AABE--Letters 2003

Sent to the Arizona Republic July 27, 2003:

In his furious effort to spin the pro-bilingual education decision by the Attorney General ("Charters bypass English-only law," July 26), State Superintendent Tom Horne may have opened up a new can of worms. According to the story, charter schools that do not follow "the English-only law are not eligible for the extra $300 per pupil that the state pays to have children learn English, Horne said."

Arizona does not have an "English-only law." It has a law that requires schools to teach English through immersion in some circumstances and through bilingual education in other circumstances. Why would Horne threaten the funding of schools who are teaching English in one of the ways permitted by law? For a man purporting to believe in character education, his blatant attempt to intimidate sets a new standard for Republican hypocrisy. Bill Bennett must be green with envy.

Sal Gabaldon

Published in the Arizona Republic, July 26, 2003: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0726satlets263.html

More bilingual confusion

Johanna Haver's letter ("Blame activists, not parents," July 24) describes polls that show that Hispanic parents prefer structured English immersion to bilingual education.

As with what happened with the passage of Proposition 203, most people just don't understand the different types of bilingual education programs.

Hispanic parents and the public are told that if they want children to learn English, then structured English immersion is the new magic bullet for English-language learners. Of course, everyone wants children to learn English.

I would love to see the polling data that Haver is referring to, and what question was asked. Most questions about bilingual education are loaded to elicit a negative response.

Working on my master's, I recently did a survey at my school, which is 85 percent Hispanic. I asked the question, "If there was a program available that taught your child how to speak, read, and write in English and Spanish, would you like your child to participate in the program?" Ninety-eight percent answered yes.

We have to stop using the "One size fits all" strategy. Each child learns differently.

Let's give parents a choice, and not let politicians, the media and the public make decisions for children.

Let's allow teachers and researchers that study the best methods for second-language acquisition to inform the parents - who ultimately should have the right to choose what program they want their child to attend.

Sean Diana
Phoenix
The writer is a dual language teacher at Palomino Elementary School.

Sent to the Arizona Republic, July 23, 2003:

The Arizona Republic (“Horne's stricter limits on bilingual classes ruled lawful,” July 23) sadly misread the Attorney General’s opinion on Tom Horne’s guidelines for the implementation of Proposition 203, the anti-bilingual education law. Proposition 203 requires a bilingual program for parents who qualify for a waiver. To qualify, the law says, a child must score “approximately at or above the state average for his grade level or at or above the 5th grade average, whichever is lower” on a test of English. However, Horne’s Guidelines stated that children must score at the “proficiency level” established by the test publisher rather than the state average. Although Horne was within his rights to establish Guidelines, the Attorney General specifically said that the Superintendent could not use the publisher’s passing score to qualify children for waivers, but must use the state average, as required by the law. As the opinion puts it, “In sum, the Guidelines are within the Superintendent's statutory authority, except for the selection of specific tests to determine English proficiency. … In addition, the minimum test scores for a (B)(1) waiver, although an appropriate subject for monitoring guidelines, must be supported by facts that establish that the scores are the average for students at the appropriate grade level, as required by statute.” In other words, Horne’s attempt to remove the wavier provision of Proposition 203 by changing the rules exceeded the limits of his authority as Superintendent, according to the state Attorney General, and the local authority of school boards to permit parental choice has been preserved. Jeff MacSwan, Ph.D. Chandler, Arizona

Sent to the Arizona Republic, July 23, 2003:

Dear Editor of the Arizona Republic:
Loren Miller of Prescott laments the multilingual nature of the United States of America. (English should be enough, July 22) Let me remind Mr./ Ms. Miller that this continent has been multilingual ever since its first inhabitants arrived. With each wave of immigrants new languages have joined in the mix and our ancestors chose to unite a large portion of the continent into a single nation anyway. They did not include any language about exclusivity of English in the Constitution because it just plain is not needed. English is clearly the language of the great majority of commerce in this country. How does it injure you to have any communication, business or otherwise, conducted in other languages by others? You need not participate. It is up to you.
Live and let live.
Julie Neff-Encinas

Published in the Boston Globe, 7/22/2003,

Bilingual ed does work:

THANK YOU for your articles on bilingual education. As a teacher in a transitional bilingual education program, I can testify that bilingual education does work and it works extremely well. Unfortunately, the voters last November decided to eliminate these highly successful programs.

Transitional bilingual programs teach children curriculum subjects in their native language until their English is strong enough to enter mainstream English classrooms. This process on average takes two to three years in Massachusetts.

These bilingual programs work hard on English language development. More than 90 percent of Hispanics at the polls did not want Question 2 (English immersion) to pass last November. Prior to this vote, parents had a choice of either transitional bilingual education or immersion in some districts. This choice has been pretty much eliminated.

The Legislature recently made some very minor changes to the new English immersion law, allowing for some parent choice with two-way bilingual programs. Parents and teachers should be allowed to choose the type of education they want for their children. This choice should not be made for them by others, via the ballot box.

One size does not fit all and immersion does not work for everyone. It is almost impossible to learn English in one year; the research is clear on this. I hope that additional changes are made to the English immersion law to allow for increased parent and teacher choice. Bilingual education does work.

NEIL BRICK

Easthampton

Letter sent to the LA Times, July 13, 2003: In “Dual-Immersion Is a Success in Santa Ana, Educators Say”, (7-13-03) Ron Unz said "They're slapping a different label on something to avoid the sorts of negative implications associated with traditional bilingual programs and get around the argument that bilingual doesn't work." Unz is the self promoting expert who started saying five years ago that English immersion would take only one year to make children English fluent. His investment in Proposition 227 and his money since seems to have blinded the public to the fact that 90% of English language students are in his English immersion classes and over 93% of these students have failed to become English fluent. Money can buy credibility in many public forums, but it hasn’t given English to the children. As in the recall of Nativo Lopez, Ron Unz’s professed expertise has only won over those who follow his money, it has failed to teach English. Unz has created the “negative implications associated with traditional bilingual programs,” he speaks of. He has also proclaimed success for his failed initiative of 1998 to teach English in one year. Denis O'Leary Education Advisor National Far West Region League of United Latin American Citizens

Sent to the New York Daily News, July 5, 2003 Don Soifer ("Bilingual ed needs more from Mike," July 3) is badly misinformed about bilingual education. Yes, three states have dismantled bilingual education and limit special help to one year. But there is no evidence that this has helped. In California, over a million children have been in "immersion" classes for more than one year and have not been redesignated as fluent English speaking. In addition, a WestEd study showed that English learners in California districts that dropped bilingual education did not acquire English any faster than those in districts that kept it. The most recent Board of Education report showed that in New York City,73% of English learners who entered at kindergarten acquired enough English to be placed in regular classes after three years. In 1994, this figure was only 52%. This shows that bilingual education has improved a great deal in New York. The report also said that very few children in "immersion" in New York City acquired enough English to do regular classwork in English after one year: 44% for those entering in kindergarten, 24% for those entering at grade 1, 28% for those entering at grade 2, and only 16% for those starting in grade 3. 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." New York City made the right decision in keeping bilingual education. Stephen KrashenProfessor Emeritus of Education University of Southern California

Published in Hispanic Magazine (pg 10), September, 2003:
Not Even Close...
Your magazine reported ("English-Only Students Succeed,' Panorama, June) that California testing shows that five years after voters approved English-only classrooms in California, the number of students who speak English well is rising because this year 32 percent speak English proficiently compared to 11percent last year. Wrong. This increase is based on children who took the same or a similar exam both years; children who have been in school for one year and longer. These gains are very modest, especially when we consider that the children did not start out at zero in 2001. In fact, 82 percent scored at the low intermediate level or higher in 2001.
Proposition 227, which dismantled bilingual education in California, allows only one year for children to become proficient in English. If Proposition 227 had succeeded, all English learners should be fully proficient after one year. That didn't happen. Not even close.

Stephen Krashen
Los Angeles, California

Denis O'Leary
Oxnard, California

Letter sent to the editor of Hispanic Magazine, June 26, 2003:

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

Phonics and "skill-building" didn't work. June 25, 2003 Stephen Krashen, LA Daily NewsCalifornia'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 KrashenRossier School of Education, USC Los Angeles

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 chi

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

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

Published in the LA Times,`June 18, 2003`

Published in the Ventura County Star, June 18, 2003

Sent to the National Review Online, May 31, 2003

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

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

Published in the LA Times, June 18, 2003

Published in the Ventura County Star, June 18, 2003

Sent to the National Review Online, May 31, 2003

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

Published in the LA Times,`June 18, 2003`