AABE-- HELP STOP THE MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN THE NEWS 2005

Published in the Arizona Republic, Dec. 21, 2005:

Ruling is fine holiday gift

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Raner Collins that English-language learners do not need to pass the AIMS test in order to graduate in 2006 or
2007 was the best holiday gift I could have received. I teach ELL students in Phoenix, and we have been feeling the pressure and the injustice of the AIMS test.

The problem is that the AIMS test does not measure whether ELL students have the knowledge they need to earn diplomas; it measures how well they can express their knowledge in English. Even the math test relies heavily upon word problems.

Now when my students ask me: "What happens if I don't pass the AIMS test, miss? Will I graduate anyway?" I will say: "Yes! Thanks to Tim Hogan and the Center for Law in the Public Interest."

It is Hogan's attention to this matter that has brought results for ELL students in Arizona. Thank you, Tim Hogan. -Tamara Voas, Chandler

Published in the Arizona Republic, Dec. 14, 2005:

Meaningful skills broaden job market

Regarding "Office jobs require Spanish speakers" (Letters, Dec. 5):

The letter writer provides an excellent example on how people let their own personal biases and prejudices muddle the immigration debate.

She writes, "Finding out that I was turned down for employment due to the fact that I do not speak Spanish made me wonder what country I am living in."

I'll tell you what country: The United States of America, where employers are free to hire employees who possess the skills that meet their business objectives and where the market rewards workers with more marketable skills (like knowledge of a foreign language) with higher pay.

When I was in graduate school, I applied for an internship with BMW. I was not selected for the position, mainly because I did not speak German. Now, this had nothing to do with "lax enforcement of immigration laws" but rather with the fact that BMW's business needs (as a German company) required management interns to have knowledge of the German language.

As the letter writer points out, it was her own choice not to learn a foreign language, be it Spanish, German, French or whatever. Blaming illegal immigration because she did not get a job that required her to have knowledge of that foreign language is disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.

Enrique Lopezlira, Phoenix

Published in the Arizona Republic, November 28, 2005:

DESIGNED CURRICULUM' NAIVELY IDEALISTIC

Regarding "Design curriculum for special students" (Letters, Friday):

The letter writer recommends that public schools specialize entire schools for varied special needs of students. As ideal as the concept may appear, it is really naively idealistic.

Public schools are where students attend based on either their neighborhood or their preference as it fits established criteria for either open enrollment or court-ordered magnet schools. Public school administrators can't keep all the English-language learners in one school and all the special-education students in another.

Each of those groups benefits greatly by being in the full population of students for as many classes as possible. Federal law prohibits restricting the environment of special-education students more than absolutely necessary.

She may think she found the silver bullet, but believe me, there is no such thing when educating the varied children who come to our doors. We simply must meet them where they are and do our best to move them forward a little bit each day.

Julie Neff-Encinas, Tucson- The writer is a 26-year veteran public educator.

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2005:

Children of Poverty and California’s Libraries

Only 9% of low-income eighth graders in California are “well-prepared” for high school compared to 23% nation-wide (“California's going to get a shocking education,” Nov 26). This is devastating: Over one and a half million children in California live in poverty (17%), and nearly four million (41%) come from low-income families.

At least part of the reason California does a poor job, compared to other states, in educating children of poverty is the condition of our libraries. Studies consistently show a strong relationship between access to books and how well children read, and children of poverty are nearly completely dependent on libraries for reading material. California has the worst school libraries in the US and ranks among the worst in public libraries in the US. The state now invests only 3% of the national average in school libraries, and half the national average on public libraries.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the East Valley Tribune, November 22, 2005:

Jeff McSwan’s guest opinion of November 21 is a welcome change to the string of articles and letters claiming the contributions of Structured English Immersion—SEI—to the education of English language learners—ELL—in Arizona. The magic SEI solution promised by pundits like Tom Horn and others has not panned out. The achievement gap between ELL and non-ELL is abysmal.

In the September 2005 issue of the Educational Policy Studies Laboratory, Professor Wayne Wright of the University of Texas at San Antonio showed the achievement gaps in reading, writing and math between ELL and non-ELL students in Arizona using AIMS test scores. He reported that among third graders the gap in reading is 39 points, in writing it is 22 points and in math it is 32 points. He further points out that the gap has remained the same in reading and math in the last three years. Only in writing has the gap narrowed from 35 points to 22 points. ELL don’t fare better in the Stanford-9 test scores either where the reading gap is 34 points, the language gap is 29 points and the math gap is 27 points.

If this is not proof that SEI is not working, we are playing political games with the ELL population. Unfortunately, to repeal a law such as the one Proposition 203 brought about is practically impossible in a state like Arizona. However, a more reasonable and less biased Superintendent of Public Instruction could allow more options to school districts in the way they teach ELL.

Conrado L. Gómez

Published in the Arizona Republic Nov. 21, 2005:

We should embrace multilingualism

I wish those who purport to know what's best for English-language learners would consider what decades of language-acquisition research has taught us.

We know conclusively that by far the best method for children to learn any new language is to support their education in both their native language and their adopted language. One or another in isolation is counterproductive and can be emotionally devastating.

We also know that children who speak more than one language perform better in all academic areas than monolingual children, and yet we pressure kids to speak fewer languages (English only, please) rather than advocating for bilingual or trilingual education.

In an era when we purport to be concerned with academic achievement, it's ironic that one of the few conclusive tools for improving performance - multilingualism - is outlawed for public school instruction.

Alberto Olivas, Phoenix

Sent to the Dallas Morning News, Nov 17, 2005:

Two things are happening at once:

More research is appearing confirming that bilingual education works. Three major reviews appeared in professional journals this year concluding that children in bilingual programs typically acquire more English than those in all-English immersion programs.

At the same time, the news media tells us that some districts are not satisfied with students’ English language development and are adding more English to bilingual programs. The Dallas Morning News reported that this was taking place in Irving (“District rolls out guidelines for bilingual program,” November 16) and similar reports have recently appeared in the El Paso Times and North County Times (California).

There are at least three possible explanations:
(1) Despite the claims, the children in bilingual education are doing better than people think they are, and reports of inadequate English are based on informal anecdotes, not a real analysis.
(2) People have unreasonable expectations as to how quickly children should acquire English. They would be just as unhappy, or more unhappy, with the results of English immersion.
(3) The programs are indeed inadequate and are missing some crucial ingredients.

I hope the districts involved will take a closer look before abandoning a scientifically validated approach.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the Arizona Daily Star on Nov. 12, 2005:

AIMS at the Edge of Madness

Public education has always had two kinds of critics: those seeking to improve the schools and those seeking to destroy them. In 2002, when the two sides joined forces out of mutual frustration, few of us foresaw the testing madness that would ensue.

Survey after survey indicates that the great majority of Americans support our local schools. We know the teachers, ask about homework, and scrutinize report cards. There are problems, of course, especially in poor communities, but we parents generally are satisfied with our local schools, evidenced by notoriously low turnouts for school board elections.

But we've also been convinced that disastrous problems plague the schools beyond the ones we know personally. Nearly all of "Those Other Schools"
must be horrendous because sensationalized stories about teacher misconduct, campus shootings, and falling test scores have become a staple of media reporting.

Nevertheless, the status quo had prevailed, perhaps because American workers, who are educated overwhelmingly through the public schools, continued leading the world in productivity, despite shrinking health care and pension benefits. That fact undermined calls for necessary reforms.

If parents weren't willing to hold schools accountable, some critics argued, why not use federal funding to lure schools into a tangle of regulations that would ensure accountability? Thus was born the misbegotten deal that gave the federal government unprecedented power over local schools.

It has led to thousands of teaching assistants, mostly low-paid but dedicated women, being declared unfit for the classroom. It mandates standardized reading and testing programs, "validated" by politically biased scientific standards. A flood of new spending now passes through the schools only to be converted into reams of compliance reports and fat profits for test publishers. Teacher salaries remain at dismal levels, but schools that don't "measure up" face takeovers or funding cuts.

Arizona has gone even further, promising to motivate learning by denying graduation to students who succeed in courses but are unable to pass the AIMS test. State leaders pose as miracle workers who will lead our schools across a desert of mediocrity and to the Promised Land of accountability, pretending they can bestow fluency on English language learners (ELLs) in a single year.

It's taken three long years for the unfortunate alliance to begin unraveling. Researchers and OCR investigators are now revealing that the "progress" being reported by the Arizona Department of Education is little more than a concoction of lowered AIMS cut scores and a newly designed English fluency test (SELP) that requires only minimal literacy for ELLs to be considered proficient.

Meanwhile, state officials testifying in federal court appear hard-pressed to explain their insistence that ELLs be denied graduation when not meeting AIMS standards, since the officials themselves admit that they failed to fully fund the very programs intended to prepare the students to meet those standards.

Consequently, ELLs are likely to receive court-ordered exemptions from the AIMS graduation test, and with cruel illogic, those who work hard enough to pass the SELP will face greater odds against graduating. They'll be required to pass the English-only AIMS, including its math section composed entirely of word problems.

Next year Arizonans seeking constructive reform and a balance of assessment with actual learning may elect Slade Mead to the office of State Superintendent. Let us hope he will lead us-if not all the way to the Promised Land-at least away from the brink of testing madness.

Sal Gabaldon - Tucson

Published in the Arizona Republic, The (Phoenix, AZ) November 12, 2005:

Shortcut to high test scores
The way to duplicate the results of the highly successful charter school "academies" such as Tempe Prep, Benchmark, Basis or Veritas is simple:
Select the right students!

Sure, they're open to all children. But who really attends? Checking their school report cards on the Department of Education's Web site reveals that all four are less than 20 percent minority and none have limited-English students, economically disadvantaged students or special-education students.

So, a group of mostly White, upper-middle class students with no special-education needs, no second-language issues and thank goodness none of those nasty issues associated with poverty and who, by the way, have zealous parents who will enforce hours of nightly homework, tend to achieve well on tests.

Wow! The public schools simply need to stop enrolling all those poor, immigrant and special-needs students and test scores will soar.

I'll bet the Goldwater Institute's new charter school study will conveniently avoid these issues. Nor will they point out that these excelling academies are simply a haven for the affluent to avoid the challenges real public schools must deal with.

-- Jim Hall, Phoenix

Published in the Arizona Republic November 11, 2005: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1111frilets112.html

English learners case isn't for judge Regarding "Speak up, Judge" (Editorial, Thursday):

It was quite surprising to find The Republic suggesting that a federal judge decide how Arizona will fund a program to teach children English. Do the editors not realize what a hammer this would give the Republican National Committee that is always complaining about the lack of judicial restraint?

Yes, it is a travesty that first the federal government had to be involved to do the correct thing for these children, and now five years later there still isn't a plan.

From the short description in The Republic of the two plans being considered, it is obvious that the legislators' plan is a smoke screen to cause further delays and hassles each year and to shortchange the citizens of the minority party. Gov. Janet Napolitano's plan of providing a fixed sum for each student deficient in English is simple and fair. - Bob Daniels, Fountain Hills

Sent to the Las Vegas Review Journal, November 10, 2005:

Letter writers Kenneth Record and John Erlanger (Nov.9) are misinformed about bilingual education. Bilingual programs use the first language in a way that accelerates English language development. Study after study has shown that English learners in bilingual programs typically do better than those in “immersion” programs on tests of English, and they develop their first language at no extra cost. In fact, three independent reviews of research on bilingual education have appeared in the last few months in scientific journals confirming the success of bilingual education.

Studies have also shown that banning bilingual education and substituting “structured immersion” have had either no effect (California) or a negative effect (Arizona) on English language development.

Stephen Krashen, PhD
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Member, Executive Board, National Association for
Bilingual Education, West Region Representative

Published in the Arizona Republic, November 5, 2005:

Highway threat not best method

Regarding "Arizona highway funds imperiled" (Republic, Sunday):

If attorney Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest wants to get some real action from the governor and Legislature on funding English classes for those who need them, he should leave the highway improvements alone.

Any interruption there would have severe economic impact and put many blameless citizens out of work. Instead, he should ask the judge to tell the governor and Legislature that unless the funding is in place by June 2006, he'll order the air-conditioning to the governor's office and state Capitol shut off and the PA systems in both to play It's A Small World After All, until the problem is solved!

The taxpayers would save a bundle not having to cool those buildings of all the hot air the occupants produce, and the funding would be in place in 24 hours flat! - Terry Miller, Apache Junction

Published in the Arizona Republic, November 5, 2005:

Letter misses point on languages

Regarding "Attack on highway funds heads down wrong road" (Letters, Tuesday):

In her criticism of Tim Hogan's activism on behalf of English-learners in our state, the letter writer argues that since she taught her children to speak English, that is the answer for English learners, too. She misses the point.

Most children begin to speak around their first birthday, and their language skills continue to develop every year. By the time they are third-graders, they have been speaking English for seven years.

Assuming her children don't speak English, would the letter writer expect them to be successful with the same instruction as students with seven years of English behind them? Not being able to speak the language herself and experiencing struggles of her own, does she really think it would be so simple?

As a parent and as an educator, I say we take steps to make these children more successful students and more productive members of society, not to mention alleviate the stress associated with foreign-language immersion. The courts have agreed that training and materials require money, and our state doesn't provide enough.

Not many people pay attention when Tim Hogan speaks softly about this issue.
But the threat of this lawsuit certainly makes them listen, doesn't it? - Christina Kimble, Phoenix

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, Nov 2, 2005:

De Facto Bilingual Education

Foreign-born children with a better education before coming to the US are less likely to drop out (“Making grade in US Schools,” Nov. 2) The school success of better educated foreign-born students is well-known to educators and has been reported many times in the professional literature.

I devoted an entire chapter to studies of this kind in my book Condemned without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual Education, published in 1999.

Students who arrive with a good education have subject matter knowledge, which makes the classes they take in English more comprehensible. This accelerates English language development and of course results in more learning. This is exactly the advantage provided by bilingual programs and helps explain why bilingual education has been a success, a fact firmly established by many scientific studies. Foreign-born students with a good education in their country of origin have had de facto bilingual education.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California
Member, Executive Board, National Association for
Bilingual Education

Published in the Charlotte Observer, October 31, 2005:

Don't test children before they learn English

The writer is on the executive board, National Association for Bilingual Education. In response to "Official: Give no breaks on tests" (Oct. 23):

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings supports an "aggressive and hard" approach to testing limited English proficient children. This means that children are tested before they have a chance to acquire enough English to get a meaningful score on standardized tests.

This is great news for test publishers, but it means needless frustration and a significant loss of valuable instructional time for children. It alsomeans that taxpayers have to pay for several million tests each year, an expenditure of millions of dollars that produces no useful information.

Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent to Desert Sun, October 29, 2005:

Children, citizens win a round in court

“Schools win round in court,” (October 29) is good news. Current state policy insists that English learners take standardized tests before they have a chance to acquire enough English to get a meaningful score. The tests waste valuable instructional time and create needless frustration for children. In addition, California taxpayers should not have to pay for tests that produce no useful information. The children and all California citizens have won a round in court.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent tot he North County Times, October 27, 2005:

It is indeed sad news for the Vista School District that their Spanish-speaking students and their families will no longer be granted their legal right to choose bilingual education. This is a huge step backward for education in the district. Given California's demographic and socioeconomic realities, education and community leaders must recognize that multilingual skills are a tremendous asset for our children to acquire. This fact is appreciated by countries throughout the world. Closer to home, for example, in Mexico parents make great sacrifices to obtain a bilingual education for their children. These students typically become fully bilingual and biliterate with grade level or above reading and writing proficiency in two languages by fourth grade. These Mexican students are becoming the bilingual adults with whom the students in Vista and throughout California will have to compete for professional opportunities in today's global and transnational economy.

California is squandering a valuable human and linguistic resource as the result of pressure from the those who mistakenly believe that bilingualism is a hindrance in learning English. Although hope may be lost in the Vista School District that a nobler vision would prevail, we who believe in a brighter future for California's linguistic minorities will continue to advocate for strong and effective bilingual programs for our students.

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

Sent to the East Valley Tribune, October 28, 2005:

Left Behind Indeed!

Your recent editorial that accuses both the NEA and the Democratic party of wanting to leave children behind because of resistance to NCLB is way off-base. Had the Tribune done a bit more research they would have discovered that the changes NEA and others are asking for SUPPORT learning and true accountability. Requests submitted to Congress by NEA and 61 other organizations include: replacing NCLB’s arbitrary proficiency targets with targets based on each state’s most effective schools; providing a more comprehensive picture of students and schools by moving away from single, high-stakes tests toward multiple indicators of achievement; aligning NCLB with state content standards and achievement indicators, providing useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning; and funding the mandate adequately.

Additionally, 27 state legislatures have submitted requests for revisions to NCLB, as well as asking for the law to be funded at the levels authorized within the act, or rejecting outright its provisions as an unwarranted extension of federal power. It isn’t just the NEA or the Democratic Party, folks.

Scapegoating one or two organizations seems to be a convenient way to circumvent the REAL issues

surrounding NCLB. Much of its demand for so-called scientific rigor is a smoking mirror to force districts to purchase specific one-size-fits all curricula that in truth have NO scientific basis (e.g. DIBELS, Open Court). What’s more, with its emphasis on standardized testing NCLB provides big time bucks for the testing industry (who by the way also publish most of the “scientifically acceptable” curricula). These folks continue to make money hand over fist because more and more districts are converting their curriculum into test preparation to comply with NCLB.

The medical community would never accept a single test as proof of wellness or illness, and neither would their patients.

They would never prescribe the same regimen or medicine for every patient. Instead doctors rely on a broad scope of information to come to a decision and a workable individual health plan. The legal community would never use a single court case to establish law or argue a person’s innocence or guilt. Why is it then so easy to expect educators to blindly accept what NO other professional community would? Those of us who oppose NCLB do so because we know in our hearts in its current form it will indeed leave many children, schools, teachers and communities behind.

Priscilla Shannon Gutierrez, Outreach Specialist

New Mexico School for the Deaf

Sent to the East Valley Tribune, October 25, 2005:

I was somewhat taken aback by your “Helping the Disadvantaged” editorial of Sunday, October 23, 2005 that claims that a study conducted by the Lexington Institute shows progress made by English language learners in Arizona especially in light of recent research published in the Education Policy Studies Laboratory, a research think tank from Arizona State University.

In the September issue of the EPSL, professor Wayne Wright of the University of Texas at San Antonio shows the achievement gaps in reading, writing and math between ELL and non-ELL students in Arizona using AIMS test scores. He shows that among third graders the gap in reading is 39 points, in writing it is 22 points and in math it is 32 points. He further points out that the gap has remained the same in reading and math in the last three years. Only in writing has the gap narrowed from 35 points to 22 points. ELL don’t fare better in the Stanford-9 test scores either where the reading gap is 34 points, the language gap is 29 points and the math gap is 27 points.

For the sake of “fair and balanced” reporting, shouldn’t the Tribune publish Professor Wright’s test scores lest the Tribune editorial staff be accused of ‘confirmative bias’? Confirmative bias is a term used when a researcher, having taken a position on an issue, goes out and looks for research findings to corroborate her/his position on that issue.

Conrado L. Gómez - Mesa, Arizona

Published in the Ventura County Star-Mi Estrella, October 21, 2005:

http://www1.venturacountystar.com/vcs/espanol_editorials/article/0,1375,VCS_16877_4177232,00.html

Back to school for governor
(Regarding Frank Moraga column of Oct. 15 on Governor's veto of SB 385)
Maybe Arnold could understand it if we turned it to his situation.

What if an immigrant whose second language is English would be required to lose their accent prior to three years. They should speak in a manner similar to the Midwest, since that is the standard for television. Then a speech therapist should test that ability. After three years if they could not speak without an accent they could not graduate from high school.

Arnold has been in the USA many years and he would not graduate.

My father never was able to get rid of his accent and died at 83. Why do we put everyone in the same fish bowl and expect the exact performance? Arnold — practice, practice, practice. I'll be listening. I am an educator.

-Barbara Hall, educator
Buena High School

De regreso a la escuela para el gobernador
(Refiriéndose a la columna de Frank Moraga del 15 de oct. en cuanto al veto de SB 385 del gobernador)
Tal vez, Arnold podría entenderlo si lo volteábamos a su situación.

Que si un inmigrante, el cual su segun do idioma era el ingles se les requiriera que perdiera el acento en menos de tres años.

Ellos podrían hablar en une manera similar al medio oeste, por que ese es el estandarte para la televisión.

Y los terapistas de lenguaje podrían poner en prueba su habilidad. Después de tres anos, si no pueden hablar sin acento entonces no se pueden graduar de la preparatoria. Arnold ha estado en los EE.UU. por muchos años y el no se graduaría.

Mi padre nunca pudo deshacerse de su acento y el murió de 83 años porque no ponemos a todos en la misa olla de pescados y esperar el mismo resultado.

Arnold — practica, practica, practica. Yo estaré escuchando. Soy educadora.

- Barbara Hall, educator
Buena High School

Published in the Ventura County Star-Mi Estrella, October 21, 2005:

http://www1.venturacountystar.com/vcs/espanol_editorials/article/0,1375,VCS_16877_4177232,00.html

Senate bill would have improved testing
(Regarding Frank Moraga column of Oct. 15 on Governor's veto of SB 385)

SB 385 and the lawsuit that Oxnard has joined, have nothing to do with bilingual education. The measure that the governor vetoed would have conformed state testing policy to federal, NCLB requirements. Those requirements are for states to use valid and reliable measures to assess English learners, regardless of the type of instruction they receive.

Only 8 percent of ELs in California are in any form of bilingual education. The tests they now take cannot be considered valid or reliable measures of their knowledge of academics, since they are not yet fully proficient in English — the language of the test.

SB 385 would have ensured that those few ELs instructed in Spanish, or already proficient in Spanish, would have been tested in a language they understand. Other ELs would have received tests of greater validity, since the bill required tests in English to be modified to avoid unnecessary language barriers to student understanding of the questions or answers.

Research now overwhelmingly supports bilingual education as an effective approach to schooling immigrant students. It is not popular with the voting public; and it may not be the best approach for each and every English learner. But it is effective, and parents have a right to choose it under California law. What should be popular, whether students are taught in English-only or bilingual programs, is that students, schools and school districts be judged by tests that are valid and reliable.

California's testing and accountability system is penalizing English learners and the public schools based on flawed data.
The governor, in his veto of SB 385, ignored this reality and offended all Californians, not just Latinos.

- Norm Gold
Sacramento, CA

Propuesta hubiera mejorado los resultados de las pruebas
(Refiriéndose a la columna de Frank Moraga del 15 de oct. en cuanto al veto de SB 385 del gobernador)
El SB 385, y la demanda en que Oxnard ha unido, no tiene nada ver con la educación bilingüe.

La medida que el gobernador hizo veto tenía pruebas conformada del estado a federal, requisitos de NCLB.

Esos requisitos están para que los estados utilicen medidas válidas y confiables de determinar a estudiantes del inglés, independiente del tipo de instrucción que reciban.

Solo el 8 por ciento de (ESL) que están en California están en algún tipo de educación bilingüe. Las pruebas que ellos toman son consideradas validas y dependientes como medias de aprendizaje de su comprensión y conocimiento académico, por no son eficientes en su dominación del ingles -las pruebas del idioma. SB 385 hubiera asegurado que aquellos que son instruidos en clases de ESL instruidos en español, o ya dominan el español, hubieran entendido las pruebas en su idioma.

Otros ESL hubieran recibido la prueba con mas validez, por la ley requería que le omitieran palabras en ingles fueron modificadas para evitar barreras innecesarias del lenguaje para los estudiantes comprender las preguntas y respuestas.
La investigación ahora apoya de forma aplastante la educación bilingüe como manera eficaz de enseñar a estudiantes inmigrantes. No es popular entre el público de votación; y puede no ser la mejor manera para cada estudiante de inglés.
Pero es eficaz, y los padres tienen un derecho de elegir bajo ley de California.

Lo qué debe ser popular, si enseñan los estudiantes en inglés solamente o en programas bilingües, es que los estudiantes, las escuelas y los distritos de la escuela sean juzgados por las pruebas que son válidas y confiables.

La prueba de California y el sistema de la responsabilidad está penalizando a estudiantes principiantes ingleses y las escuelas públicas, basadas en datos dañados.

El gobernador, en su veto del SB 385, no hizo caso de esta realidad y ofendió a todos los californianos, no solo latinos.

- Norm Gold, Sacramento

Published in the Ventura County Star-Mi Estrella, October 21, 2005:

http://www1.venturacountystar.com/vcs/espanol_editorials/article/0,1375,VCS_16877_4177232,00.html

Benefits of bilingual education
Thank you for your article in the Ventura County Star regarding the Governor's veto of SB385. I agree with much (you) have to say in the article about the impact of his veto on support from Latino voters. However, you refer to bilingual education as "slow and steady." It is important for you to know that there is no credible test data from the state accountability and testing system to support the notion that students in bilingual education are learning English more slowly than those enrolled in structured immersion programs (SEI). The California English Language Development test data indicate that students in bilingual education (BE) generally have lower levels of English proficiency to start out with, but this does not mean that they are acquiring English at a slower rate. In fact, in many bilingual programs the test data support the conclusion that students in BE are learning English as fast or faster than their peers in SEI. This being the case, there is no risk in parents' choosing bilingual instruction for their children and many benefits, including increased ability to learn academic content and keeping up with their grade level peers because instruction delilvered in their native language, in which they are already proficient, is comprehensible to them from day one of their schooling.

Again, thank you for your coverage of this important topic.

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

Beneficios de educación bilingüe
Gracias por el artículo que el Ventura County Star imprimió acerca del veto del gobernador de SB385. Estoy de acuerdo (contigo) en lo que tienes que decir acerca del impacto que el veto tendrá en el apoyo de votadores latinos. Sin embargo, tú te refieres a que la educación bilingüe es "lenta y segura".

Es importante que sepas que no hay pruebas con información con crédito que apoye esto de una contabilidad del estado ni sistema de pruebas que apoye la noción que el aprendizaje en clases bilingües es mas lenta que en aquellas donde están sometidos en programas de inmersión estructurada (SEI).

La prueba de California English Language Development (desarrollo del idioma ingles de California) indica que estudiantes que están en educación bilingües (BE) generalmente tienen más bajo el aprendizaje del ingles mas bajo al comenzar, pero esto no significa que están aprendiendo ingles en una paso más lento.

De hecho, en muchos programas bilingües las pruebas indican que la conclusión es que estudiantes en clases bilingües están aprendiendo igual de rápido o más rápido que los que están los que están en el programa SEI.

Este siendo el caso, no hay ningún riesgo en que los padres eligen una instrucción bilingüe para sus hijos y hay muchos beneficios, incluyendo una habilidad de aprender el contenido académico y sosteniéndose al par en sus grados escolares por que mucha de la información les llega un su lengua natal, en la cual ya son proficientes, es compresible para ellos desde el primer día su educación.

De Nuevo gracias por la cobertura en este tema importante.

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

Sent to the Osceola News Gazette, October 15, 2005:

Janice Peek (“Responds to letter,” October 14). feels that in my letter to the editor published on September 1, I had “a lot of nerve” telling residents of Osceola what they were experiencing.

There was no attempt to tell residents of Osceola County what they were experiencing. Ms. Peek might have been thrown off by the headline, “Osceola County Statistics are wrong,” which I did not write. The headline was inaccurate. In my letter, I did not discuss Osceola County. Rather, I pointed out that Eduardo Montalvo’s analysis (August 18) of the national census was incomplete, and that in my opinion the census showed that that Spanish speakers are, in general, acquiring English rapidly.

Ms. Peek raises a question about the validity of the census because it relies on self-report: Ms. Peek points out that some people pretend to be more competent than they really are. This is possible. According to the census, however, Spanish speakers show the same rate of English acquisition as do groups who speak other languages. Also, other research comes to the same conclusion. Studies of Spanish-speaking children who begin school as English learners confirm that nearly all attain fluency in spoken English within a few years, and Rand Corporation scientists have reported that for many Spanish-speaking immigrants, "the transition to English begins almost immediately and proceeds very rapidly."

Ms. Peek has, apparently, run into Spanish-speakers who have problems with English. So have I. But I have met hundreds, both in California and Florida, including in Osceola County, who speak English beautifully.

Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent to the Ventura County Star, October 14, 2005:

Re: Governor says no to bilingual ed., license bills (October 14)

Governor Schwarzenegger has refused to exempt English learners from being tested in English for the first three years they are in school. This means that children will be tested before they have a chance to acquire enough English to get a meaningful score on the test.

This is great news for test publishers, but bad news for children, who will face needless frustration and a significant loss of valuable instructional time.

It is also bad news for California taxpayers. It means we have to pay for about a million tests each year, a financial investment of at least several million dollars that produces no useful information.

The governor’s action is educationally and fiscally irresponsible.
Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent to the North County Times, 10/14/05:

Why was research missing from article?

In the Oct. 8 edition of the North County Times, an article appeared stating that Vista planned to restrict bilingual education because the feeling was that "structured immersion" would result in faster English development. In the same issue, the NCT published a letter to the editor from internationally recognized expert Stephen Krashen that made it clear that scientific research overwhelmingly shows that bilingual education is superior to immersion in helping children acquire English; Krashen urged Vista Unified to "take another look at bilingual education."

Why wasn't this research even mentioned in the article about Vista? Aren't we supposed to be basing educational practice on scientific research these
days?

HARVEY MALLER
Fallbrook

Sent to the American Chronicle, October 10, 2005:

Domingo Ivan Casañas' article targets bilingual ed as the reason for the large Latino dropout rate. If he'd done some more in-depth research, Casañas would be surprised to learn that the numbers do not support his claim. On a national level, only 15% of students have ever been in ANY kind of bilingual program. What's more, the vast majority of bilingual programs have been transitional in nature - limiting native language instruction to 3 - 4 years at the elementary/primary level. Few districts have ever offered any kind of bilingual program at the secondary level. And since the passage of several state initiatives in recent years, the availability of bilingual ed programs is even more limited than ever before. However, the Latino drop out rate has not gone down, and the English proficient rate of students has not gone up in those states.

Given these data, how can Casañas attribute the high Latino drop out rate to bilingual education when the overwhelming majority have been, and continue to be in English immersion? Seems to me he's a convenient poster boy for the English only movement that often relies on myths and blatant misstatements to further their cause.

Priscilla S. Gutierrez

Sent to the North County Times, October 9, 2005:

Vista has decided to cut back on bilingual education in order to improve its English test scores. Clearly, Vista was not impressed with the many published reviews documenting the effectiveness of bilingual education.

Let’s compare Vista to neighboring Oceanside, a district that dropped bilingual education completely after Proposition 227 passed in 1998. English learners in Vista have outscored those in Oceanside for two years in a row on the Federal Title III progress and proficiency standards for English learners. In 2005, 63.4% of Vista students met the national progress standard, compared to 62.2% in Oceanside, and 41.1% met the English proficiency standard, compared to 37.8% in Oceanside.

According to the California English Language Development test scores, Vista’s English learners start school at a much lower level of English proficiency than those in Oceanside. This means that Vista’s programs are much better than Oceanside’s, since Vista’s students do slightly better despite the Oceanside students’ head start.

I think Oceanside might consider dropping Structured English Immersion in favor of bilingual education so that they can catch up with Vista.

Norm Gold

Sent to the North County Times, October 9, 2005:
In the October 8 edition of the NC Times, an article appeared stating that Vista planned to restrict bilingual education because the feeling was that “structured immersion” would result in faster English development. In the same issue, the Times published a letter to the editor from internationally recognized expert Stephen Krashen that made it clear that scientific research overwhelmingly shows that bilingual education is superior to immersion in helping children acquire English; Krashen urged Vista Unified to “take another look at bilingual education.”

Why wasn’t this research even mentioned in the article about Vista? Aren’t we supposed to be basing educational practice on scientific research these days?

Harvey Maller

Published in the North County Times, October 8, 2005:

Take another look at bilingual education Re: "Vista school board, principals find common goal on bilingual education," Oct. 1.

I wonder if the Vista board members who voted to restrict bilingual education have been reading the newspapers. Both The New York Times and Los Angeles Times have published editorials about the Bush administration's reluctance to publish research showing that bilingual education works.

Properly organized bilingual programs use the child's first language in a way that accelerates English-language development, and scientific studies confirm that this happens.

Trustee Jim Gibson hopes that Spanish-speaking children in Vista will learn English in one year. Arizona State University researchers recently reported that under all-English immersion, only 11 percent of English learners in Arizona achieved oral proficiency in one year. In California, over a million English learners who have been in school for longer than one year are still classified as limited in English. So far, Props. 203 (Arizona) and 227 (California) have not delivered on their promise to make children proficient in English in one year.

I hope the Vista board takes another look at bilingual education.

STEPHEN KRASHEN
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent to the Santa Monica Mirror, October 7, 2005:

On October 7, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill (AB 385) that would have exempted English learners from being tested in English for the first three years they are in school. His reason: It would “further weaken incentives” for students and schools to acquire English.

The Governor is misinformed. Every poll, interview, and case history ever done has confirmed that students and their parents are deeply committed to acquiring English, and teachers are working very hard to help English learners succeed.

Insisting that students be tested before they have had a chance to acquire enough English to get a meaningful score on the test is a waste of time and money and creates needless frustration for students. The only ones who profit from it are the publishers who produce and sell the tests.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent to the Boston Globe, October 6, 2005:

In regards to "MCAS Pass Rate Dips in Hudson" (10/6/05), 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, believes that these MCAS pass rates are a warning sign that Education Reform in Massachusetts has failed immigrant kids.

The scores of English language learners in Hudson are similar to the scores of students statewide. For the past years, there has been relatively little change in the MCAS scores of these students. The assage of Question #2, which implemented a new program model of structured English immersion and in its third year, has also failed to show the great academic increases promised by its supporters.
Education Reform here in Massachusetts, now almost 12 years later, has clearly left these students behind. Question #2 is also showing itself to be a poor law. Hopefully, educational leaders in our state ill not wait another ten years to make needed changes.
Sincerely,

Margaret Adams
MATSOL Recording Clerk

Published in the El Paso Times October 4, 2005:

Columnist wrong

El Paso Independent School District's new practice of putting English-learners into the mainstream may not be the "brilliantly simple solution" that Kelly Torrance says it is ("El Paso embraces English immersion for Spanish-speaking students," Sept. 25).

The El Paso area already delivers many successful state, national and internationally recognized researched-based dual immersion programs.

The new program, as described by Ms. Torrance, is different.

Simply putting English- learners in mainstream classes, unless done with careful planning, is not "immersion" but "submersion," the universally discredited practice of "sink or swim."

Submersion, in fact, has been condemned by all professionals in the field of language education whether they support bilingual education or not.

Submersion means English-learners will understand very little of what the teacher says and will make little progress in English or content learning. This "solution" contributes to the academic gap.

Ms. Torrance needs to read the professional literature on language education and the many studies showing that language development requires that the child understand what is heard and read, and the many studies showing how the child's first language is used to help children develop English-language proficiency in academic settings and close the achievement gap.

Elena IzquierdoPh.D.
Associate Professor, University of Texas at El Paso
West-Central El Paso

Sent to the Dallas Morning News, October 3, 2005

Contrary to claims by Ron Unz (“Demand mounts for early ESL,” October 3), there is evidence that bilingual pre-kindergartens that provide a solid foundation in the first language make a strong contribution to children’s English development, and help ensure eventual academic success.

A study published in the 1980’s showed that children who participated in the Carpinteria (California) preschool program, taught largely in Spanish, did much better on school readiness tests and acquired as much or more conversational English than children in programs that used the first language less.

The reason? The children developed more conceptual knowledge, they knew more about school and the world in general. They understood more of the English they heard, which accelerated their English development and gave them even more knowledge.

Stephen Krashen
Member, Executive Committee, National Association for
Bilingual Education

Sent to the Boston Globe, Oct 2, 2005:

One Year not Enough for English Proficiency Massachusetts has discovered that English learners in all-English immersion classes need more than one year to acquire enough English to do join regular classes (“Students and teachers struggle to meet English immersion goals,” October 2).

Other states where initiatives were passed that dismantled bilingual education and mandated immersion have had the same experience: Arizona State University researchers recently reported that under all-English immersion, only 11% of English learners in Arizona achieved oral proficiency in one year (which is not the same as developing proficiency in reading and writing, which takes longer). In California, over a million English learners who have been in school for longer than one year are still classified as limited in English.

For those who think that schools only need a period of adjustment, California is no closer to meeting the one-year requirement than it was in 1998, the year Prop.227 passed.

Question 2 (Massachusetts) and Propositions 203 (Arizona) and 227 (California) have not even come close to delivering on their promise to make children proficient in English in one year.

Stephen Krashen
Member, Executive Board, National Association for
Bilingual Education

Published in the El Paso Times, Oct 2, 2005:

If Ms. Torrance (Sept. 25 "El Paso embraces English immersion for Spanish-speaking students") thinks that "children deserve a chance to learn English while they're young," she should enthusiastically support bilingual education, not oppose it.

Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the scientific research has concluded that students in bilingual programs, especially those in one-way and two-way programs, acquire at least as much English as those in all-English immersion programs, and usually acquire more.

Learning to read in the primary language is a shortcut to learning to read in English. Scientific evidence shows that it is easier to learn to read in a language you already understand, and once you can read in one language, this ability is accessible in the second language.

Schools are told to base teaching practice on "scientific" evidence, not trial-and-error experiments. It is strange that the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting bilingual education has been ignored by El Paso ISD, which has instead chosen to experiment on children.

I firmly believe that language minority children should acquire academic English as rapidly as possible. This is why I support well-implemented bilingual education programs.

Pauline Dow
Director of Academic Language Services
Canutillo Independent School District

Sent to the NORTH COUNTY TIMES, October 1, 2005:

Re: Vista school board, principals find common goal on bilingual education

I wonder if the Vista board members who voted to restrict bilingual education have been reading the newspapers. Both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times have published editorials about the Bush administration’s reluctance to publish research showing that bilingual education works. Also, three independent reviews of research have appeared in scientific journals this year, confirming that children in bilingual programs typically outperform those in immersion programs on tests of English.

Properly organized bilingual programs use the child’s first language in a way that accelerates English language development, and scientific studies confirm that this happens.

Trustee Jim Gibson hopes that Spanish-speaking children in Vista will learn English in one year. Arizona State University researchers recently reported that under all-English immersion, only 11% of English learners in Arizona achieved oral proficiency in one year (which is not the same as developing proficiency in reading and writing, which takes longer). In California, over a million English learners who have been in school for longer than one year are still classified as limited in English. So far, Props 203 (Arizona) and 227 (California) have not delivered on their promise to make children proficient in English in one year.

I hope the Vista board takes another look at bilingual education.

Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Published in the El Paso Times, Set. 28, 2005:

This is in response to Kelly Torrance's enlightening and disturbing editorial of Sept. 25, 2005, “El Paso embraces English immersion for Spanish-speaking students.” Enlightening because without her editorial the community would not have known what has been occurring in the El Paso Independent School district with respect to the bilingual students the school district is obliged to serve. Disturbing because the information she presents is erroneous and not supported in the research. Accordingly, the public should be aware that the U.S. Department of Education is not releasing its findings of a two-year study (at a cost of $1.8 million to taxpayers.) that concluded bilingual education programs are superior to all-English immersion programs with respect to these children learning to read in English. It is true that those who “ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” Let’s not go back to a time when students were punished for speaking the language of their country.

Milagros M. Seda
West El Paso

Sent to the El Paso Times, Sept 26, 2005

Kelly Torrance (“El Paso embraces English immersion for Spanish-speaking students,” Sept 25) needs to start reading the newspapers. In the last few weeks, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have published editorials about the Bush administration’s refusal to publish research reports showing that bilingual education works. And this is nothing new. For the last two decades, studies published in scientific journals have consistently demonstrated that children in bilingual education do better in English than those in “immersion” programs. Ms. Torrance’s claim that bilingual education fails children is simply wrong.

Josie Tinajero
West El Paso

Sent to the LA Times, Sept 22, 2005:
No qualms about bilingual education

Andres Martinez eloquently supports bilingualism (“A bilingual message for Mrs. Xenophobe,” September 22). He is enthusiastic about Americans learning foreign languages, and insistent that all children acquire English as well.

I was therefore surprised to read that Mr. Martinez has “qualms” about bilingual education. Study after study has shown that English learners in bilingual programs typically do better than those in “immersion” programs on tests of English, and they develop their first language at no extra cost. In fact, three independent reviews of research on bilingual education have appeared in the last few months in scientific journals confirming the success of bilingual education.

Bilingual education is not Spanish-only education: It is BILINGUAL EDUCATION, and properly run bilingual programs use the first language in a way that accelerates English language development.

Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California