.

Ginny Kalish
1999 AZ Teacher of the Year

Sent to the Ventura County Star May 1, 2003.

Thomas Elias (“Doubts over English immersion [corrected spelling] classes begin to evaporate,” April 30) claims that the results of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) tell us that English immersion “works better.” Elias has not understood the results of this expensive and labor-intensive state test for English language learners. The CELDT results clearly show that students are learning English in bilingual education programs. In fact, between 2001 and 2002 the percentage of students with advanced levels of English proficiency in bilingual education programs increased by 66% more than in English-only programs. The CELDT test vindicates educators’ support for well-implemented bilingual programs in advancing the language learning and academic achievement of limited English proficient students. This is why Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell praised the efforts of all educators in advancing English proficiency in our public schools. Perhaps now we can begin an honest discussion of the social, cultural and political reasons why a majority of California’s voters want to deny language minority communities, parents and children the choice of educational programs that have been demonstrated to be effective and beneficial.

Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education
San Diego State University

Sent to Education Week, May, 1, 2033

Tom Horne (“A clarification on bilingual claims,”  April 30) accuses Sean Fleming (“Arizona is wrong on bilingual rules,”April 2) of showing an “amazing ignorance” of research in bilingual education because he did not cite an article in EducationNext (Winter, 2002), that, Mr. Horne claims, shows that immersion students do better than bilingual education students in the long run, earning more money and entering higher status occupations. Mr. Horne needs to take a careful look at this paper, written by Joseph Guzman.  It has serious flaws.

The largest flaw is Guzman’s definition of bilingual education. Subjects were defined as participating in bilingual education if they ever studied a subject taught in a foreign language. This could be one class, part of a class, or ten years of study - we have no idea. Guzman also defined bilingual education as excluding classes in English as a Second Language (ESL). All properly-organized bilingual programs include ESL. Also, Guzman did not consider the kind of bilingual education his subjects experienced; it has been established that some kinds of models of bilingual education are more effective than others. Finally, subjects in Guzman’s study participated in bilingual programs in the early 1970’s. At this time bilingual programs were rare and not well developed. Guzman himself refers to his definition of bilingual education as “coarse.” It is more than that: It is wrong.

Mr. Horne does not mention the massive scientific evidence in favor of bilingual education. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the scientific research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more.
The most recent review of this research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Stephen Krashen

Sent to Ventura County Star, April 30, 2003

Thomas Elias (“Doubts over English-immersion classes begin to evaporate,” April 30) thinks that recent test results support English immersion  because 32% of English learners were rated as “proficient” in English on the recent CELDT test. Mr. Elias needs to take a closer look: The 32% figure is based on students who took the same or a similar test a year ago.  Eighty-three percent of these students scored “intermediate” or better  last year and 11% were considered proficient a year ago.  This is a very modest improvement for a year’s “immersion.”  Prop. 227 promised that  all students would move from zero to full proficiency in English in one year.  Even with a huge head start, that didn’t happen.  Not even close.

Stephen Krashen

Published in the Arizona Republic April 25, 2003

 Flawed tests are ruing ‘English only’ choices

The implementation guidelines for Proposition 203, the state’s English-only education law, will effectively eliminate what little remnant of parental choice remained after the initiative be came law.

”This law will give choices to parents who never had choice,” said Margaret Dugan during a debate two years ago. Back then she was a vehement campaigner for Proposition 203; now she is state schools chief Tom Horne’s enforcer.

But neither Horne, who drafted the guidelines, nor Dugan are interested in choices any more.

Not parents’ choices, anyway.

A parent’s right to obtain a “waiver” from the English-only requirement, once a campaign promise to win skeptical voters, is soon to become a meaningless word.

The law says instruction shall be “overwhelmingly in English,” a requirement that “may be waived with the prior written informed consent” of
parents. The main waiver provision is for children who already know English. A child who already knows English, according to the law, is one who scores “at or above the state average” on a test of English. That’s clear enough. Parents and teachers have used this waiver to place bilingual children in a variety of multilingual programs, such as dual language programs that mix English and Spanish speakers in a single classroom and aim for bilingualism for both groups.

But according to Horne, only children who score at the publisher’s prescribed “pass ing” mark will be eligible for waivers. That’s a significant change, and not at all in keeping with the text of the initiative.

Tests are far from perfect, and the English tests sanctioned by this state are far too
difficult.

In a recent study at ASU, for instance, one of the most common English tests used in Arizona was administered to mature English speakers who knew no other language. Remarkably, none of these children scored in the “fluent” range, and 16 percent were rated with “negligible English.”

If monolingual English speakers can’t pass such tests, then English learners probably won’t either.

No pass means no waiver. And no waiver means all the choices belong to Horne and Dugan.

Not all kids are alike, and parents and teachers need some flexibility to meet students’ individual needs.

Together with Ron Unz, Horne and Dugan made the rules and vigorously fought to establish them. Can’t they at least now abide by them?

--Jeff MacSwan
Chandler
The writer is an assistant professor of education at ASU and an organizer of next week’s fourth International Symposium on Bilingualism at the university.

Sent to the Arizona Republic April 25, 2003

Tom Horne continues to quote an Education Next article about a laughably flawed investigation that purports to compare students who were taught either in ESL programs or bilingual education programs. Here’s what the report’s author himself admits about his study:

1. The study’s data is based on students’ “recollections” rather than verifiable information.
2. The two groups of students were asked in 1980 to recall their schooling during the ‘60s and ‘70s, when few bilingual education programs existed.
3. The study looked at bilingual education programs that did not offer ESL (yet ESL is a critical component of effective bilingual education)
4. The report’s conclusion is that the study’s results show differences that are so negligible they may have been produced by chance!

Yet this flimsy “evidence” is the best justification Horne can muster in support of his plan to deny parents a choice of educational programs. The man has no shame.

Sal Gabaldón

Sent to the Arizona Republic April 23, 2003

Lloyd Engel asks several important questions regarding bilingual education (Apr. 22). Did Arizona eliminate it? No. Voters permitted it through waiver provisions. Did Tom Horne vow to implement the law? Yes, but it was already being implemented. 75% of English learners received English-only instruction before the law passed; 90% afterward. The 10% who remain in bilingual education do so because their parents understand that literacy in English and another language offers their children an academic advantage. Most major studies of language acquisition confirm this. How successful is immersion in California? It promised to make its 1.5 million English learners fluent in one year. Instead, five years later, the English-learner population has grown by another 100,000. 

Judged by its own standard, immersion is a spectacular failure.

Sal Gabaldón

Published in the Arizona Republic  April 23, 2003
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/_0423wedlet236.html

Making effort on ‘immersion’

In his misleading column on April 14 (“English immersion is working in  California”), Doug MacEachern inaccurately accuses faculty in the  colleges of education at the state universities of being contemptuous  of the mandate for structured English immersion (SEI), the outcome of  Proposition 203, the anti-bilingual initiative passed in 2000 and  incorporated into the Arizona Revised Statutes as Title 15, Article  3.1, Sections 751-755.

As the associate dean for teacher education and the division director  for curriculum and instruction at ASU-Main, I know for a fact that some  of us are working very closely with Margaret García-Dugan, state  superintendent of schools Tom Horne’s appointee to monitor the  implementation of Proposition 203, to ensure that highly qualified  teachers provide English language learners (ELLs) engaging contexts to  attain English proficiency and master the academic and content  standards required by the state.

All public Arizona colleges of education are working together in  planning and implementing English language institutes for teachers in  every region of the state.

Such efforts, in coordination with the state Department of Education,  can assure that Arizona does not duplicate California’s experience with  the unfortunate decrease in academic achievement for English language  learners since the passage of Proposition 227 in 1998.

Carlos Ovando
Tempe

Published in the Arizona Republic April 19, 2003 http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0419satlet3-193.html

Passed in 1998, the English for the Children’s California campaign promised that students were to become fluent after only “one year of intensive English immersion”.  At the beginning of the 1998-99 school year there were 1,406,166 students in California not fluent in the English language waiting for English for the Children’s common sense classes.  At the end of this first year, Mr. Ron Unz and many reporter proclaimed success while calling teacher who supported bilingual education “human vampires” and bilingual education a “failure”.  Only 7.6% of the students became fluent in English.

Doug MacEachern wrote in “English immersion is working in Calif.” (April 14, 2003), “But of course. Given the ideological baggage they’ve tied to their catastrophic academic failure, bilingual ed, you can’t expect any less of them. Think of Saddam Hussein’s reality-denying minister of information at those delightful Baghdad press conferences. No imperialist American tanks at the airport. No special magic about English “immersion.”

MacEachern writes this because four years into the English immersion mandate intended to only last one year students took a test on basic communication skills which showed that 11% were “Proficient”.  This year the same students took the same test (now five years into English immersion) and 32% scored at “Proficient”.

Comparing bilingual education supporters to “Saddam Hussein’s reality-denying minister of information” is curious because Mr. MacEachern is the journalist who can write opinion in the press stating his opinion as fact.  This is not the first time that those that support bilingual education were compared to such a event.

Mr. Ron Unz wrote in the National Review, ( “Rocks Falling Upward” October 26, 2001 ) “A few weeks ago, Americans witnessed the enormous devastation that a small handful of fanatically committed individuals can wreak upon society. Perhaps it is now time for ordinary Americans to be willing to take a stand against those similarly tiny groups of educational terrorists in our midst, whose disastrous policies are enforced upon us not by bombs or even by knives, but simply by their high-pitched voices. Americans must remain silent no longer.”

When Mr. Unz made his “educational terrorist” statement, 1,480,527 students in California were not English fluent.  At the end of the same 2001-02 school year only 9.1% of these students had become capable to study and understand instruction at grade level in English.

Today 1,511,299 students are non English fluent in California.  Mr. MacEachern may be correct in bring in the analogy of misinformation coming from Iraq just days before its government’s downfall.  Unfortunately in this case, those who are celebrating English immersion’s success in California are going in direct contrast to those who are sitting in the “one year” classes for the second, third, forth and even fifth year.  Parents of the children are witnessing California’s English immersion failure, and teachers who are calling to the attention the dismal failure are being called names once again.

Denis O’Leary
Education Advisor,
National far West Region,
League of United Latin American Citizens
 

Published in the Arizona Republic, April 19, 2003: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0419satlet3-191.html

Doug MacEachern needs to take another look at California’s test scores. Contrary to his claim, they don’t prove that “English immersion is working in California” (April 14). MacEachern reported that the number of English learners meeting state standards tripled. MacEachern does not point out that this figure was based on childrenwho were tested two years in a row. Last year, 19% were beginners, 71% were intermediate, 11% proficient. This year, data on the same children showed that 8% were still beginners, 61% intermediate and 32% proficient. That’s a very modest gain for a year’s study.

Unnoticed  is the fact that California’s Proposition 227, like Arizona’s Proposition 203, 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 California is using a new test for English learners, the CELDT. Research shows that the first time a test is given, scores look low, and they increase as teachers and
students get familiar with the test.  At least some of the gains may be due to this normal test scores inflation, not actual improvement.

Stephen Krashen , Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California  

Sent to Foxnews.com, April 12, 2003
Joanne Jacobs (“Iraqi Textbooks and the English Language,” April 11 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83934,00.html )notes that in California “Mexican immigrant students are achievingproficiency in English at unprecedented rates.” Let’s look at the numbers.  Last year, 19% were beginners, 71% were intermediate, 11% proficient. This year, data on the same children showed that 8% were still beginners, 61% intermediate and 32% proficient. That’s a very modest gain for a year’s study.

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 California is using a new test for English learners, the CELDT. Research shows that the first time a test is given, scores look low, and they increase as teachers and
students get familiar with the test.  At least some of the improvement may be due to this normal test scores inflation, not actual improvement.

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 two to five between children in districts that kept bilingual education and districts that dumped bilingual education.  In addition, scientifically controlled studies have consistently shown that children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as those in all-English programs, and usually acquire more.


Stephen Krashen , Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Published in the LA Times, April 9, 2003
English-Fluency Proposition Has Failed (Original Unedited version as submitted below)

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, Oxnard

Letter sent to the LA Times:

The LA Times interprets gains on 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” (“Fix the fluency system,” April 5).

Proposition 227 was touted to be common sense stating students would learn English in English like sponges.  Bilingual education was called a failure and bilingual teachers were called vampires.  Proposition 227 was promoted in 1998 as the salvation for generations of future students to become English fluent in one year.  It passed in June 1998 and was implemented 60 days later.

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 text book at grade level according to Stanford 9 test.  An alarming 93% of these students are looking at school books they do not understand, and 68% cannot even communicate in proper English that they are being short changed in class.

Unnoticed by the Times 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 in 1999.  Five years later the vast majority of students are being left behind.  Prop. 227 was a failed idea.

Denis O’Leary
Education Advisor,
National Far West Region
League of United Latin American Citizens
 

Published in Metro West Daily news and Milford Daily News, Masschusettes, Saturday, April 5, 2003

Letter: Dialogue needed on language

In response to “Forum tackles English immersion”, the board of directors for the Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL) wishes to express its concern about needed real dialogue about how to best meet the needs of English language learners. MATSOL, as a professional organization of educators across the state of Massachusetts, represents over 1,200 educators of English language learners at the levels of adult, workplace, elementary, secondary, and higher education.

MATSOL hopes the forum on Question 2 includes discussion of some very well kept secrets. First: scientific studies consistently show that bilingual education is successful in helping children acquire English; children in bilingual programs consistently do at least as well as those in “English immersion” and usually do better on tests of English reading. Highly successful two-way bilingual programs throughout the state prove this point.

Second: Evidence shows that Proposition 227 was not a success in California. A recent study by WestEd compared districts that kept bilingual education because of waivers and those that dumped it. The result? No difference in English language development. Bilingual education was just as effective as English immersion.

In response to the statement of Paul Karoff, vice president for university affairs at Lesley, that “the debate is over and the voters have spoken.” But have they really been heard. Ninety three percent of Latinos voted against question #2. Latino parents throughout the state will have a one size fits all approach on them. Because this forum takes place during the day, when most parents are working, they will yet again be left out of the dialogue.

CARLOS MATOS, president, MATSOL

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, April 5

The LA Times interprets gains on 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” (“Fix the fluency system,” April 5). Let’s take another look. Last year, 19% were beginners, 71% were intermediate, 11% proficient. This year, data on the same children showed that 8% were still beginners, 61% intermediate and 32% proficient. That’s a very modest gain for a year’s study.

Unnoticed by the Times 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.

Stephen Krashen , Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California  

Sent to the Arizona Republic, April 4, 2003

Johanna Haver claims that English learners in all-English programs outperformed  those in bilingual education  in California recently (“Pimentel is ignoring the evidence,”  April 4). Not true.

The California report compared students tested in both 2001 and 2002. Because children with more  English are typically placed in English-only programs rather than bilingual education, those in bilingual education began at lower levels.  In 2001, 3% of those in bilingual education were rated as proficient, increasing to 16% in 2002. For  all-English ESL, the improvement was from 9%  to 30% proficient. Subtracting 2002 scores from 2001 scores, English-only looks better (21% gain versus 13%). But children in bilingual education increased their scores fivefold and English-only children improved only three times as much.

Both of these methods are wrong. The scientific way is to do studies in which groups start at the same level, or  studies in which initial differences are statistically controlled. Children in bilingual education do very well in these studies, acquiring at least as much English as children in all-English programs, and usually more.

Educational decisions are now supposed to be based on scientific studies. Yet scientific data on bilingual education is ignored in favor of crude, unscientific test scores.

Stephen Krashen , Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California  

Submitted as an editorial to the Arizona Republic April 3, 2003:
Horne waivers on parental choice
By Jeff MacSwan

Last Monday, scores of teachers, parents and children showed up a meeting of the State Board of Education to express their disapproval of the new “guidelines” for implementation of Proposition 203, the state’s English-only education law.

The guidelines, drafted by state schools chief Tom Horne, will have the effect of eliminating what little remnant of parental choice remained after the initiative became law.

”This law will give choices to parents who never had choice,” said Margaret Dugan at a debate held at the ASU Law School two years ago.

Dugan, then a vehement campaigner for Proposition 203, has now been appointed as Horne’s enforcer.

But neither Horne nor Dugan are interested in choices any more.

Not parents’ choices, anyway.

At issue is parents’ right to obtain a “waiver” from the English-only requirement—once a campaign promise to win skeptical voters, soon to
become a meaningless word.

As written and as approved by voters, the law provides that instruction shall be “overwhelmingly in English,” but that the English-only requirement “may be waived with the prior written informed consent” of parents.

The main waiver provision is for children who already know English, some of whom may also know another language. A child who already knows English, according to the law, is one who scores “at or above the state average” on a test of English.

Parents and teachers have used this allowance in the law to keep a variety of multilingual program options alive for students, providing waivers for children who scored at or above the state average.

But according to Horne, only children who score at the publisher’s prescribed “passing” mark will be eligible for waivers.

That’s a significant change, and not at all in keeping with the text of the initiative.

The problem, of course, is that tests are far from perfect, and the English tests sanctioned by the state of Arizona are far too difficult for most English learners.

Take the Woodcock-Muoz, for instance, one of the most commonly used English tests. In a recent study at Arizona State University, the test was administered to mature English speakers who knew no other language.

Remarkably, none of the English speakers in the study scored in the “fluent” range, and 16 percent were rated with “negligible English.”

Yet the children in the study were perfectly conversant in English, and knew no other language.

The point, of course, is that if monolingual English speakers can’t pass such tests, then English learners probably won’t stand a chance.

And under Horne’s guidelines, no pass means no waiver.

And no waiver means all the choices belong to Horne and Dugan.

If you ask Horne to explain his enthusiasm for English immersion, he’ll show you a graph he likes to call a study. He won’t tell you that the “study” was concocted by Ron Unz, the English-only zealot who funded the signature drive to put Proposition 203 on the ballot.

Worst of all, the so-called study has not passed any of the tests of scientific merit.

You might also like to ask Horne why he doesn’t use scientifically designed studies to guide policy decisions instead of the one he picked up from Ron Unz on the campaign trail. It’s not as though there aren’t any.

The problem for Horne is that the conclusions of well conducted studies are inconsistent with his English-only ideology.

Take, for instance, a recent study by Jay Greene, a senior researcher for the Manhattan Institute, a conservative education policy think tank.

Greene reviewed numerous studies of bilingual education and concluded that “the strength and consistency of” research results “increases confidence in the conclusion that bilingual programs are effective at increasing standardized test scores measured in English.”

The National Research Council twice reached the same conclusion.

Closing the waiver provision used originally to gain voters’ support for the initiative is unfair, and makes Horne and Dugan look like terribly poor sports.

Together with Ron Unz, they made the rules and vigorously fought for them. Can’t they at least now abide by them?
--------------
Jeff MacSwan is an assistant professor of education at Arizona State
University.

Sent to the Arizona Republic, April 1, 2003

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 California confirms that all-English approaches are not a panacea: For children tested both last year and this year, only 32% attained a ranking of “proficient” this year. This is a very modest result considering the fact that 82% scored at the low intermediate level or higher last year.

The vast majority of these children have been in all-English programs for longer than one year. California’s Proposition 227, similar to Arizona’s Proposition 203, mandates all-English approaches, and allows only one year for children to become proficient in English. Clearly, Prop. 227 has failed to keep its promise. In fact, it didn’t even come close.

Stephen Krashen Professor Emeritus
School of Education
University of Southern California

Sent to Education Week March 29, 2003

In regard to your article “Mass. Chief Steers Steady Course Through Conflicts,” (March 5, 2003), the board of directors for the Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages expresses its concern that the state has left many of its English-language learners behind. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS, has failed over 6,058 students, a figure that does not include those who have dropped out because of the test. These 6,058 students are overwhelmingly Hispanic, African-American, English-language learners, and those from urban areas. While 90 percent of the class of 2003 have passed the test (a figure that includes 94 percent of white students), only 67 percent of English-language learners, 75 percent of black students, and 70 percent of Hispanics have passed. There is no strategic response to address this racial achievement gap. With only a draft guidance document available for the implementation of a referendum that calls for a one-size-fits-all English-immersion program, districts are charged with developing the new program at a time when resources are scarce and guidance unclear. Time constraints and a lack of resources do not allow for the systematic and thoughtful planning needed for implementation of these new structured-immersion programs. Rushing to create programs without thoughtful discussion on the best approaches, materials, long-term professional development, instructional techniques, and program design is a disaster in the making. The Massachusetts Department of Education should learn from the mistakes of California and Arizona in this area and not repeat them.

Carlos Matos
President
Massachusetts Association of Teachers of
Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL)
Boston, Mass.
 

Sent to the LA Times March 29, 2003

To the editor:

Why is it that, when challenged to do a little math, normally skeptical journalists go all wobbly in the knees?

Case in point: the unscientific use of raw test scores to claim success for English-only instruction in California. According to a Times report (March 26), the number of English language learners who met English proficiency standards nearly tripled last year. Among a group of 862,000 students who took a state test two years in a row, 32 percent scored advanced or early advanced in 2002, versus only 11 percent in 2001.

This sounds like dramatic progress. Ron Unz hailed the news as vindication of Proposition 227, the ballot measure he sponsored in 1998, which replaced most bilingual education with a one-year, all-English program.

The Times failed to note, however, that the comparison was of the apples-and-oranges variety. Students gains in 2002 were hardly surprising because they had received an additional year of English instruction. In most cases, they re-took the same test they had taken in 2001, when 71 percent of them already scored at intermediate levels in English.

This is a strange measure of success. Would anyone get excited if 2^nd graders slightly outperformed 1^st graders on an identical test of reading? Never mind that two-thirds of these students are still failing to meet minimal standards of English proficiency after more than a year of schooling  usually a lot more.

Are California’s English language learners making good progress or not? Are they doing better in bilingual or English-only classrooms? Without scientific studies, designed to make meaningful comparisons rather than score political points, we will never know for sure.

One thing we do know is that it’s taking California students far longer to learn English than the one year that Unz promised.

James Crawford
Silver Spring, MD

Stephen Krashen Professor Emeritus
School of Education
University of Southern California
 

Sent to Nanette Asimov of the San Francisco Chronicle 3-26-03

Dear Nanette,

I am writing you as a teacher educator with expertise in instruction for English language learners (ELL). One of my areas of expertise is in the relationship between language proficiency and effective programs of instruction.  I read your article of March 26. Unfortunately, the article contains several misinterpretations of statistical data based on false assumptions about ELL students and programs that mislead your readers regarding the effectiveness of different programs for ELL. In addition, you have omitted data from the CELDT exam that is important in understanding the broader policy arena for educating language minority students.

The data from the second year of administration of the CELDT does not provide an accurate basis for comparing programs of instruction.  Nor do these statistics support the conclusion that students in one program are learning English faster than students in other programs. The data merely describe the English proficiency levels of students enrolled in different programs. The misinterpretation of these factors leads to faulty conclusions regarding cause and effect. There are several reasons for this:

1. The students who are actually enrolled in a bilingual program or an “English-only” program are in these different programs in part  because their language proficiency is different. Students who are enrolled in bilingual education are usually in the bilingual program because they have lower proficiency in English. We cannot conclude that they do not have lower English proficiency because they are in a bilingual program. Furthermore, we cannot conclude from this data that the majority of students in bilingual programs are not if fact increasing their English at the same rate (one CELDT level per year) as students in English-only programs.

Allow me to draw an analogy. If we were to give a proficiency test in French to high school students enrolled in French 1 and compare their proficiency in the language with students enrolled in French 2 or French 3, what would the data tell us? Predictably, they would indicate that the French 1 students have lower proficiency. Could we say, based on these data, that the French 3 program is “better than” the French 1 program because the students in French 3 are more proficient than those in French 1? Could we say that the students in French 2 are learning French faster than those in French 1 because their scores are higher on tests of French language proficiency? Can we conclude that French 2 is a more effective program because more students in French 2 are ready to move on to French 3 from this group than from the group of students in French 1?

Statistics can be manipulated and portrayed to suit a particular purpose. There are many contradictions and unexplained discrepancies within the data presented by the CDE in their year to year comparisons of students reaching the “proficient” level. Please see Attachment C to the CA Department of Education’s official press release on the CELDT data. This attachment contains a table that gives a different picture of the comparisons of percentages of students who score at the “proficient” level on the CELDT (early advanced or advanced) between 2001 and 2002. According to this table, which is broken down by grade spans tested, there is  an 8% difference in all grades between the numbers of students who scored as proficient in these two years. This suggests that

Attachment A

http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/CELDTA.pdf

Attachment C

http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/CELDTC.pdf

It is also important to keep in mind that the state of California accepts progress of one level increase in the CELDT per year as an average to determine that students are making “satisfactory progress” in learning English. Since the CELDT is a 6-point rating scale, this means that the average student is not expected to reach “proficiency” in less than five years. Consider that Proposition 227 mandates that students should be placed in mainstream or regular English classes after one year. There is a vast discrepancy between the legal mandate and the expectations for English language and academic development for ELL based on expected gains in CELDT scores. As a tax payer, I would not call this “success” after five years of implementing this law.

I would also like to point out the findings of the extensive study of the impact of Proposition commissioned by the California Department of Education through WestED and the American Institutes for Research (AIR). This study, published in 2002, found no significant differences between the progress of students in bilingual education programs and English-only programs in their rate of learning English. It is about time that policy makers, the public, and the press recognize and acknowledge that the debate over English-only versus bilingual education is purely political. There is a large body of methodologically sound research that confirm the effectiveness of well-designed and well-implemented bilingual programs in supporting the academic achievement of ELL. Comparisons between the “effectiveness” of bilingual education and English-only are politically motivated. There is no reason for the state or federal government to curtail the rights of parents who choose bilingual education for their children to have access to these programs of instruction. I hope that you will reconsider your misleading use of statistical data to bolster a particular political agenda that damages our ability to educate our bilingual students so that they can fully realize their human potential.

Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education
Interim Assistant Director of Student Affairs
School of Teacher Education
San Diego State University
Office 619 594-6110
FAX 619 594-7828
Website: http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora

Sent to the San Francisco Chronicle 3-26-03

Re: English-only students do better on state test

The recent release of the California English Language Development test shows that about 30% of students can have a conversation in English.   Unfortunately only 7% are able to read a school text book at grade level.

Proposition 227 came into effect only 60 days after the 1998 election.  Why the rush?  Because kids were to pick up the English language like sponges, learning English in English.  All students were to become fluent by the end of the 1998-’99 school year and bilingual education was to be exposed as the fraud it was claimed to be.

Five years later 90% of non English fluent students are still in the “one year of intensive English immersion” program and only 7% can read a school text book at grade level.  A 93% failure rate is not much to celebrate about.

No one has ever claimed that bilingual education makes students English fluent after only one year, but after the same five year period 90% are at par in academic instruction as English native speaking students.  This will be important when high school students will be expected to pass an academic high school proficiency exam in English to receive their diplomas.

Denis O’Leary
Education Advisor, National Far West Region
League of United Latin American Citizens

Sent to the LA Times: 3/26/03

Re: Gains posted by Limited-English Schoolchildren

The recent release of the California English Language Development test scores once again gives opponents of bilingual instruction the chance to celebrate failure.  It is true that students are learning English.  The CELDT shows that about 30% of students can have a conversation in English.   Unfortunately for the students forced into the voter mandated “one year of intensive English immersion” only 7% are able to follow academic instruction from school text books at grade level.

Proposition 227 came into effect in September 1998, (only 60 days after the law was at the ballot).  Why the rush?  Because kids were to pick up the English language like sponges, learning English in English.  All students were to become fluent by the end of the 1998-’99 school year and the oppressive bilingual education bureaucratic machine was to be exposed as the fraud it was claimed to be.

Five years later 90% of non English fluent students are still in the “one year of intensive English immersion” program and only 7% can read a school text book at grade level.  A 93% failure rate is not much to celebrate about.

No one has ever claimed that bilingual education makes students English fluent after only one year.  Yet, after the same five year period bilingual education has made 90% of its participants academically fluent in the English language.  Bilingual educated students have not only become English fluent, but they are at par in academic instruction as English native speaking students.  This will be important when high school students will be expected to pass an academic  high school proficiency exam in English to receive their diplomas.

If those kindergartners from Prop 227’s first year who turn 18 in the year 2011 are educationally deprived they will vote from their experiences, not the promises of an oppressive political pedagogy or self congratulatory conservative nimby’s.  The failure to recognize the success of bilingual education may be very painful for many but the celebration of the 93% failure rate from English immersion classes will be remembered by future voters.

Denis O’Leary
Education Advisor, National Far West Region
League of United Latin American Citizens

Sent to the San Francisco Chronicle 3/26/03

Re: English-only students do better on state test

Claims about the effectiveness of English-only instruction based on recent California English Language test (CELDT) results are incorrect.

According to reports, 9% of English learners in English-only scored at the “proficient”  level in 2001, increasing to 32% in 2002.  In 2001, 3% of those in bilingual education were at the proficient level, increasing to 16%.  But consider this:

The CELDT was introduced last year.  Research shows that the first time a test is given, scores look low, and they increase as teachers and students get familiar with the test.  The CELDT increase may simply be due to normal test scores inflation, not actual improvement.

Those in bilingual education started out at a lower level.  This  is because children with more English are typically placed in English-only programs rather than bilingual education.  Scientific studies in which all groups start at the same level, or differences are statistically controlled, show that bilingual education is effective: Students in bilingual programs usually do better on English tests than those in English-only, and at worst they do the same.

There is a strong push now in education to base decisions on “scientific” studies.  Yet scientific data on bilingual education is ignored in favor of crude, unscientific test scores.

Stephen Krashen
 

Sent to the LA Times March 26, 2003
Re: Gains posted by Limited-English Schoolchildren, 3/26/03

Claims about the effectiveness of English-only instruction based on recent California English Language Test (CELDT) results are incorrect.

According to reports, 9% of English learners in English-only scored at the “proficient”  level in 2001, increasing to 32% in 2002.  In 2001, 3% of those in bilingual education were at the proficient level, increasing  to 16%.  But consider this:

The CELDT was introduced last year.  Research shows that the first time a test is given, scores look low, and they increase as teachers and students get familiar with the test.  The CELDT increase may simply be due to normal test scores inflation, not actual improvement.

Those in bilingual education started out at a lower level.  This  is because children with more English are typically placed in English-only programs rather than bilingual education.  Scientific studies in which all groups start at the same level, or differences are statistically controlled, show that bilingual education is effective: Students in bilingual programs usually do better on English tests than those in English-only, and at worst they do the same.

Different calculation methods give different results. Subtracting 2002 scores from 2001 scores, English-only looks better. But bilingual education children increased their scores fivefold and English-only children improved only 3.5 times as much. The proper way to evaluate programs is with scientifically controlled studies; bilingual education does very well in these studies.

There is a strong push now in education to base decisions on “scientific” studies.  Yet scientific data on bilingual education is ignored in favor of crude, unscientific test scores.

Stephen Krashen
Emeritus Professor of Education, USC
 

Sent to the Ventura County  Reporter March 23, 2003

Jill Stewart writes in “Fluff and Fold” March 20, 2003, “The shy, wealthy Republican Unz was the first to publicly utter one of the most painful political truths I’d ever heard: that we, the people of California, had created a society of 1.5 million Latino teenagers who after years of schooling in this country could not read or write in English.”

Ron Unz may be wealthy, but not shy. One point implied to but not said is that he is also credible person. Not mentioned in Unz’s “most painful political” truth is that California has never had less than 75% of its English Language Learners in English Immersion classes, even before 1998 when Unz wrote and passed Proposition 227.

Today, with 90% of English Language Learners in what was said to be “one year of English immersion” 93% have failure to become English fluent after the one year of immersion. After five years of Unz’s celebrated Proposition 227 only 30% of students have become English fluent. No one has ever claimed that bilingual education makes students English fluent after only one year. Yet, after the same five year period bilingual education has made 90% of its participants fluent in the English language.  Bilingual educated students have not only become English fluent, but they are at par in academic instruction as English native speaking students.

Jill Steward writes, “One study by the Los Angeles Unified School District showed California had 1.5 million functionally illiterate Latino young adults, churned out by discredited “bilingual education.”

Functional illiteracy has more to do with the discredited “English immersion” classes which have failed the Latino community before Proposition 227 as well as after its strict mandates. Celebrating failure of an entire community when that community is witness to its devastation is only going to oppress a people.

If those Latinos who turn 18 in the year 2016 are educationally deprived they will vote from their experiences, not the promises of an oppressive political party or self congratulatory conservative writers. The failure to recognize the success of bilingual education may be very painful but the celebration of the 93% failure rate from English immersion classes will be remembered by future voters.

Denis O’Leary
Education Advisor, National Far West Region
League of United Latin American Citizens

Published in the Taipei Times Thursday, Mar 13, 2003,Page 8
Krashen was right

Kudos for publishing Stephen Krashen’s inspiring letter (Letters, Mar. 9, Page 8), which has shed light on our long-time debate on whether to start the teaching of English in Taiwan from the kindergarten, or delay the educational undertaking till the third grade.

I side with Krashen, a renowned cognitive psychologist, who is enthusiastic about language acquisition and bilingual education. The view that a child’s solid foundation in his or her native language is instrumental to the learning of a second or foreign language is justifiable from a psycholinguistic point of view. It can also be supported from the perspective of sociolingusitics.

As more and more parents are eager to send their young children to all-English kindergartens or English-only centers for total immersion programs, they tend to ignore the fact that their kids will be disadvantaged eventually for being deprived of the basic knowledge of the first language. Krashen is absolutely right when he wrote, “those with a better knowledge of their first language do better in second language acquisition.” Indeed, the subject-matter knowledge that young children learn through their first language will enable them to lay the tangible groundwork for learning the second or third language, along with their mental development.

Competence in English is related to competence in Chinese. Increasing numbers of elementary school students in the Taipei area are speaking acceptable English because they tend to have stronger basic Chinese-language education. Their bilingual ability is a justification of this pedagogical argument. As for those students in senior high schools or colleges and universities, competence in English is usually compatible with their performance in Chinese.

In her keynote speech delivered at the International Symposium on English Teaching in Taipei, Nov. 11, 2000, Catherine Elizabeth Snow and Henry Lee Shattuck of Harvard University, also reiterated the argument that older children can acquire second languages even faster than younger children. The analytical strategies of the older learners can be more diverse than those of the younger ones in the acquisition of the four language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. And above all, foreign language learning covers the acquisition of cultures and other matters, in addition to the fundamental language skills.

Facing the reality of English already being the lingua franca throughout the world, it is important that we adopt this highly creditable approach to help our children develop their bilingual competence in preparation for the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Chen-ching Li
Taipei

Published in The Taiwan Times, Sunday, Mar 09, 2003,Page 8
Quality beats quantity

The chairperson of the teachers’ association at National Chu-Pei High School Han Shu-jean feels that “Starting English teaching in the third grade rather than in the first grade would be more beneficial to our students” (“Sensitivity to students imperative in curricula,” Feb. 28, page 8), because students “should be given more time to lay a firm foundation in Chinese first.”

The research on second-language acquisition agrees. It is well-established that younger is not faster; older children acquire second languages faster than younger children. Starting later is thus more efficient. Studies of bilingual education show that those with a better knowledge of the first language do better in second language
acquisition.

Students with better education in the first language have more subject-matter knowledge, and this helps them understand more in classes conducted in the second language.

Also, research strongly suggests that aspects of literacy transfer across languages. For example, recent research by Haeyoung Kim of the Catholic University of South Korea, has confirmed that those who develop a recreational reading habit in the first language (Korean) tend to read more in English, which has a strong positive influence
on second-language development.

Lee Sy-ying, of National Taipei University, has shown that those who develop efficient writing strategies in their first language (Chinese) tend to develop efficient strategies in English.

Nobody denies the importance of developing competence in English. Ironically, spending less time focusing on English and more time paying attention to the primary language is a very good way to improve English language education.

Stephen Krashen,
California

Published in Education Week:

Do Latinos Favor Bilingual Ed.?

Ron K. Unz claims the recall of Nativo Lopez from the Santa Ana, Calif., school board is evidence that bilingual education is not popular, “even among Latinos” (“Calif. School Board Member Recalled Over Prop. 227,” Feb. 12, 2003). We know that Mr. Unz is not aware of the research in the field; apparently, he does not read newspapers either.

If he did, he would know that 95 percent of the 4,000 Latinos recently polled by the AOL Time Warner Foundation/People en Espaol said they supported bilingual education; that 92 percent of Latinos surveyed in Massachusetts by the Instituto Mauricio Gastn and the University of Massachusetts opposed his anti-bilingual initiative in that state, Question 2; that opposition among Latinos to Amendment 31, his
anti-bilingual initiative in Colorado, reached 66 percent; and that opposition to Proposition 227, his anti-bilingual initiative in California, was 63 percent among Latinos.

For a person who wants to be treated as an intellectual (“a theoretical physicist by training”? What is that?), Mr. Unz would do well to make
himself better informed in the area he chooses so frequently to debate.


Francisco Ramos
Miami, Fla.
March 5

Sent to Rethinking Schools, March 3, 2003
To the editor:

Padres Unidos (“Colorado upholds the right to bilingual education,” Spring, 2003, p. 20) noted that different groups were approached with
different reasons for voting against Amendment 31, the anti-bilingual education initiative, and they listed several very good reasons: The Unz proposal was indeed too costly, too punitive, (and) too restrictive, and it hurts development of the heritage language.

A very important reason for supporting bilingual education, however, was missing, a reason that should appeal to everybody: It works. Children in bilingual education program acquire as least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs, and typically acquire more. Research done in the US shows this is the case, and research done in other countries confirms that bilingual programs are good for second language acquisition. Research also shows that children in bilingual programs drop out less than comparison students in all-English programs.

Campaigns such as the one we just experienced in Colorado are an excellent opportunity to tell the public about this little-known fact. If we fail to take advantage of such temporary platforms, we encourage future attacks on bilingual education that simply avoid the costly, punitive and restrictive aspects of Amendment 31.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Sent to the Taipei Times, Feb. 28, 2003
To the editor:

Han Shu-jean feels that ‘Starting English teaching in the third grade rather than in the first grade would be more beneficial to our students” (Letters,Feb. 28), because students “should be given more time to lay a firm foundation in Chinese first.”

The research on second language acquisition agrees.

It is well-established that younger is not faster; older children acquire second languages faster than younger children. Starting later is thus more efficient. Studies of bilingual education show that those with a better knowledge of the first language do better in second language acquisition.  Students with better education in the first language have more subject matter knowledge, and this helps them understand more in classes conducted in the second language.

Also, research strongly suggests that aspects of literacy transfer across languages. For example, recent research by Haeyoung Kim of the Catholic University of Korea has confirmed that those who develop a recreational reading habit in the first language (Korean) tend to read more in English, which has a strong positive influence on second language development. Prof. Sy-ying Lee of National Taipei University has shown that those who develop efficient writing strategies in their first language (Chinese) tend to develop efficient strategies in English.

Nobody denies the importance of developing competence in English. Ironically, starting a bit later and paying more attention to the primary language are very good ways of improving English language education.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Published in Education Week, 2/26/03
Do Latinos Support Bilingual Ed.? Yes.
To the Editor:
Ron K. Unz claims that the recall of Nativo Lopez from the Santa Ana, Calif., school board is evidence that bilingual education is not popular, even among Latinos (“Calif. School Board Member Recalled Over Prop. 227,” Feb. 12, 2003). If this is true, why did 95 percent of the 4,000 Latinos recently polled by the Cheskin Group say they supported bilingual education?
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif.
 

Sent to Jose Carillo, columnist in the Manila Times in response to his column Feb. 22, 2003: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/feb/22/top_stories/20030222top11.html

Dear Mr. Carillo,

In 1998 California voters passed Proposition 227, an initiative that dismantled bilingual education. You note in your article of Feb. 22 that “only time will tell” if this initiative will succeed or not. Actually, we know quite a bit already. A major study done by West Ed, released a few months ago, compared children in schools that kept bilingual education (because of special waivers) and children in schools that dropped bilingual education. Increases in reading scores from grades 2 to 5 were identical.

The study is not perfect. More children were tested in 2001 than in 1998, and the West Ed study showed that many “English-only” programs used a considerable amount of the child’s first language, but the data so far does not show any substantial increase in English
competence for children learning English. All that apparently happened in California is that far fewer children now participate in bilingual programs, with no increase in English language ability. California has given up bilingualism and has received nothing in return.

The report is available at: “http://www.wested.org/cs/wew/view/rs/661”

Sincerely,

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Sent to the Wall Street Journal Feb. 22, 2003

Dear Wall Street Journal Editors:

It continues to fascinate me no end that a leading journal such as yours manages to focus on 1 or 2 incidents regarding bilingual ed
to write an editorial while ignoring the mountain of facts which don’t jive with your position...given the current state of affairs
economically speaking and how the Wall Street Journal is THE journal for investors, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at the
down turn of events.

If your reporters even bothered to investigate a bit further, a casual glance at the California Department of Ed’s website indicates that English immersion continues to be the dismal failure it was long before bilingual ed was ever introduced there or elsewhere. Currently, a whopping 4% of the English learners in high school made it to the 50^th percentile on their state-wide test...this is down from previous years (Oh yes, what a wonderful goal -let’s all aspire to a 4 percent proficiency rate). Scores from other grades for students in English immersion, for the most part are either stagnant, or down... with a few gaining minimal points. The much-touted success by proponents of immersion have been based on one or two grade levels - they conveniently ignore the dismal picture in the other grades which gets worse the higher up you go.

Moreover, the gap between English speakers and English learners has widened since the passage of Prop 227. If English immersion was such a blinding success (it certainly seems to have blinded you guys), the gap  would be closing and the test scores would be spiking.

Nationwide more than 80% of all English learners have NEVER been in any form of bilingual education. This means that the high
drop out rate amongst Latinos can be attributed to English immersion (p.s. the drop out rate is increasing, not decreasing) and not to
bilingual ed. Interestingly enough, a recent study done with Latino drop outs found that students who had bilingual ed dropped out at
a far lower rate than those who had received English-only instruction, and that far more students went to college if they had received
some type of bilingual ed during their academic careers.

Other countries sit back and shake their heads at our English-only foolishness - their students graduate schools literate in several
languages which gives them both an economic as well as a cognitive edge, while our monolingual students continue to be relegated to a
monolingual morass because people like you can’t get past their English-only snobbery.

But please, don’t change your tactics for the sake of truth or the enhancement of intellect. Just continue to “lead” the nation into an
economic and linguistic straightjacket - you’re doing a wonderful job as it is.

Priscilla Gutierrez
Colorado

Sent to the Daily Oklahoman, Feb. 18, 2003

The Daily Oklahoman asks: “Do Spanish-speaking students fare better in bilingual or English-only classes?” (Feb. 18). Nearly all published reviews of the scientific research have shown that bilingual education is effective. Students in properly organized bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as comparison students in all-English programs, and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research was done by Dr. Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute. Greene concluded that the use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California

Sent to the Az Daily Star Feb. 16, 2003

The power to enact laws in Arizona lies with the legislature and with the people, through the initiative process. Proposition 203, as enacted by voters, requires waivers and bilingual education. The law very specifically spells out the criteria for three types of waivers, the kinds of testing to be used, and the qualifying scores for Type 1 waivers (see sections 15-753 [B1], {B2], and [B3]. Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction, does not have the authority to alter the law as he intends to do by changing the requirements for waivers. His is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the voters’ wishes in exchange for his own political agenda and to make law through executive regulations. In doing so, he also squashes any remaining rights of language minority parents to determine their children’s educational future. Many parents recognize bilingual education as the advantage it is and want that option for their children. Proposition 203 guarantees that right for parents of children who meet the requirements outlined by the law.

Caryl Crowell
teacher and voter

Published in the Arizona Daily Star Feb. 18, 2003
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30218tuesletrpckg.html

Dear editor:

It’s been stated that if we don’t learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it. The following quote is a prime example.

”We are looking forward to English immersion for our Mexican-American students in our schools,” said Maria Mendoza, who spearheaded the Prop. 203 petition drive. “Finally these children will have the equal opportunity to be academically successful. The key to success is to be fluent in English.”

English immersion was the law of land for over 50 years in Tucson. At that time, the classes were called 1C. The majority of the Mexican-American who students who were given an “equal opportunity to be academically successful” in those years, either dropped out or did not achieve fluency in English.

Therefore, bilingual education programs were established as an academic option so that the English learners could learn their core classes in their first language AS they learned English.

In every educator’s life, there is one poignant moment which influences us to become teachers. My moment has lasted a lifetime. A lifetime of remembering the dejected, angry, inquiring looks of my friends in 1C and the cynical adults they became. Their opportunity for academic success came a price no one should have to pay.

It’s true that with the proper training in English immersion techniques, teachers will be able to more effectively get their students to learn
English as rapidly as possible. English as a second language teachers in a bilingual program already possess these skills. However, how are the students going to learn history, math, science, or especially reading, if they cannot understand the specific language of each subject? Subject matter language is vastly different than just knowing how to speak and understand conversational English.

I am reminded of another quote. This one is from Pogo. We have met the enemy and it is us.

Let parents choose the best academic program for their child to learn: to learn English and to learn content.

Sincerely,

Francisco Reyes
ESL and Bilingual Science Teacher
Wakefield Middle School

Sent to the Arizona Daily Star, Feb. 14, 2003

For the last 30 years, nearly 80% of Arizona’s English learners have attended schools that provided English-only instruction and immersed children in English. The results have not been very encouraging.  Nevertheless, voters approved an initiative that now has 90% of such students in immersion programs. For Tom Horne, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, that isn’t enough. He is deliberately misreading the English immersion law to eliminate the few remaining programs that offered parents an alternative. In the proposal released by his office this week, the most glaring misinterpretation deals with the law’s Type 1 waiver provision.

Here is the wording as it appears in ARS 15-753 B (1): “Children who already know English: The child already possesses good English language skills, as measured by oral evaluation or standardized tests of English vocabulary comprehension, reading, and writing, in which the child scores approximately at or above the state average for his grade level or at or above the 5^th grade average, whichever is lower.”

Compare that to the wording (inserted in caps) as it would effectively read under the proposed rules: Children who already know English: The child already possesses good English language skills, as measured by oral evaluation or standardized tests of English vocabulary comprehension, reading, and writing, in which the child, IF HE IS IN GRADES K-1, scores AT THE PROFICIENCY LEVEL ON THE ORAL PART, BUT IF THE CHILD IS IN GRADES 2-12, THEN HE MUST ALSO SCORE approximately at or above the state average for his grade level or at or above the 5^th grade average, whichever is lower.

The actual law allows either an oral or a literacy assessment, as available, to be used at any grade level. If the child demonstrates on either assessment a score that is at or above the average score in the appropriate grade level, then the child has demonstrated good English language skills and qualifies for a waiver. The law permits either option for good reason. Requiring both assessments in grades 2-12 would place an unnecessary burden on Dual Language programs by forcing native English speakers to take a lengthy, expensive and unnecessary oral assessment.  Ironically, it just such programs that Tucson Superintendent Stan Paz was hoping to expand next year. The law also promised voters that bilingual education would be required in schools where parents obtain twenty or more waivers. By prohibiting 85% of English learners who otherwise could qualify with an oral assessment from doing so, the proposal is a shameful effort to get around the law’s requirement for bilingual education, virtually guaranteeing that the provision would never be used.

The Superintendent is not satisfied that 90% of English learners are in immersion programs. He clearly intends to eliminate any choice for parents, even if it means making a mockery of the law. The Tucson Association for Bilingual Education urges the State Board to forcefully reject the proposed rules.

·        Salvador Gabaldón

Sent to the Orange County Register, Feb. 6, 2003

The Orange County Register continues its membership in the Flat Earth Society, ignoring the substantial scientific evidence showing that bilingual education works (“Santa Ana looks ahead,” Feb. 6).

Bilingual programs do not “delay English.” Rather, it uses the child’s first language in ways that accelerate English language development. Children taught to read in their first language learn to read much more quickly, and this ability quickly transfers to English. Children taught academic subjects in their first language have an easier time understanding instruction when it is presented in English, which accelerates their English language development.

The transition to English happens rapidly. A University of Riverside study showed that by the time children in bilingual education were in the third grade, 90% of their subject matter instruction was in English.

Contrary to the Register’s claim, bilingual education is not a “failed education experiment. “ In the most recent published review of the research , Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute concluded that bilingual education is superior to all-English approaches for English language development.

Stephen Krashen Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, USC

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2003

To the editor:

The LA Times included an important point in their report on the Lopez recall vote (“Voters drawn to take a stand on bilingual ed,” Feb. 5).
One Lopez supporter is quoted as being against “Spanish only” classes but in favor of classes in “both Spanish and English.” Her children,
she said, were ready for regular all-English instruction after a few years of bilingual education and are now fully bilingual.

Very few people support Spanish-only classes. California State University researcher Steven Lee recently reported that only 3% of Latino parents with children in bilingual education programs thought school should be in Spanish only; 76% said both languages should be used in the classroom.

In quality bilingual programs, English is introduced the first day, and subject matter is taught in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible. The first language is used in ways that accelerate English language development. “Spanish-only” is not bilingual education.

Contrary to the claim made in a related article (“Lopez walloped in schools recall vote, “ Feb. 5) students do not acquire English “slowly” in bilingual programs. Study after study shows that children in bilingual programs usually acquire English faster than children in all-English immersion programs, and at worst progress just as quickly.

Stephen Krashen
Emeritus Professor of Education, USC

Lee, S. (1999).The Linguistic Minority Parents’ Perception of Bilingual Education. Bilingual Research Journal 23 (2,3): 199-210.
Original articles can be found at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-savoter5feb05.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-nativo5feb05.story

Published on TaipeiTimes  Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003, Page 8 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/01/15/191091
  English teaching woes

    The Taipei Times points out that the problems of English language teaching in Taiwan have to do with methodology and
    suggests that foreign teachers might be helpful to “train local teachers” and “compile teaching materials” (“A lot to learn about
    teaching English,” Jan. 7, page 8).  

    I am very familiar with Taiwanese scholarship in foreign language teaching. I have attended the last two meetings of the English
    Teachers’ Association of Taiwan and have read the proceedings of all meetings held since 1993. There is just as much expertise
    in language teaching in Taiwan as there is anywhere in the world. There is no need to bring in foreigners, often from
    monolingual countries that do not support bilingualism, with little knowledge of the local situation. I agree with the Taipei Times
    that methodology can be improved, but I suggest that the Ministry of Education first take advantage of its own experts.

     Stephen Krashen
    University of Southern California, CA

 Published on TaipeiTimes  Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003, Page 8 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/01/15/191091

Your editorial made several excellent points concerning English-language education in Taiwan (“A lot to learn about teaching
    English,” Jan. 7, page 8). You placed the blame, for example, squarely on the teaching methods and the emphasis on
    memorization. You also made a good suggestion as to how to use foreign teachers to train our local teachers. I would like to
    add a few cents of my own.

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, Taoyuan County
    Copyright © 1999-2003 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.

Sent to Education Week, Jan 8, 2003
Latinos speak English quite well
In English-Learners & Immigrants, Language Trends (January 8, 2003), Ed Week reported that according to the recent Pew
National Survey of Latinos, forty percent of Latino adults living in the US “haven’t learned English.”

Ed Week readers might be interested in some of the details. Only 11% said they could not carry out a conversation at all in
English, with 29% saying they could converse “a little” and 60% reporting they could converse “pretty well” or “very well.”
This figure is very close to the results of the last US Census: The Census reported that only 8% of Spanish-speakers in the US
could not speak English at all, a figure nearly identical to the percentages for speakers of other languages. It is crucial to
understand that these figures include newcomers, as well as those who do not have the opportunity to attend ESL classes. As
Ed Week notes, almost all second-generation Hispanics are comfortable with English, as are those who arrived in the US before
age ten. Spanish-speakers are acquiring English rapidly and well.

Stephen KrashenPh.D.
Emeritus Professor
USC 

Sent to the Taipei Times, January 12, 2003
To the editor:
The Taipei Times points out that the problems in English language teaching in Taiwan have to do with methodology and suggests that
foreign teachers might be helpful to” train local teachers” and “compile teaching materials “ (“A lot to learn about teaching English,” January
7, 2003). I am very familiar with Taiwanese scholarship in foreign language teaching. I have attended the last two meetings of the English
Teachers’ Association of Taiwan and have read the proceedings of all meetings held since 1993. There is just as much expertise in language
teaching in Taiwan as there is anywhere in the world. There is no need to bring in foreigners, often from monolingual countries that do not
support bilingualism, with little knowledge of the local situation. I agree that with the Times that methodology can be improved, but I
suggest that the Ministry of Education first take advantage of its own experts.

Stephen KrashenPh.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, Jan 5, 2003

The Times’ discussion of the “bilingual ed battle” (January 4) failed to mention why so many parents remain enthusiastic about bilingual education: It works. Their positive experiences are backed up by a great deal of scientific research: Study after study shows that children in well-organized bilingual programs often acquire more English than those in immersion, and at worst acquire just as much.

The Times also failed to mention why bilingual education works: Bilingual education does more than simply keeping children from falling behind while they learn English. Bilingual programs do several things to help children acquire English.

They develop literacy in the first language: Developing literacy in the first language is a shortcut to English literacy. It is much easier to learn to read in a language the child understands, and once the child can read in the primary language, reading ability transfers rapidly to English.

They teach subject matter in the first language: Teaching subject matter in the first language stimulates intellectual development and provides valuable knowledge that will help the child understand instruction when it is presented in English, which accelerates English-language development.

High-quality bilingual programs also introduce English from the first day in the form of English as a Second Language classes, and they teach academic subjects in English as soon as instruction can be made comprehensible.

The Times own analysis revealed that many people voted for Prop. 227 because “English is so important.” These voters did not realize that bilingual education does an excellent job in helping children acquire English.

Stephen KrashenPh.D.
Emeritus Professor
USC

Sent to the Arizona Republic, Dec. 7, 2002
Duke Beattie’s letter (“End the ‘language welfare,’ “ Dec. 7) shows a poor understanding of bilingual education. Learning English is a priority in such programs because American immigrants want their children to learn English. Quality bilingual education programs teach English from day one.

Math, science and social studies are taught in English and in the child’s native language. Does bilingual education help teach English faster and more effectively than English-only instruction? Check last year’s Stanford 9 scores for English learners in the elementary grades, where most bilingual education programs are found. While the majority of the state is now using English-only instruction to educate English learners (as it always has), most Tucson parents have demanded waivers allowing their children to acquire English using bilingual education. As a result, Tucson’s English learners match or exceed the English learner state average in English tests of reading, language and math. Our parents support bilingual education because, as America’s corporations have already figured out, strong English skills combined with strong Spanish skills produce greater opportunities. If Mr. Beatti wants to limit his own children to a monolingual life, that’s his choice.

—Sal Gabaldón

Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, December 3, 2002

“Bilingual education is bad because English is important” is an invalid argument.

John Hewko opposes bilingual education so we can “Keep the US English speaking”  (December 3, 2002). Mr. Hewko is an accomplished scholar,  currently a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for  International Peace. He should know that a central goal of bilingual
education is English language development. He should also know that  study after study has shown that bilingual education meets this goal:
Students in bilingual programs often do better than those in  English-only programs on tests of English. At worst, they do just as
well. This information has appeared very often in the professional  literature, and is immediately available when one types in “bilingual
education” on any search engine. Mr. Hewko is free to disagree with  the results of this research, but he cannot ignore it.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
USC

Published in The Arizona Republic Dec. 2, 2002 http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/1202monlet024.html

Bilingual ed letter flawed

Johanna Haver’s letter on bilingual education is not supported by all the research available on the subject (“Bad news for bilingual ed
fans,” Nov. 25).

She’s basing her views on one or two flawed research studies that fit those views.

Bilingual education, in fact, has held up to high scrutiny when evaluated on the basis of properly defined bilingual education
programs. Haver gives the false impression that the academic community supports immersion, even though the academic research is
solidly in favor of bilingual education.

So she’s wrong on two counts: Not only does the academic community support bilingual education, but the academic research supports those who support bilingual education.

-Gabie Gedlaman
Gilbert

Sent to the Rocky Mountain News, November 27, 2002

Joe Chavez (“It is Latino students who will pay price,” letters, Nov. 25) may be surprised to know that studies show
bilingual education students drop out less than those in all-English programs. Many use the word “bilingual” for the ills
encountered in our society. Chavez mentions in his letter the “Hispanic leaders” have misled their community. I argue that
many non Hispanic leaders have tried to keep the growing Hispanic community down, while always celebrating their
”help”.

Chavez writes: “Now, here is the challenge to the bilingual bureaucrats: put up or shut up.” The California Dept. of
Education states that 1,034,073 English immersed students (2 to 11 grades only) have failed to become mainstreamed after
more than one year of Chavez desired law. English immersion has shown a 93% failure rate in California after five years.

“Bilingual bureaucrats” is a better phrase than some which bilingual educators have been called in the past. Ron Unz has
called us everything from “vampires” to “educational terrorist”. Now it is time for the “English for the Children” movement
to shut up. Please stop promoting a failed system of English which pushes students to drop out to our community without
language nor academic skills.

Denis O’Leary

Sent to the Mercury News, November 24, 2002

Ricardo Pimentel claimed that the facts favor bilingual education  (Opinion, Nov. 20). Ron Unz (letters, Nov 24) responded by
characterizing Pimental’s column as “ignorant” and accuses Pimental  of not “explaining” the facts.

Here are the facts, Ron: When bilingual and English-only are compared  in scientific studies, children in bilingual education often acquire  English faster; at worst, they do just as well. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the research holds this view. The most recent review was done by Jay Greene, who used more precise statistical tools than previous scholars. Greene concluded that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.” The efficacy of bilingual education was confirmed in the latest major study: D. K. Oller and R. Eilers’ exhaustive report, Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children, showed that children in bilingual programs in
Miami were equal to immersion children in English after five years, and much better in their native language.

Unz claims that test scores have doubled for English learners in California since Prop. 227 passed, but have not changed in districts that kept bilingual education. False. Stanford researcher Kenji Hakuta has reported that scores increased in districts that kept bilingual education, thanks to waivers. They also increased in districts that never did bilingual education. This shows that Prop. 227 deserves no credit for test score increases in California.

As usual, Unz substitutes insults for hard facts.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeitus Professor of Education
University of Southern California

Published in the Rocky Mountain News, November 21, 2002 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1558822,00.html

Columnist has it all wrong about 31

I may not represent the typical voter who voted against Amendment 31, but in my case, at least, News columnist Mike Rosen has it all wrong (“Amendment 31: Round 2,” Nov. 8).

The problem with the amendment was not the concept of English immersion, but how that was to be implemented. The first strike
against the amendment was that it required a change to the state Constitution. Education reforms such as this are not constitutional issues.

Its second fault lay in the fact that it eliminated choice. Not all students learn the same way, and both teachers and parents still need to have a choice in how children are taught and how they learn.

Finally, the imposition of legal liability for using alternate teaching methods is ridiculous. Since when do we seek to punish those selfless people who strive to educate our children?

James W. Mulholland
Littleton

Published in the Rocky Mountain News, November 21, 2002 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1558822,00.html

31’s foes must now shore up bilingual ed

I would like to thank the many people who worked so hard to defeat Amendment 31 and voted to keep the bilingual option for children in Colorado, and to keep punitive provisions aimed at teachers out of our Constitution.

Although we can all be proud of having rejected Amendment 31, much work remains to be done on this issue. For example, we need to ensure that existing bilingual programs are strengthened and improved, and that viable and effective options are offered for parents who believe that immersion would work for their children.

David Russi
Lafayette

Sent to the Indianapolis Star, November 19, 2002

Re: Bilingual ed moving toward extinction (Nov. 16)

The Indianapolis Star is badly uninformed. The scientific research is very supportive of bilingual education.

Study after study shows that children in bilingual programs acquire English very well equaling or exceeding those in all-English
programs. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the research has agreed with this conclusion. The most recent review of this
research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts
to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Dismantling bilingual education does not deserve credit for rising test scores in California; scores increased in districts that kept
bilingual education, because of waivers, as well as in districts that never did bilingual education.

Students do not “languish” in bilingual programs for years: Most who start in kindergarten acquire enough English to do
regular classwork in the mainstream in less than three years.

Children in bilingual programs drop out less, not more, than those in Engish-only programs.

There is no evidence that graduates of bilingual education earn less than those who did English-only. The study that claimed
this was so defined bilingual education as excluding all English instruction. All well-organized bilingual programs introduce
English on the first day and teach academic subject matter in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible.

I urge the Star to review the scientific research carefully, and not to rely only on press releases from organizations hostile to
bilingual education.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeitus Professor of Education
University of Southern California

Published in the Denver Post November 17, 2002. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E416%257E992196,00.html

A stormy season for Latinos

This year’s political season for Latinos was a particularly stormy one. For decades individuals have forecasted a brighter future for Latinos, but in reality, it has been quite gloomy.

The two ballot issues involving the elimination of bilingual education and the creation of a Cesar Chavez holiday are excellent indicators of the progress Latinos have made within the American society. These ballot issues were not just legal words, but a vote on how Colorado views Latinos.

The votes against bilingual education and the Cesar Chavez holiday reflect an attitude toward Latinos that few wish to confront. This was
especially evident during the recent immigration debates. This year’s election has challenged the illusions of Latino progress and highlighted
the great extent of the anti-Latino sentiment that continues to run rampant in America. The Latino community must honestly interpret the
election results - and realize that being complacent in the struggle for equality will never bring about significant change.

RICHARD O. DELGADO
Denver

Published in the Rocky Mountain News November 15, 2002

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1546857,00.html

Rosen’s not listening: Voters rejected 31

It’s well-known that Mike Rosen is not a good listener. He regularly slams the phone down on his talk-show callers and, as
usual, he is turning a deaf ear to the facts involving Amendment 31 (“Amendment 31: Round 2,” Nov. 8).

He’s not listening to the Colorado voters - they rejected Amendment 31. He wants to take it to the state legislature anyway.

He’s not listening to the parents who prefer local control and choice for their own children. He’d rather put it all in the hands of
the government.

And, most important, he’s not listening to the facts about bilingual education. The goal of bilingual education is to teach English.
Studies show that students who have had bilingual education are less likely to drop out than those who did all-English programs
and they usually acquire English better than those in immersion programs. Mike Rosen would rather follow in the footsteps of
California where Proposition 227 has failed to come anywhere near meeting the expectations of the voters who passed it.

Mike Rosen might not be listening, but I am grateful that Colorado voters tuned in to students, parents and teachers across the
state when they soundly rejected Amendment 31.

Shelley Flanagan
Denver
 

Sent to the Boston Globe November 2, 2002
Subject: “Dozens of dialects, English the goal” (Boston Globe, 10/31/02)

In “Dozens of dialects, English the goal” (Boston Globe, 10/31/02), reporter Megan Tench presented the the arguments for and against Question-2, as if they were of equal legitimacy. This is misleading and suggests that the issue boils down to a matter of trade-offs. As a immigrant entering this country as a third grader, I was deeply moved by Elena Shpilevoy’s description of her two years of isolation as she
struggled to learn enough English to both engage the curriculum and make friends. I found statements of endorsers Coin and Carlin glib, self-serving and unpersuasive—especially since their confidence is predicated on the assumption that the problem is speaking a foreign language, rather than using that language as an asset for acquiring academic English. The medical tenet, “first, do no harm,” seems appropriate here. Yet, I fear that too many Massachusetts voters will slip on this snake oil on Tuesday and plunge the state into the bad-old-days of English immersion, which denied so many of their parents and grandparents a high school diploma.

Later in the article, Ms. Tench cites findings from Harvard’s Immigration Project indicating that 90 percent of families wanted their children to learn English. This is comes as no surprise to anyone engaged in building children’s literacy skills in two languages (i.e,, the essence of bi-lingual education). Consequently, the abrupt leap into chiding bilingual advocates, as if we had somehow forgotten this, was
both unnecessary and unfair. We might add that results of a recent AOL Time Warner Foundation study of 6000 US adults found a whopping 95 percent support for bilingual education among Latino respondents.

Despite years of empirical research examining the efficacy of various second-language acquisition models, proponents of Question-2 are fond of linking “bilingual education” to the word “failed” in their literature and public statements. Asked for proof of their claims for structured immersion, they produce vague anecdotes, spurious counter-charges or statistics telling half (or less) of the story. They are at a loss to
explain how 80 percent of the students enrolled in Boston classrooms using this “failed experiment” transition into mainstream classrooms within three-years—at three times the annual rate of California students floundering in English-only classrooms since 1998.

Recently, Question-2 supporters have discovered disparities in the resources, teacher qualifications and general classroom conditions challenging effective bilingual instruction. Ah-ha, they say, all the more reason to scrap these “failed experiments.” But no advocate for bilingual instruction has ever claimed that these programs were immune to the problems plaguing mainstream classrooms in urban school districts. Our bilingual students are also challenged by learning disabilities, emotional problems and family situations resulting in lost class days. We do the best we can in a climate of shrinking revenues and rising political hostility toward immigrant families. Using the illogic of Unz-Tamayo, should we perhaps consider scrapping courses in history and trigonometry?

Berta Berriz
Jamaica Plain, MA.

Published in the Rocky Mountain News November 1, 2002

English immersion would be bad policy
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1516145,00.html

I’m willing to believe that English immersion is a great way for a certain portion of students to learn English, but Amendment 31 is
a perfect example of a good idea wrapped in a poorly-written policy. As a result, I can’t vote for it.

Were the amendment to mandate the addition of immersion to the current curriculum, I would have no problem supporting it.
Unfortunately, the amendment mandates the elimination of all other programs, some of which work best for some students. Plus,
I don’t believe curriculum should be dictated by the state Constitution.

The killer, however, is the outright malicious penalties written into the amendment. Teachers are already this state’s favorite
scapegoats, and the addition of the measure’s harsh penalties is completely unacceptable.

Had the pro-31 team put forth an amendment that just added immersion as a choice, it would have my vote. Because it goes
way too far, I cannot support it.

Jim Burness
Denver

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, October 31, 2002

To the editor:

Re: Hable Usted Ingles? (October 31)

Wealthy Anglophone Ron Unz has personally bankrolled anti-bilingual education campaigns in four states. He now
accuses Pat Stryker of using her money to “drown out the concerns of poor Hispanics,” referring to her as an
”Anglophone billionaire heiress” and “Mrs. Moneybags,” because she donated a large sum of money to the effort to
defeat an Unz-sponsored initiative in Colorado.

In addition to this being an obvious case of the pot calling the kettle black, Unz’ accusation ignores the fact that
63% of Hispanic voters in California voted against dismantling bilingual education, and a number of studies have
shown that parents of children in bilingual education understand and support it.


Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
University of Southern California

Sent to the Bay State Banner (Massachusetts) October 28, 2002

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response your October 24 2002 editorial on the ballot questions. In particular, I am concerned about
your remarks on Question-2: “A compromise between the two systems [bilingual versus English-immersion instruction]
seems promising.” This observation is misleading suggesting that the crux of the matter is a disagreement over two
legitimate approaches to teaching practice. As a longtime community activist and student of public policy, let me
assure you and your readers that no such equivalence exists.

Question-2, a.k.a. the “Unz Initiative,” is the brainchild of Ron Unz, a man who believes that cultural assimilation is
the only road to success for people of color in this country; and that the main barrier to assimilation is our stubborn
insistence on remembering (and honoring) our histories, cultures and, yes, languages. Unz, a white Silicon Valley
millionaire with no children, no background in teaching, no proficiency in any language but English, and no direct
experience with the conditions and challenges facing immigrants, has bankrolled a national crusade against bilingual
education. However, beneath its rhetorical concern for the children, the Unz Initiative is a racist, anti-immigrant and
thoroughly undemocratic assault on English-language learners.

Let me explain why this is so—and why African American voters, in particular, must reject this simplistic and
destructive proposal.

The hidden public policy question is whether a child has the right to learn in a language s-he understands, while also
developing their proficiency in English? We must appreciate how the apparent “normalcy” of English-language
acquisition among native-born Americans ignores the significant distinction between casual, “playground,” English
and the language of the classroom, of the MCAS and the SATs. The English-immersion strategy doesn’t comprehend
this distinction. At stake are proven teaching practices that will recognize and use a student’s cultural assets as the
foundation for developing new academic competencies.

We also need to be aware of how racism and anti-immigrant assumptions drive the demands for cultural assimilation
and English-only instruction. History instructs that, along with their liberty, enslaved Africans were purposely deprived
of their languages, cultures and opportunities for learning. And, since language is a key aspect of cultural identity, its
destruction served as an effective means of enforcing our subordinated status for generations.

Finally, we must recognize the fundamentally undemocratic character of the electoral process, which actively
encourages a “tyranny of the majority” imposing the will of white, middleclass suburbanites (lacking any direct
knowledge of the issue) on a minority denied any real voice in the matter. We’ve all been there before.

There is no question of a compromise here. To even consider supporting Question-2 requires African Americans in
Boston to turn their backs on our Ancestors. I encourage my black sisters and brothers to support our brown and yellow
cousins by voting “no” on Question-2.

Ty dePass, co-chair,
Education Committee for the District-7 Roundtable

Published in the Denver Post, October 27, 2002 

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E73%257E949756,00.html

Ill-conceived, rigid, Draconian

Amendment 31 is ill-conceived policy. Because it is, we - the board of the Public Education & Business Coalition, a partnership of leaders from business and education whose mission is to cultivate excellence in public schools - urge voters to say “no” to 31.

Business has a vested interest in all students learning English quickly and well, but Amendment 31 will create many more problems than it will solve because of two fatal flaws.

First, it imposes a rigid requirement that no student may be given help in learning English for more than a single school year. It thus prescribes a “one-size-fits-all” policy that unfairly treats all children as if they were equally adept at learning a new language.

Second, it allows a parent to sue an educator who agrees to the parent’s request for a waiver from the requirement that students spend no more than nine months learning English. The absurdity of penalizing educators for doing precisely what a parent asks them to do is compounded by Draconian penalties, including a ban on teaching or holding office for five years. Worse yet, Amendment 31 prohibits educators from carrying insurance to protect themselves.

Ask yourself: Who will choose to be a teacher, principal, superintendent or school board member if the person’s career and even personal life may be ruined by a lawsuit that Amendment 31 not only permits, but also denies him or her the financial ability to defend against?

We rarely take a stand on election issues, but because this amendment is so destructive, we urge Coloradans to vote “no” on Amendment 31. It’s bad for business, bad for schools and bad for children.

GEORGE SPARKS, Chair, Board of Directors

Public Education & Business Coalition

Denver

Sent to the New York Times, October 27, 2002
Re: The problem with bilingual education (letter, October 27)

Ron Unz incorrectly claims that California test scores increased because of Prop 227, which dismantled bilingual education. Scores have increased for all students in California since 227 passed, including districts that kept bilingual education because of waivers, and districts that never did bilingual education.

Unz claims that bilingual ed has failed in Texas because fewer than half of the immigrant children are tested in English after four years. What counts is how children in bilingual education perform compared to children in other programs. Research shows that children in bilingual programs acquire English as least as quickly as children in all-English programs.

Unz falsely asserts that theory calls for five to seven years of schooling mostly in the first language. According to current bilingual education theory (and practice) English is introduced the first day in the form of ESL classes. Academic subjects are taught in English as soon as they can made comprehensible. Most children who begin bilingual education at kindergarten acquire enough English to do regular classwork in English in three years or less.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
USC

Sent to the Denver Post October 25, 2002

Dear Editor:

Of all of the recent letters and editorials about Amendment 31 and Bilingual Education, I found Kenneth Noonan’s to be the most offensive, and inaccurate.

Mr. Noonan states that bilingual programs teach “almost exclusively” in non-English languages for three years. Maybe in California, not in Colorado.

Every district and school in Colorado with a bilingual program begins teaching English on the first day of school, and increases the amount of English taught every year. There are NO Spanish only schools in Colorado.

Further, after three years in Colorado schools, 54% of all second language learners (no matter what program they have been in) have become proficient in English.

This is much better than in Mr. Noonan’s own school district in California. There, after four years of English Immersion, 99% of the limited English proficient students are still classified as limited in English. Funny, Mr. Noonan didn’t mention in his article that second language learners in his district in California are behind Colorado children in their acquisition of English.

Finally, Mr. Noonan states that bilingual education is a cause for the high Hispanic drop-out rate. This could not possibly be true. In 2000-2001 there were 159,600 Hispanic students in Colorado schools. During that same year, there were 19,391 Spanish speaking Hispanics in some form of bilingual education. The vast majority of Hispanics in Colorado are: 1) English speaking and 2) Have never been in bilingual education. Bilingual education is not the cause of the Hispanic drop-out rate. It may, though, be one of the cures.
 

Being from California, I guess we could not expect Mr. Noonan to know about Colorado schools, and how different they are from California. He should come to Colorado to visit, we’d be happy to teach him.

Kathy Escamilla
Associate Professor of Education
University of Colorado, Boulder

Sent to the Lowell Sun (Massachusetts) October 25, 2002
To the editor:

The Sun quotes Ken Noonan (“California scores shape bilingual debate,” October 24) as saying that when Proposition 227 passed in California, the Oceanside district in California dropped bilingual education, embraced all-English, and test scores went up. But before we conclude that immersion is better than bilingual education, we should consider the following:

* Stanford professor Kenji Hakuta and his associates have shown that gains for Oceanside’s English learners were similar to gains made in many California schools that retained bilingual education.

* The bilingual program that Oceanside dropped was a poor one. In an article in the Washington Post (Sept. 2, 2000), Noonan confirmed that Oceanside’s bilingual program taught only in Spanish until grades five or six. Properly organized bilingual programs introduce English the first day, and teach subject matter in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible. An article in the San Diego Union Tribune (October 5, 2000) confirmed suspicions that Oceanside’s pre-Prop 227 efforts were dismal. Before 227, “a lot of students (at Laurel Elementary School) didn’t even have books.”

* At the same time Oceanside dropped an inadequate bilingual program, the district focused nearly all its energy on test preparation. From the Union Tribune article, one gets the impression that all activities unrelated to test preparation were dropped from the school day, such as field trips and assemblies, and students spent a great deal of time on practice tests. In addition, strong carrots (financial rewards for teachers if test scores went up) and sticks (threats of school closure if scores went down) were instituted by the state.

It should also be pointed out that real research published in respectable scientific journals, not media reports or press releases, consistently shows that students in properly organized bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as comparison students in all-English programs, and usually acquire more.

Oceanside’s gains do not demonstrate that immersion is better than bilingual education.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
USC

Published in the Union-News, October 24, 2002 
http://www.masslive.com/letters/unionnews/index.ssf?/base/news-0/103545074123470.xml

Jackson St. School Council opposes bilingual initiative

The Jackson St. School Council, which is made up of teachers, parents, principal and community members, urges a “no” vote on Question 2. We strongly object to the divisive and confusing ballot initiative, in which voters will decide the educational future of linguistic minority children in Massachusetts.

We are concerned that voters do not understand that learning English is one of bilingual education’s primary goals, and that bilingual education is more effective than English-only instruction in preparing students for the same level of academic work as their native English-speaking peers.

A “yes” vote on Question 2 would condemn our bilingual children to only one year of “English immersion,” after which they would be placed in a mainstream classroom to “sink or swim.” Professional educators and researchers are clear that one year of language training will help a child learn conversational English, but certainly not the kind of academic language necessary for school.

As parents of children at Jackson St. School, we value the multicultural and multilingual diversity of our children. Those of us who are monolingual English speakers hope our own children will learn Spanish. We certainly don’t want Spanish-speaking children to be told they can’t use their first language for learning.

As teachers, we believe that our professional training and experience should be respected. The threat of personal lawsuits for teaching a child in a language they can understand, as proposed in Question 2, is reprehensible.

As community members, we recognize that it is in our interest to provide the best possible learning environment for all children. We hope that local voters will join us on Nov. 5 and soundly reject Question 2. Vote “no” on Question 2.

SUSAN FINK, HOLLY GHAZEY For the Jackson St. School Council
Northampton

Sent to the Denver Post October 23, 2002

Dear Editor,

As a former Coloradan, I continue to follow issues in the state. And Wow! Speaking of whoppers, that was some column about bilingual education that Al Knight wrote. I realize columnists don’t have to operate under the same standards of non-bias as reporters, but that doesn’t excuse him from not exercising some ethics. He engages in the same sort of ignorance baiting that he accuses bilingual
proponents of.

He writes,

”The first is that the amendment will deprive students of needed instruction. The opposite is true. The amendment requires that English learners be given English instruction. The amendment’s core purpose is to make sure this instruction is in English.”

In this claim, the first two sentences are completely antithetical to the last two. How much biology, science, history, geography or anything else could most Coloradans learn if it were taught completely in Swahili? Not much. Why would we think that is any different for children? Study after study demonstrates that children in English immersion fall behind academically.

Knight goes on to argue, “[English immersion] is not revolutionary. Non-English-speaking students from scores of countries already receive instruction in English.” Does the simple fact that something happens automatically make it desireable?

Continuing this argument, Knight explains, “What Amendment 31 would do is require the same type of instruction for thousands of Spanish-speaking students, mostly from Mexico, who are currently being taught in Spanish. The amendment’s opponents haven’t said much about why a teaching technique that works for students from other countries can’t work with students whose native language is Spanish.” Nevertheless, just because we cannot provide the more effective program for all students does not mean we should deny it to some. To take a medical analogy, we can’t cure all types of cancer, but that doesn’t mean we just let all cancer sufferers die needlessly.

Then Knight finally makes a credible point: “Nor have [bilingual proponents] argued that the English immersion technique doesn’t work.” I agree. Bilingual proponents should be focusing on the fact that English immersion tends not to be as effective as bilingual education. After all, the great bulk of empirical research supports this claim as do the dismal results in California. This is not to say, however, that we should take the opposite route of Amendment 31 and make English immersion nearly impossible for parents to choose for their children (which it does for bilingual education). English immersion is effective for many children and many parents would, I am sure, choose it. They
should have it. Why shouldn’t the opposite be true as well?

John E. Petrovic
a former Coloradan
 

Published in the Union-News, October 22, 2002 
http://www.masslive.com/letters/unionnews/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1035274258174830.xml

ESL programs are effective; don’t vote to abolish them Proponents of Question 2 who claim to understand bilingual education and
who describe bilingual education programs as teaching students Spanish rather than English are engaged in a deliberate deception.

Whatever problems may exist in some Spanish Transitional Bilingual Education programs, this description takes one extreme form of a bilingual education program and presents it as the whole ball of wax.

In Massachusetts, “bilingual education” is an umbrella term that covers a diverse group of English language acquisition programs.

The ESL programs that exist in many school systems under this umbrella do nothing but teach English in English. They are themselves a counter example to the arguments deployed in support of Question 2.

ESL programs are provably successful. Students who test into these programs with limited English proficiency come to function at grade level by passing through a program that continuously decreases their time in ESL English classes and increases their time in mainstream English classes until they can succeed on their own in all academic areas.

It can’t be done any faster (in the school setting) than these programs do it, as residents of California are now finding out.

These programs minimize the disruption that can occur in mainstream classes for mainstream students if teachers take the time to
accommodate language learners while also attempting normal subject instruction.

In this way, they do a service to the entire school community. These programs need to be retained - by defeating Question 2.

BOB ACKERMANN Amherst

Published in the Denver Post, October 22, 2002
Original URL: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E73%257E940224,00.html

Dropout reasons

Mr. Knight’s arguments for Amendment 31 were persuasive. Too bad they weren’t based in fact. He cited Hispanic dropout rates as evidence of the failure of bilingual education.

Low graduation rates for Hispanic students are certainly reason for concern, but are not the result of bilingual education. Published research demonstrates that a variety of factors influence dropout rates. Students are more likely to graduate if they come from wealthier
families, have lived in the U.S. for longer periods of time, have access to printed materials in the home, live with both parents, have parents who monitor their homework and avoid teen pregnancy. Unfortunately, Hispanic children, when compared to white non-Hispanic children, fare worse in these categories. When research controls for these factors, Hispanic dropout rates match those for other groups.

No credible studies have identified bilingual education as a risk factor for dropping out of school. In fact, research suggests that children in bilingual programs drop out less than English-only students.

There are many ways we could improve graduation rates for Hispanic students. Eliminating educational opportunities doesn’t make the list, nor does it make any sense. Vote no on 31.

CHRISTINE L. CAMERON, Ph.D.
Lafayette

Published in the Denver Post, October 22, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E73%257E940224,00.html

Whose deceipt?
Re: “Bilingual deception,” Oct. 13 Al Knight column.

Al Knight is the latest victim of the misinformation wars surrounding bilingual ed. His claim that the high Latino dropout rate proves bilingual ed’s failure is ludicrous, given that less than 20 perent of all Latinos have ever been in any bilingual program. What’s more, a
recent survey of young Latinos who did drop out indicated that only 13 percent had ever been in bilingual ed. That means 87 percent of dropouts have been in English-only classes.

The data from California further illustrate the failure of total English immersion. Only 4 percent of high-school students in English immersion programs scored proficient in reading, and the achievement gap between English speakers and English learners has steadily increased since English immersion was mandated there. After four years of English immersion, close to 70 percent of English learners still haven’t been placed in regular English classes because they aren’t even close to the skills of their English-speaking peers. But don’t worry - according to Al, once we get rid of bilingual ed, we in Colorado will be able to do in nine months what California hasn’t accomplished in four years. Yeah, right, Al. Bilingual deception, indeed - except who’s deceiving whom?

PRISCILLA S. GUTIERREZ, Director
Rocky Mountain Deaf School
Lakewood

October 20, 2002

Published in the Vail Daily, October 20,2002  http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=VD&Dato=20021020&Kategori=LETTER&Lopenr=210200504&Ref=AR

Student against 31
Mary Ramirez, Student, Battle Mountain High School

Can Amendment 31 be a good thing? As a Latina in this country, I know that Amendment 31 will do nothing good for students.

I was born in Dallas, Texas, and was raised right on the border of El Paso, Texas, and Mexico. As a little girl I knew only Spanish and most of my friends knew the same language as well, and none of us were immigrants. There were some kids in our community who spoke Spanish and English because their parents wanted them to be more productive in life and speak two languages.

So, because I didn’t speak English back then, am I supposed to believe all the money the school spent on all of its Latinos was a waste of money? Of course not.

I’m not going to be a high school dropout. I have college plans and so do my friends back in Texas. Some of my friends are already in college. So be careful with what you vote for if you vote for Amendment 31.

For example, in section 18 parts D-F, it states the following:

D) The public schools of Colorado do an inadequate job of educating immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly experimental native language programs whose failure over past decades is demonstrated by the current high dropout rates and low English literacy levels of many immigrant children.

For starters, not all these children are immigrants. They’re regular students. So stop calling them that, because at one point all of you might have been, too. This money is not going to waste because these students are learning. Furthermore, they don’t even get that much money because there aren’t that many Spanish speaking kids in school compared to the rest of the student body.

Note one thing: not all of high school dropouts are Hispanics. There are also other demographics that contribute to that number. So what’s their excuse? Hispanics who drop out mostly do it because they don’t understand what they are doing in the English language. Putting a time limit on these students and more pressure is not going to help.

E) Young immigrant children can easily acquire full fluency in a new language, such as English, if they are heavily exposed to that language in the classroom at an early age. Yeah, one year is enough if you’re like in first grade when your vocabulary is not that expanded. But in high school your vocabulary is huge and to learn a new language in one year, that’s not just stupid, it’s impossible.

F) Therefore it is resolved that: all children in Colorado public schools shall be taught English rapidly and effectively as possible. Now, no one is arguing that kids need to learn English as fast as they can, but a year is not going to do. The reality is you need to give these students time.

Amendment 31, in a way, judges us by the language we speak. The people who support this amendment are not living up to the standards of the U.S, where it is said to be the land of opportunity.

So don’t get on these students’ cases. Give them a chance. Your ancestors got a chance, and thanks to them you’re here. These kids want to learn and they will, if given the time. If you’ve never tried to talk to these students, try it some time. They have as much, or sometimes, even more potential than your average English-speaking teen-ager. All they need is encouragement. They are grateful for the help they get, so don’t vote yes on this amendment. You would be taking away that little push they have from their teachers and friends. They are happy to be in class and to have a chance.
 

Sent to the Rocky Mountain News, October 20, 2002

In agreement with the Rocky Mountain News (“The downfall of Amendment  31,” October 20) I am opposed to instruction that remains mostly in  the first language for years and that delays the acquisition of English. But I am in favor of quality bilingual education.

Good bilingual programs use the first language in a way that accelerates English language development. This happens in two ways: Good bilingual programs teach subject matter in the first language in early stages. The knowledge that students gain this way helps them understand subject matter when it is taught in English, which means faster English language development. These programs also provide literacy development in the first language, which is a short-cut to English literacy. It is much easier to learn to read in a language one understands, and once one learns to read in any language, much of this ability transfers to the second language.

Quality bilingual programs also introduce English the first day and teach subject matter in English as soon as it can be made
comprehensible.

Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the scientific research has concluded that bilingual education works. The most recent review, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects on English language development and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California.

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml

Allow a child to learn in her first language

TUESDAY’S ARTICLE about bilingual education made passing reference to some key pedagogical points that the advocates of Question 2 ignore and that bilingual education experts have affirmed through long experience and research (“Immersed in debate,” City & Region, Oct. 15). These points deserve to be highlighted, for they give us good reason to vote “no” on this destructive ballot initiative.

First, proficiency in conversational English, which can be gained quite quickly by young children simply through exposure, is not the same as proficiency in the level of English needed to succeed academically, which takes much longer to develop. Even though a child may have learned sufficient English to speak it well, if she is forced prematurely into an all-English classroom, she will not be able to keep up with her native English-speaking peers and may well be set up for failure.

Second, children have a much better chance at academic success if they learn basic skills in their native language. Once a child learns to read, for example, in his first language, that skill is easily transferrable to a second. A child who is forced to learn to read in a language with which he is not yet comfortable or familiar has much less chance of success and could well end up struggling with literacy all through school.

As the parent of two immigrant children whose native language is not English, I have seen the damage done by well-meaning attempts at English immersion as well as the blossoming that occurs when a child is allowed to learn in her first language. Despite its deceptive slogan, “English for the children,” Question 2’s attempts to abolish bilingual
education will not help immigrant youngsters.

Denying children the opportunity to learn in their native language while becoming proficient in English will ensure that a great many fail to learn at all, and our whole society will be the poorer for it.

ELENA STONE

Cambridge
 

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml

Language of competition in the marketplace

JEFF JACOBY sounds presumptuous in his Oct. 3 op-ed page column. How can he know how all Hispanics feel? However, he is right that English immersion may be the best alternative in bilingual education.

Teaching immigrants in their own language ensures that they remain behind in American schools. Both our children learned English from their babysitters and Spanish at home.

We tried but failed to get our daughter into a bilingual program. Our son didn’t have the option.

Without the help of bilingual education and forced to compete with their monolingual peers, they soon turned Spanish into their second language. Now college-educated adults, their ability to speak, read, and write in Spanish has given them an extra dimension and enhanced their professional competitiveness.

With Americans and immigrants becoming more educated and competitive, the economic and cultural pie increases  for everyone. For our own children, any education that did not involve exclusively English would have been a mistake. Immigrants cannot vote and may not now realize how important the issue of bilingual education is. Their children will find out soon enough that the language of competition in the marketplace is English.

MIGUEL de la PENA

Lunenburg
 

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml

Shame on Unz and Romney

IF TRANSITIONAL bilingual education is banned in Boston, children who haven’t learned English yet will be taught math and science in English. They will not learn math or science and will have trouble all their lives balancing their checkbooks and calculating the difference between 7 percent and 7.5 percent when their meager paychecks are taxed
for Social Security.

Shame on Michigan-Utah-Massachusetts millionnaire Mitt Romney and his running mate for going along with California millionaire Ron Unz in a plan to deny basic education to children born in the United States and to recent immigrants from other countries.

CHRISTY LANZL

Boston
 

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml

Bilingual ed is working in Massachusetts

AS A LATINA who is bilingual with two master’s degrees and months away from completing my doctorate, I am tired of others telling me how I should think and feel, as Jeff Jacoby does in his Oct. 3 column, “English 101.”

Equally disturbing are those Latinos who also think that they can speak for the whole community, such as Lincoln Tamayo or the head of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Is Ron Unz more concerned with his political agenda than the needs of our students in Massachusetts? Yes. The comment made at a recent rally at the State House likening him to a Nazi was unfortunate. But I am fighting desperately to defeat Question 2 because the teaching of immigrant students is my passion and because I know it is bad for our students. I do not fear losing my job. Remember, I am bilingual. I have a skill in demand throughout the United States. I can find a job in almost any industry.

I teach because I want immigrant students to have every opportunity I have been given. I want them to learn English and succeed. Bilingual education is working in Massachusetts. Get your history right. Prior to the law of 1971 establishing bilingual education in Massachusetts, we had massive dropout rates of our English language learners – as many as 90 percent of Latinos.

Let’s have a thoughtful debate about what is best for children and not resort to misconceptions, half-truths, and hateful rhetoric.

MARGARET ADAMS

Dedham
 

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml

Parents should make the choice

IN HIS Oct. 3 column, Jeff Jacoby explains his support of English-only education for the children of Massachusetts without considering the potential effects of such legislation on the parents of children who are learning English.

He writes: “If I were a Hispanic American, I would feel humiliated every time an automated telephone answering system prompted me to press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish.”

If Question 2 passes, parents who speak languages other than English (not only Spanish, but Mandarin, Vietnamese, Russian, Khmer, Portuguese, and many others), will face true humiliation as they are informed that they no longer have the right to choose the best educational option available for their children. They will not be able to decide whether to enroll their children in a two-way program, a transitional bilingual program, or an English immersion
program.

Instead, they will have only one choice: English immersion for one year. English-speaking parents, on the other hand, would still be able to choose education in a world language for their children. This amounts to reprehensible discrimination against the speakers of other languages.

Question 2 on the ballot next month suggests that its authors are not only qualified, but obligated, to make choices that are best left to parents. Proponents of English for the children are effectively shunning the input of adults who come to this country in search of a life with more and better options than they had in their home countries.

As their children pursue the American Dream, these parents will find innumerable challenges. We owe it to these parents to sustain and improve a variety of programs, including bilingual education, so that they, like their American-born peers, can make the choices that best meet their children’s needs.

Speakers of other languages are as able to defend the interests of their children as speakers of English unless Massachusetts limits their decision-making power by adopting Question 2.

SHAKIRA ALVAREZ-FERRER

Ashland
 

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml
Fluent in two languages

TO JEFF JACOBY (op ed, Oct. 3) and others who misuse the word bilingual, I ask, how many bilingual classrooms have you visited?

Have you checked out the waiting lists for adults to enroll in English as a second language classes? Have you read the opposing views to Rosalie Porter by Stephen Krashen and others?

To be bilingual is to be fluent in two languages. All across the state, children are studying the academics in their first language so that they do not fall behind their monolingual English peers while at the same time they are learning English.

Most students transition into English-speaking classrooms after two years. They do not languish in bilingual classrooms. One approach to learning a language does not fit all. School districts must have the ability to choose the right approach for their students. The state Legislature has given school districts the opportunity to choose by overhauling the bilingual law. Don’t take this away through a ballot initiative.

BEVERLY GLACKEMEYER

Wellesley
 

Published in the Boston Globe, October 20, 2002
Original URL:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/letter/We_are_a_multicultural_society+.shtml
Bilingual education is the great tranquilizer

MASSACHUSETTS IS lucky in that we are not the first state where Ron Unz has attacked the public education system. Unz managed to impose his English-immersion law in California, and it is a documented failure. We in Massachusetts have been forewarned.

I favor bilingual education in the public schools because the American public school system was created in order to be the great equalizer. The original goal was that after graduation every student would be equipped to become part of the work force. The new goal now is for students also to be equipped to continue on to higher education. For the
non-English speaking student, the equalizer element in school is the bilingual program. There are proven models that work in Canada, Europe, and Asia where the populations are multilingual.

I am not an educator, but I am bilingual and a product of an immersion program. In my opinion, an effective bilingual program must provide for a strong English language and English literature curriculum. After all, the non-English speaker has had less exposure to academic English than his/her peers.

Having come from an immersion English program, I went through elementary and middle school with apparent success. My conversational English skills were excellent.

In high school, I noticed that I was not as skilled in English composition, vocabulary, and reading comprehension as my native English-speaking peers. I got lower SAT scores than I ever expected. College was particularly difficult because my mastery of the English language was substandard when compared with that of the average college student.

It’s impossible to provide in just one year the kind of instruction necessary for successful mastery of the English language. At the public schools, there needs to be more bilingual education, not less, and higher standards to transition the students into the American work force successfully.

AGMA M. PARRILLA-SWEENEY
Westfield

Published in the Rocky Mountain News, October 19, 2002

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1488706,00.html

Amendment 31 puts educators in a bind

Let me get this straight: Arizona’s equivalent of Colorado’s proposed Amendment 31 has resulted in parents suing educators because a waiver wasn’t granted, and now, Colorado’s more restrictive, more punitive amendment will allow parents to sue educators if a waiver is granted (and then later felt to be a mistake). Talk about a rock and a hard place - educators can be
sued either way!

Where in America does that make any sense? Not in Colorado. Learn from Arizona’s and California’s mistakes. Vote no on 31.

Chris Cameron

Published in the Arizona Daily Star, October 19, 2002
Original URL: http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/21019satletrpckg.html

Bilingual education works very well

Jeff Jacoby’s Oct. 5 column “Immersion best way to learn English” was misleading.

He cited two “sterling” sources for the “failure” of bilingual education - Ron Unz and Rosalie Pedalino Porter. Both are opponents of bilingual education who would never consider evidence contrary to their established opinions.

Jacoby stated that the evidence against bilingual education is “voluminous,” but failed to refer to even one study or report on one classroom to support that assertion.

I challenge Jacoby and anyone else who is certain that English immersion is better than a well-managed bilingual program actually to visit some bilingual classrooms and English-immersion classrooms and see for themselves.

It’s a pity Jacoby did not bother to do so before writing such a one-sided piece.

The goal of every U.S. bilingual program is English proficiency. A few poorly administered programs have given all bilingual programs a bad name. Bilingual education should be fixed, not abandoned.

A good journalist would explore multiple viewpoints and trustworthy sources to ensure a balanced, insightful report. Jacoby perpetuated lies with a biased and poorly researched piece.

John F. Gates
University of Arizona graduate with a master’s in bilingual and multicultural education


 

Sent to the Ventura County Star

Incumbent candidate for the Oxnard school board Roy Caffrey is interested in determining how California districts that dropped bilingual education managed in increase test scores (“6 seek 3 trustee spots for Oxnard district, “ October 17).
Test scores have increased for everybody in California since 1998, including districts that kept bilingual education through special waivers and districts that never did bilingual education. At the same time Proposition 227 passed, California introduced a new test, the SAT9. Research has shown that after new tests are introduced, test scores go up, which is why commercial tests need to be recalibrated every few years. Prop. 227 deserves none of the credit for this increase.

Voters in the Oxnard School Board election might be interested in knowing that nearly every scholar who has reviewed the published research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that ”efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
USC

Published in the Arizona Daily Star, October 25, 2002 http://www.azstarnet.com/star/fri/21025friletrpckg.html

Dear Arizona Daily Star Editor:
I am appalled at the bizarre occurrences with this new AZ Learns rating system. A fine magnet elementary school that accomplishes amazing things for students, both neighborhood and magnet students, has been ridiculously labeled as underperforming! Let’s look at the data.

In 2000-01, the percentage of Gr. 5 students at Davis Bilingual Magnet School achieving mastery on the AIMS tests were 42% in Reading, 73% in Writing and 34% in Math, but in 2001-02 the numbers became 66.7% in Reading, 63.6% in Writing and 61.8% in Math. Ok, they dropped in writing while they made amazing gains in the other two areas. They still beat out the district averages in all areas. District 5^th graders overall had 53.9% pass Reading, 53.4% pass Writing and 39.8% pass Math. The story is even better in 3^rd grade. The mastery rates are 91.7%, 91.7% and 77.8%!

On the contrary, one school that inexplicably escaped the “underperforming” label and was called “maintaining” is the lowest in mastery of Reading and Writing with 15% and 10% respectively and they are in 11^th to the last in the district with 17% passing Math. By what sick mind is Davis underperforming and the other school is maintaining?

This system is designed to make public schools look bad, no other way to look at it. It is part of the plan of people such as George W. Bush, Rod Paige and their followers (Any local leaders come to mind?). They would prefer to suck public money out of public schools and give it to their favorite private schools as vouchers for students “fleeing
underperforming schools”. This is a disgrace!

Arizonans better not believe those labels! They are meaningless!

Sincerely,
Julie G. Neff-Encinas
Observant citizen 

Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, October 17, 2002

The Monitor (October 17) feels that controversies over the effectiveness of bilingual education remain. Not in the scientific research: Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

The Monitor states that some studies show immersion students do better in English in the long run. Not so. A recent study by J. Guzman in Education Next claimed to show that those in bilingual education earned (slightly) less later in life, but Guzman’s definition of bilingual education excluded instruction in English as a second language (ESL): All quality bilingual programs include plenty of ESL.

The Monitor also reports that people are concerned that “huge communities of non-English speakers exist for generations.” They do not. Such enclaves consist largely of recent immigrants. L. Tse, in her book Why Don’t They Learn English: Separating Fact from Fallacy in the US Language Debate reviews the research and concludes that “successive generations rarely live in the same enclave community Šthe children and grandchildren of immigrants usually move out of the enclave
and are replaced by new immigrant families.”

Stephen Krashen,
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California

Published in the Glenwood Springs Post-Independent, October 15, 2002
http://www.postindependent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=GP&Dato=20021015&Kategori=LETTER&Lopenr=210140004&Ref=AR

Dear Editor,
With all the media attention that ballot measure 31 has been receiving lately, I wanted to bring to light several key points to consider when voting for or against this amendment. These points have nothing to do with being for or against bilingual education or wanting all children to learn English, but are concerns dealing with money, legal battles and local control.

First of all, this would be an amendment to our state constitution. What that means is that the members of the state governing bodies were unable to make a clear decision on the matter and therefore put it to a public vote. I for one am hesitant to vote “yes” for a measure that would change our state constitution. Especially one that if we later disagree with, would be extremely difficult to get
removed.

Secondly, the measure itself brings up several areas of concern. Specifically the right of each district to have local control over their curriculum and school structure. If this measure passes it takes away the rights of each district to decide what will best meet the needs of their students and community.

The decision-making power will then reside with the state and federal government. It will also set the precedent for future battles with other programs run under local control, such as Special Education, Gifted and Talented Programs, Sports, etc.

The measure requires that all students who are non-native English speakers receive one — and only one — year of intense English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction and then will be placed in a regular English-speaking classroom for the remainder of their education. That would mean that all of these students would be grouped into classrooms with ESL-certified teachers and taught for one
year. Where will these teachers come from? There is already a shortage. Who will pay for their salaries and materials? Which teachers who are not ESL-certified will lose their jobs to make room for the new ones? The state budget is already at a deficit. Will taxes be hiked to cover the cost?

Finally, if 25 percent of the parents in a school district sign a waiver and write a 250-word essay in English explaining why they want their child to receive a bilingual education then the school district may have such a program. But, if a child whose parents placed them in a bilingual program fails at some point in their education (within ten years of entering the program) their parent may sue the
teacher directly for the failure of their child and the teacher may lose their license for up to five years.

Why are we punishing teachers who are teaching a program that so many parents went to so much work to have in the first place? Are parents no longer accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of their children? What message does this send to our children? Do we not hold them accountable for their choices?

Basically, this measure has really very little to do with the pros and cons of bilingual education. In fact, it is just another way for the state and federal governments to gain more control. Please consider these facts when deciding your vote on ballot measure 31, because it really will affect all of us, not just our children.
Sincerely,
Teresa Vessels
Public School Teacher
Glenwood Springs

Sent to the Denver Post October 14, 2002:

The only deception that is going on in programs for English Learners is the language in Amendment 31 that states, “not to exceed one year”. This one year English immersion program is being lauded as a way for non-English speaking students to learn English. This certainly has not happened in California where over a million English Learners have been in programs for over two or three years. The legislatively mandated study of Proposition 227 programs in California finds that English learners have not become fluent in English and that the achievement gap persists. This same study also shows that students in the bilingual programs remaining in California are learning English and gaining in achievement---just as the many research studies on bilingual programs have consistently shown.

Furthermore, the drop-out rate in California has not improved under a one-year English immersion program. Sponsors of the measure are being deceptive because the drop out rate in California has actually increased over the last four years (Proposition 227 passed in 1998). Since over 88% of the English Learners in California are in all English programs, can we attribute the dropout figures for Hispanic students to this failed approach?

Maria S. Quezada, Ph.D

Originally published in the Daily Coloradoan, Sunday, October 13, 2002

Original URL: http://vh80003.vh8.infi.net/news/stories/20021013/opinion/281280.html

A failure elsewhere
By John T. Gless

The central claim of Amendment 31 backers is nine months or less in special classrooms is enough to become fluent in English. As evidence, they cite the record in California, where a similar initiative was passed in 1998.

Look at the 2002 data and you’ll find that in second grade, only 33 percent of California “English learners” scored at or above grade level in reading. By third grade, just 20 percent were at grade level, compared with 61 percent of English
speakers. Furthermore, of all the English learners in 1998 (1.4 million), fewer than one-third have now been declared fluent—after four years.

Imagine a tree farmer who spends extra to plant five seedlings in special pots, and carefully waters them for one year. He transplants them into the hard ground and gives them no water except for the rain that falls from the sky. By the third
year, all but one of his trees are lost, and yet the farmer declares himself a stellar success and tries to pass a law making every other tree farmer do the same thing. Wouldn’t that be silly?

Please vote “no” on Amendment 31 www.NO-on-31.org. You and your seedlings will be glad you did.

John T. Gless,
Fort Collins
 

Originally published in the Daily Coloradoan, Sunday, October 13, 2002

Original URL: http://vh80003.vh8.infi.net/news/stories/20021013/opinion/281278.html

Make the right choice
By Sarah Ryan

I am a big supporter of public education and have recently moved to Colorado. I was so excited to be coming to a state that places such a value on education and meeting the needs of all students, a state that truly values local  choice and allows each district to decide how to best meet the needs of its students.

That is why I am so dismayed at the possibility that the citizens of Colorado might allow that all to change. Based on my experiences, I believe the people of Colorado want better for their schools and their children.

That’s why I encourage them to say “no” to Amendment 31. Despite the crafty advertising campaign for this amendment and a ballot title that appears quite worthy and well-intentioned, this amendment would have devastating repercussions for all students of Colorado, no matter what language they speak.

Class sizes will increase, all students will receive less teacher time, local taxes will rise to fund this mandate, and the right to local control will be ripped away from school districts and taxpayers. I urge you, as concerned and educated citizens, to make the right choice on election voting.

Sarah Ryan,
 Fort Collins

Letter published in the Union-News October 13, 2002

Original URL: http://www.masslive.com/letters/unionnews/index.ssf?/base/news-0/103450030120690.xml

Letters to the editor 10/13/2002
Mass. teachers know best about bilingual education

I have decided the candidates for whom I will vote on election day, but I remain deeply troubled over how to vote regarding bilingual education in public schools. I consider myself to be a well-informed voter, who carefully researches issues to the best of my ability.

When it comes to bilingual education, however, I have no idea what is in the best interest of our students, and I suspect that such is the case for most voters. So it seems to me that whether to use bilingual education, immersion, or some other methodology should be decided not by politicians and not through a plebiscite, but by the people who have expertise in this area, and who ultimately are accountable for their choices: our unfairly much-maligned and under-appreciated professional teachers.

It is an outrage and an act of consummate arrogance that politicians micromanage our public education system. By doing so, they prevent teachers from using their highly specialized skills and knowledge, much like when a clerk for an HMO dictates what medicines a doctor may prescribe.

Politicians have no business telling teachers how to teach, especially when they have failed so miserably to adequately fund public education. It is equally outrageous that an issue as vitally important as bilingual education should be decided by the not-fully-informed - myself included, for I am not a teacher.

The mere fact that this issue will appear on the ballot demonstrates how teachers are hamstrung by the uninformed policies that have been imposed on them, but which do not embrace sound educational practices. And, let’s not forget that if this ballot initiative passes, teachers could be sued if they fail to strictly avoid bilingual techniques.

Shamefully, the way we treat teachers is akin to an audience telling the concert pianist that she may not use the pedals, may play only in the key of C, and only in three-quarter time - and if she fails to comply, the audience may sue her. Then, after the concert, the audience complains about the lackluster performance.

So, because I am opposed to political micromanagement of public education, respect the expertise of professional educators, and because I believe it is wrong to decide issues such as bilingual education based on a popularity contest, I will follow the lead of the public school teachers, as expressed by the Massachusetts Teachers Association: I will vote NO on question 2, and I urge others to do the same.

JAMES J. PALERMO Northampton

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, October 13

Mary Margaret Silva (letters, October 13) claims that bilingual education has produced “mostly all negative results.” The scientific research says otherwise. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the published research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native
language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.” Those who profit from bilingual education are not its advocates, as Ms. Silva claims, but the children in the programs. They acquire English and develop their first language at no extra cost.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California.

Sent to the Union-New, October 13, 2002

The Union-News (“Bilingual: Issue Keys Debate, October 13) presents testimony from all sides: Some people think bilingual education is helpful, some think it is not necessary, and some think it is harmful.

Voters may want to consider the research on this issue: Scientific studies have been done that compare the progress of English learners who participate in bilingual programs and those who do not. These children have similar backgrounds: the only difference is whether the first language is used in the classoom. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed this research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Question 2 seeks to make this successful approach illegal.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California.

Originally published in the Daily Coloradoan, Sunday, October 12, 2002
Original URL: http://vh80003.vh8.infi.net/news/stories/20021012/opinion/274846.html

Save the Harris school
By Lucas Suazo

My name is Lucas Suazo and I am in fourth grade at Harris Bilingual Immersion School. There is somebody who wants to pass a law that will close my school of choice.

I love my school. I love my teachers. I love everything that I am learning. But I can’t vote.

I wish someone would ask my opinion if I like my school, if I love my teachers. I heard that this person who wants to take away my school is not even from Colorado. He is from California. This makes me really sad. How does he know how great my school is?

Since I can’t vote, I urge you to please vote for me. Please vote “no” an Amendment 31.

Lucas Suazo,
Fort Collins

Sent to the Orange County Register

Columnist Steven Greenhut, in discussing the Nativo Lopez recall effort, writes that “the big issue remains bilingual education, the controversial teaching concept that kept students from learning English because it taught subjects to them mainly in their native language” (“Nativo Lopez’s divisive politics,” October 13). Wrong, all wrong.

Bilingual education is the use of the child’s first language to accelerate English language development. Study after study shows it does just that: Children in bilingual programs consistently acquire at least as much English as those in all-English programs and usually acquire more.

In addition, bilingual education does not “teach subjects mainly in (the) native language.” English is introduced the first day and subjects are taught in English as soon as they can be made comprehensible. Most children in bilingual programs who begin school at kindergarten have acquired enough English to do regular classwork in English within three years.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California.

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, October 11

The WSJ has it wrong: Banning bilingual education deserves none of  the credit for increases in test scores in California (“Bilingual  Balderash, October 11). A new test, the SAT9, was introduced in California at the same time the ban on bilingual education took effect. Test scores always increase after new tests are introduced,  which is why tests need to be recalibrated after a few years. Test scores went up for everybody in California, including districts that kept bilingual education, and districts that never did bilingual education.

The WSJ also errs when it describes bilingual programs as a  “euphemism for Spanish-only instruction.” English is introduced in bilingual programs on the first day, and academic subjects are taught in English as soon as they can be made comprehensible. Most children who start bilingual programs at kindergarten have acquired enough English to do regular work in the mainstream by the end of grade two.

Bilingual programs use the first language in a way that accelerates  English language development. This fact has been confirmed by numerous scientific studies that show that children in bilingual  programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and often acquire more.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California.

Letter Published Against ballot Question 2--Massachusetts

Original URL:  http://www.townonline.com/arlington/news/opinion/aa_letaaletterse10

Thursday, October 10, 2002

I am writing to encourage a no vote on Question 2 in November. Everyone believes that students should learn English in school. The question is how best to do that.

I am a certified English as a Second Language teacher, and elementary bilingual teacher. Question 2 would make it illegal for any teacher, administrator or School Committee member to speak to a child in that child’s native language.

In our modern world, jobs require higher levels of literacy than they ever have in the past. In order to ensure that all students can be as literate as they can be, educational research has shown that immigrant students who learn to read in their native language, will become more literate in English. It is in order to teach students English at a level that will enable them to compete in the 21^st century job market, that bilingual education is essential.

I work in a public school in another city in which half the children are learning English and the other half are learning Spanish. The children work together to learn the other language. It is a program that parents choose for their children -
no one in the state of Massachusetts is foced into a bilingual program. It is no more expensive than other programs in the city.

If Question 2, placed on the November ballot by California millionaire Ron Unz, is passed, this successful program, as well as many other successful programs like it, will be illegal, and therefore eliminated.

Please vote no on Question 2. Bilingual education is often the best way to teach students English literacy.

Marion Magill
Chester Street

Letter sent to the Rocky Mountain News:

Re: Unz criticizes Owens for opposing proposal October 3, 2002: For six years now I have read how “the Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz...”

What a hypocrite! Now he cries that someone besides he has money.

Unz has covered up California’s 93% failure rate to make immigrant children English fluent. He has distracted the public from the widening achievement gap in test scores. He has been silent about the millions of extra tax dollars in trying to maintain his failing law in California. He says that no teacher has been sued in California, yet he is heading a recall of a popular school board member. Justice in the court is blind, lies in an election can blind 50% plus one vote quite often.

If his English immersion was working, why isn’t someone other than the Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz exporting the success? Unz is a hypocrite.

Denis O’Leary
Education Adviser
League of United Latin American Citizens
National Far West Region (which includes Colorado)

Sent to the Springfield Union-News (Massachusetts), October 10.

Ron Unz is quoted in the Salem News (“Supporters defend bilingual schooling,” October 9) as saying that immigrant parents “don’t like these bilingual programs.” That’s not true. Hispanic voters opposed California’s Proposition 227 by a 2-1 margin. In our research, we found that most parents of limited English proficient children agreed that having a good foundation in the first language helped English language development, and most parents agreed that limited English proficient children should be in classrooms in which the first language is part of the curriculum.

Fay Shin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Education, California State University, Long Beach

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California.

Sent to the New York Times, October 9, 2002

The Times reported that test scores have increased in California since Prop 227 dismantled bilingual education (“Bilingual Education on Ballot in Two States,” October 9). This is true, but a new test, the SAT9, was introduced in California at the same time 277 took effect. Test scores always increase after new tests are introduced, which is why tests need to be recalibrated after a few years. Test scores increased for districts that kept bilingual education, and for districts that never did bilingual education. Thus, 227 deserves none of the credit for the increases.

The WestEd study mentioned in the article concluded that there was “no major effect” of Prop. 227, a conclusion that agrees with substantial published research showing that children in bilingual programs acquire English at least as well as children in immersion programs, and often do better. It thus appears that bilingual education is, at worst, just as effective as immersion. Why should voters even consider making it illegal?

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

 Sent to the Boston Herald, October 6, 2002

Wayne Woodlief (“Watch for ballot bubble,” October 6) is misinformed about bilingual education. Woodlief notes that test scores for Latino children have increased since Proposition 227, California’s version of Question 2, passed in 1998. At the same time, however, California introduced a new test, the SAT9. Research has shown that after new tests are introduced, test scores go up, which is why commercial tests need to be recalibrated every few years. Prop. 227 deserves none of the credit for this increase. Test scores have risen for everybody in California, including English learners in districts that kept bilingual education (thanks to special waivers) and English learners in districts that never did bilingual education.

In addition, the California initiative has failed on its promise to teach children English in one year. Data released by the State of California on August 29 showed that there are 1,034,073 children in California who have been in school for one year or more and who have not yet been reclassified as fluent English proficient. Ron Unz, the sponsor of 227 and Question 2, considers reclassification to be the mark of “learning English.” If we accept the standard set up by Unz himself, Prop. 227 has failed 1,034,073 times.

Woodlief also repeats the claim that children in bilingual programs are segregated for five or six years. A look at the actual data shows this is false. For those who begin at kindergarten, most acquire enough English to do all classwork in the mainstream within three years. In addition, English instruction in bilingual education begins on day one, and academics are taught in English as soon as they can be made comprehensible.

Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the published research has concluded that bilingual education works. Children in bilingual programs acquire at least as much English as children in all-English immersion programs and usually acquire more. The most recent review of this research, by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, found that use of the native language has positive effects and that “efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction ... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches.”

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Letter sent to the Denver Post 10/06/02:

Jim Lewis seems to believe that “studies” are not as good as hear say in his letter “Muddying the waters” (October 6, 2002). Stating “that two years after California implemented their version of Amendment 31, test scores of the children involved improved. And this is all that counts. It works.” is in itself pretty murky waters.

Test scores of English immersed students indeed went up, not mentioned is that English only speaking students scores went up even more in the same period. The achievement gap in fact widened, leaving the Unz kids even further behind. Also, if California millionaire Ron Unz’s plan was the only factor, why did English fluent students test scores improve? Did they learn more English than they had before?

Jim Lewis asks, “Does the education establishment want to get students communicating in English and into mainstream school classes as fast as possible, or does it want to maintain the status quo?”

The status quo has been established by Mr. Ron Unz in California for the past five years. Unz’s status quo has given a 93% failure rate to become English fluent, a widening achievement gap, more drop outs and millions of dollars in extra spending. Good luck Colorado.

Denis O’Leary
Education Advisor,
National Far West Region (including Colorado)
League of United Latin American Citizens

Published in The Denver Post 10/06/02

Dual immersion works

It is obvious why Rita Montero and Ron Unz specifically attack dual-immersion programs, calling supporters “vampires” and “fanatical.” It’s because students in dual immersion achieve higher English scores than students in the Amendment 31 program. Dual immersion is completely different from traditional “bilingual education.” In dual immersion, English-language learners are introduced to English starting on Day One and learn side-by-side with their English-speaking classmates instead of being segregated into a separate classroom.

Amendment 31 would outlaw dual immersion. In fact, Amendment 31, if passed, would wipe out not only bilingual education but also any other English teaching method or innovation that may come along. Only one program - Ron Unz’s program - would be legal, regardless of demographics, budget and student needs. In addition, it would take away
parents’ right to choose what is best for their children and would subvert local control of local schools. It must be hard to try to sell an initiative that would inadvertently ban our highest-achieving programs. No wonder the Amendment 31 sponsors feel the need to resort to name-calling.

REBEKAH MARTINDALE
Boulder

Published in The Denver Post 10/06/02

On bilingual research

Re: “Bilingual research lacks definitive study,” Sept. 25 news story.

This story was unusually well-balanced, presenting all sides of a complex issue. It was stimulated by a study that recently appeared in the journal Education Next by Joseph Guzman. The study claimed that those who participated in bilingual education programs earned less a decade later. It should, however, be pointed out that Guzman also reported that this result was not statistically significant, that is, the results could have been due to chance. The actual difference, in fact, was only $1000 per year, about 2.5 percent of the average Hispanic family income at that time.

A close look at Guzman’s full report (online at www.educationnext.org/20023/58.html ), shows that the study has some serious flaws. The largest is the definition of bilingual education, which Guzman himself refers to as “coarse.” Subjects were defined as participating in bilingual education if they ever studied a subject taught in a foreign language. This could be one class, part of a class, or 10 years of study - we don’t know. Guzman also defined bilingual education as excluding classes in English as a Second Language. All properly organized bilingual programs include ESL and introduce it on the first day.

In short, Guzman’s study only showed that those who had any subject-matter classes that were taught in another language and who had no ESL, earned about as much as those who had ESL only. This could be interpreted as evidence for bilingual education.

STEPHEN KRASHEN
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Published in The Denver Post 10/06/02

The real bilingual ed

I am troubled by the misinformation Rita Montero presented on Sept. 22. She claimed that non-English-speaking students in Colorado are forced into Spanish-only “bilingual” or English-only ESL classes where they do not learn English.

A bilingual class is not a Spanish-only class. Bilingual programs teach students in two languages, English and another language. ESL (English as a Second Language) programs teach English in English. They do not instruct students in their native language. Everyone involved in bilingual or ESL programs insists that students be proficient in English as fast as possible.

The real debate is not whether students should learn English, but how students learn English. Even if some of Ms. Montero’s concerns about bilingual/ESL programs are valid, they should not be remedied with an amendment that mandates specific classroom methodology in our state constitution. Currently, local control allows parents and teachers to make instructional decisions. Amendment 31 would force schools to abandon this collaborative approach and students with diverse needs would have only one way to learn English.

If we want these students to be successful, productive members of society, then we shouldn’t eliminate the flexibility to effectively teach English.

JAMIE RUMSEY
Broomfield

Published in The Denver Post 10/06/02

Liability a deal-breaker

I am wondering why I have not seen more media coverage addressing a specific section of Amendment 31: “parents or legal guardians (may) obtain annual waivers allowing the children to transfer to classes using bilingual education allowing a parent or legal guardian to sue public employees granting a waiver if the parent or legal guardian later concludes that the waiver was granted in error and injured the child’s education.”

So let me get this straight: a parent can petition for his child to spend additional time in a bilingual program, but retains the right to sue the schools if the parent later regrets his own decision?

What a shame that this ridiculous clause is part of the amendment. As a supporter of English immersion, I would have been happy to vote for provisions to provide only that.

I fear that without a spotlight on this clause, voters may inadvertently support an issue that they otherwise would not.

AMBER LYNN REED
Castle Rock

Published in The Denver Post 10/06/02

Two kinds of fluency

Teaching children English in a one-year immersion program might sound promising, but it is not based on research in language acquisition and makes no distinction between being conversationally fluent and fluent enough to learn academic material in a new language. Children are able to quickly pick up conversational English and so it seems that it only takes a few months to become fluent in English. But their vocabulary is limited to the words they hear and use in daily conversation.

School isn’t just about learning English, but about learning science, history, government, literature, and academic thinking and communication skills. It is true that in one nine-month school year, children can learn the basics - colors, clothing, family members, animals, food, jobs - and begin to read and write in English. But we’re kidding ourselves if we pretend this is adequate preparation to keep up with their English-speaking classmates.

Instead of being forced to learn academic subjects in a new language, it makes far more sense for students to be taught in their native languages as they transition into English. I’m almost afraid to admit that I’m an ESL teacher and work every day with children learning English. In every other field we turn to experts for guidance, but teachers who speak up for children are just trying to protect their cushy jobs. If Amendment 31 passes, my job prospects will expand - but my students might end up as second-generation busboys or hotel maids.

ANNE TRACY

Louisville

Published in The Boston Globe 10/06/02

Traumatizing students won’t help

GREATLY admired the commentary by Brookline teacher Tatiana With, who traveled to Korea for an immersion language and cultural experience to better understand her Korean students (“I walked a mile, and more, in my students’ shoes,” Education, Sept. 29).

One wonders how anyone can seriously suggest that Question 2 on the ballot, which would force students to endure hours of English immersion would be a good thing when With, a 32-year-old woman, found herself weeping in the bathroom at both the pace of instruction and the mere fact that she couldn’t understand the river of words in her Korean language class.

With reminds us that students are human beings and that traumatizing students in the name of test scores and nativist fears will neither speed up learning nor help teachers understand the students they face.

Thank you for reminding us of the humanity of teachers and students. I hope all voters in this state will vote no in November on Question 2. Children deserve better.

LAURIE ZUCKER-CONDE
Somerville

Sent to the Arizona Republic Oct. 5, 2002:

Freedom going extinct?

Poor Michael Rutigliano (“Is English going extinct?” Oct. 5). Born in this country, he never learned the language from which his surname is derived.  He went to a school that failed to teach him how freedom of speech includes freedom of language. In the military he never learned the meaning of
”Semper fi.”

Happily, many Americans have been more fortunate. Some speak not only English but also Diné. Some use American Sign Language. Some speak Spanish, the proud second language of America. As capitalists, entrepreneurs also are free to choose languages in attracting customers.  The marketplace decides, based on the choices of individuals who determine what is in their own best self-interest. And yes, some have chosen to remain monolingual even as others have become polyglots. We Americans
revel in our freedom.

Yet there are those who would exert the power of law to enforce a “politically correct” monolingualism and obliterate America’s multilingual heritage. That’s why eternal vigilance, often cited as the cost of
freedom, at times requires us to turn our gaze inward and guard against the poisons that may lurk within our hearts.

--Salvador Gabaldón

Published in the AZ Daily Star Oct. 12, 2002:

Original URL: http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/21012satletrpckg.html

If Jeff Jacoby were Hispanic, he would cherish this nation’s freedoms.  He would proudly speak English or Spanish or both or neither, accepting the American capitalist ideal that a free people will choose what is in their own best self-interest without governmental coercion. He would laugh at those who feel “humiliated” that entrepreneurs recognize America as the world’s third largest Spanish-speaking nation. He would turn away in disgust at those who would use the power of law to deny parents the option of making educational choices for their children. Being conscious of the harsh labor his people endure, he would feel contempt for anyone who had the temerity to claim that “life is easy for non-English speakers” in America.

It’s not his fault that he is not Hispanic, but he must take full responsibility for failing to honor his father’s wonderful achievement.  No one “forced” his father to learn anything. Any math or English teacher can attest to the impossibility of forcing students to learn against their will. His father chose to learn English, which only adds to the magnitude of his accomplishment. High school attendance in the 1940s was not compulsory. For Jacoby to diminish and distort the truth about his father’s achievement in order to turn the public against bilingual education is detestable. He should be ashamed.—Sal Gabaldón