AABE Writing Workshop South Mountain Community College 7050 S. 24th Street Phoenix, AZ Three Dates   STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING ENGLISH LEARNER WRITING WORKSHOP South Mountain Community College December 11, 2004 January 8, 2005 February 12, 2005 9:00 am to 4:00 pm   Pazmino v. Calif. State Board of Education Settlement Agreement require the State defendants to: fund alternative bilingual programs    Report Bilingual classes better than English-only approach Click on News 2004 button link below for article and follow links to the full report

AABE Site Search

Trouble with this page? Contact Alejandra Sotomayor at asotomayor@azbilingualed.org 

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