|
HELP STOP MISINFORMATION ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION |
|
Respond to misinformation printed in
the media by writing letters to the editor, opinion
editorial pieces or to reporters.
You don't
know how?
Click here for
examples of items published in or sent to various
media outlets.
|
You are visitor:
|
Searching for
more articles related to learning English? |
Follow this link
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/lpru.htm
|
|
|
HELP STOP MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT BILINGUAL
EDUCATION |
|
The following letters and articles
have been published or have been submitted for publication to
various news media outlets. Follow the links to view articles.
Sent to the Washington Post,
29 Oct
2006:
To the Editor:
Why are federal officials pressing Virginia schools to test English language
learners in the same way they test fluent English speakers? [Metro, October 29].
Assessments with a built-in language barrier are simply not valid for measuring
what these students have learned. Nobody, including the U.S. Department of
Education, seriously claims otherwise.
Mandating meaningless tests will only serve to frustrate children, demoralize
their teachers, and unfairly brand their schools as “failing.”
If the No Child Left Behind Act is intended to improve public schools, how does
the Bush Administration foster that goal by requiring tests that generate
misinformation about student achievement? If the purpose is to discredit public
schools and make way for privatization schemes, then the federal action makes a
lot more sense.
James Crawford, President
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Houston Chronicle, October
27, 2006:
English Learners and TAKS
I have no involvement in the current trial in which the Texas Education Agency
is accursed of neglect of limited English proficient children (“Limited-English
students trial halted,” October 26), but on reading the report in the
Chronicle, something struck me as wrong: The article gives the impression that
the case rests mainly on the fact that English learners do worse than other
students on TAKS. But English learners are supposed to do worse on tests like
TAKS. In fact, according to the TEA, when they can pass the TAKS reading test,
they are typically no longer classified as limited in English. Also, students
with low English proficiency enter the school system all the time, so TAKS
scores for English learners must remain low.
It took me only ten minutes to get more detail on the case from the internet,
and I learned that the accusations of neglect are also based on valid criteria,
such as dropout and retention rates and the failure of TEA to monitor programs.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Daily Breeze (Torrance,
CA), Oct 21, 2006:
(Similar version sent to Whittier Daily News)
Bilingual education: Consider all the data
A high percentage of 5 to 17 year olds from Spanish-speaking households in
California say they speak fluent English. Tom Elias thinks this “confirms
(the) success of English immersion” (October 19). It doesn’t. First, less
than half of Spanish speaking children in California were ever limited in
English, and of these, only half were in bilingual programs before Prop 227
passed. Second, scientific studies show that students in bilingual education
typically do better in English than those in “immersion.” Third, research has
also shown that dropping bilingual education did not improve English language
proficiency for English learners in California. Elias should consider all the
data before coming to conclusions.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Published in the Boston Globe, October
19, 2006:
PETER SKERRY ("Immigration realities,"
op-ed, Oct. 15) says we should end ``the arguments over bilingual education . .
. and get serious about making sure immigrants learn English." Agreed. The best
way to end the arguments is to embrace bilingual education.
There is a consensus among researchers that bilingual programs significantly
accelerate English language development. Studies show that English learners in
bilingual programs typically outperform similar students in all-English programs
on tests of English reading. A number of analyses also show that dropping
bilingual education did not increase achievement in Massachusetts, Arizona, or
California.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Los Angeles
The writer is on the board of the Institute for Language and Education Policy in
Takoma Park, Md
Published in the Arizona Republic Oct,
25, 3006:
Horne's policies hurting immigrants
The Republic rightly characterized the Legislature's anti-immigrant Propositions
100, 102 and 300 as failing "to provide a meaningful response to the problem of
illegal immigration" (Editorial, Oct. 11).
The Republic also recommended a "no" vote on Proposition 103, the "official
English" initiative (Editorial, Oct. 10).
"The state legislator who cited a rights-abusing 1950s deportation scheme as a
solution to today's illegal immigration problems," The Republic noted, "is also
the moving force behind (Proposition 103)."
But The Republic failed to note the veiled nativism of incumbent Superintendent
of Public Instruction Tom Horne.
Acting against the good advice of our best teachers and educational researchers,
Horne has significantly decreased training requirements for teachers responsible
for English-learners, now about one-fifth of previous standards.
And he has implemented an inflexible English-only education policy, reflecting a
dismal success rate of only 11 percent, according to statewide data.
Meaningful solutions are needed to fix our broken immigration policy.
But no such solutions will be found in policies seemingly designed to hurt
immigrants and their families.
Jeff MacSwan,
Chandler
The writer is an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton College of
Education at Arizona State University
Sent to the Boston Globe, October 15,
2006:
Peter Skerry (“Immigration
realities,” October 15) says we should “… (end) the arguments over bilingual
education … and get serious about making sure immigrants learn English.” Agreed.
The best way to end the arguments is to embrace bilingual education. Nearly
everyone who has examined the professional scientific research has concluded
that bilingual programs significantly accelerate English language development,
and that dropping bilingual education did not increase achievement in
Massachusetts, Arizona or California.
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Published in the Los Angeles Daily News,
September 22, 2006:
Re: "Lawmakers block efforts to help kids" (Sept.16)
Research in first- and second-language acquisition has shown us that we acquire
language when we understand what we hear and read, not when we don't. If Senate
Bill 1769 is not passed, English learners will be forced to sit through several
hours a day of incomprehensible instruction. This is a waste of time and money -
and a cause of needless frustration for children eager to learn English.
- Stephen Krashen
Los Angeles Sent to the New York Times,
September 15, 2006
Re: More Time Given for
Grading Schools, September 14, 2006
The Education Department will allow schools to excuse children learning English
from taking reading/language arts tests if they have been in the US for 12
months or less.
Why not 15 months, 18 months, or 36 months? The federal decision is entirely
arbitrary, with no basis in research.
We know, from study after study, that one year is nowhere near enough time to
acquire enough English to have a meaningful score on tests designed for fluent
English speakers. For example, in California, after two years of immersion,
fewer than 3% of English learners were reclassified as fluent. After one year of
immersion in Massachusetts, fewer than 10% reached the level where they were
even eligible for regular instruction.
Allowing only one year before testing is an enormous waste of time and money,
and needless frustration for children eager to learn English. Policy should be
based on real data, not imagination.
James Crawford
Director, Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
Member, Board of Directors, Institute for Language and
Education Policy Published in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, September 7,
2006
Immigrants know English important
The article about waiting lists for English-as-a-second-language classes ("Many
strive to learn it, but bilingualism grows," ajc.com, Sept. 4) provides strong
evidence for the proposition that immigrants are highly motivated to learn our
language. They don't need lectures from politicians or anyone else about the
importance of English in the United States.
There's no justification for coercive, "English-only" legislation, now pending
on Capitol Hill, which would restrict government's ability to use other
languages to provide essential services. Instead, Congress should be expanding
opportunities to learn English with adequate funding for ESL classes.
JAMES CRAWFORD and STEPHEN KRASHEN
Crawford, who lives in Takoma Park, Md., is director of the Institute for
Language and Education Policy. Krashen, who lives in Los Angeles, is on the
institute's board of directors. Published in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, September 7,
2006:
Immigrants know English important The article about waiting lists for
English-as-a-second-language classes ("Many
strive to learn it, but bilingualism grows," ajc.com, Sept. 4) provides
strong evidence for the proposition that immigrants are highly motivated to
learn our language. They don't need lectures from politicians or anyone else
about the importance of English in the United States.
There's no justification for coercive, "English-only" legislation, now pending
on Capitol Hill, which would restrict government's ability to use other
languages to provide essential services. Instead, Congress should be expanding
opportunities to learn English with adequate funding for ESL classes.
JAMES CRAWFORD and STEPHEN KRASHEN Crawford, who lives in Takoma Park, Md., is
director of the Institute for Language and Education Policy. Krashen, who lives
in Los Angeles, is on the institute's board of directors.
Sent to the Los Angeles Times, August 30, 2006:
The LA Times editorial staff (“Forgetting
the bilingual lesson,” August 29) thinks that forcing English learners to
sit through several hours a day of incomprehensible instruction is a good idea.
It is a terrible idea. The last three decades of research in first and second
language acquisition have shown us that we acquire language when we understand
what we hear and read, not when we don't.
Stephen Krashen, PhD
Member, Board of Directors, Institute for Language and
Education Policy Sent to the Whittier Daily News, August 22, 2006:
Governor Schwarzenegger opposes “separate
curricula and textbooks” for English learners, because he “learned English
by immersion.” Not so. In a speech delivered in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger said
that after coming to the US, he did not rely only on “immersion” but took a
course in English as a second language (ESL). Then he took “another, then
another, and another” until he knew enough English to take regular English
courses.
This is not immersion. ESL classes have “separate curricula and textbooks.”
The Governor did not begin with regular English classes, but insists that
English learners today do so.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Los Angeles Times, August 18, 2006:
Ana Gamiz (“Phony arguments in an education debate,” letters, August 18) thinks
that “teaching students English in English does not need to be debated.” Yes it
does. And the winner of the debate is consistently bilingual education, a method
that uses the child’s first language to accelerate English language development.
Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the research has concluded that children
in bilingual programs acquire more English than those in all-English programs,
and every scientific analysis has shown that dropping bilingual education in
California did not improve English language development for English learners.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Guardian, August 11, 2006:
Did Arnold kearn English by immersion? (no)
Arnold Schwarzenegger claims that he learned English “by immersion, (taking)
every opportunity to spend time with friends who spoke English and practice
English all the time.” (“English
classes for Hispanic students branded as 'return to segregation',” August
11)
This is not quite accurate.
In a speech delivered in 2005, Schwarzenegger said that soon after he came to
the US (in 1968), he took a number of classes in English as a second language at
Santa Monica Community College, and he described the classes as excellent. He
also had the advantage of a basic education in Austria, in his first language.
The ESL classes, his education, and his real-world experiences helped him
understand his English-speaking friends and take advantage of “immersion.”
Bilingual programs provide the same advantages to children: Classes in English
as a second language and academic knowledge gained through the first language
help make instruction delivered in English much more comprehensible.
This explains why research consistently shows bilingual education to be more
effective than English-only approaches in helping children acquire English. The
same principles explain why Gov. Schwarzenegger acquired English so rapidly and
so well
Stephen Krashen
Published in the North County Times, August 6, 2006:
Trust teachers, not exit exams
English learners don't do well on the state high school leaving exam ("Most
OUSD exit exam failures are English learners," Aug. 2). The Oceanside
district thinks that the cure is more tutoring and test preparation.
Some members of an advocates for English learners organization
think that the test should be offered in Spanish, and wonder whether the
students were taking the right classes. The California Department of Education
suggests more education.
None of these suggestions questions the value of having a
state high school exam. There is no scientific evidence that students' interests
are served by a standardized high school leaving exam.
The presence of such an exam is simply a statement that we
trust distant test item writers more than we trust professional teachers who
work with students every day.
One Oceanside official said that the exam helps the district
get a clearer idea of how many English learners need help. A district that needs
an exam to do this isn't consulting with its own teachers.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
For related discussion, please see:
Exit Exam Debate Heats Up, Again--ETS Contract in the Background, Jo Scott-Coe,
at
http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=6376
Published inTucson Citizen August 1, 2006:
In response to the July 27 guest column, "Lost
in translation: Teddy Roosevelt had it right."
My Father Who Votes in Spanish
From New Mexico, Arizona and California, the family came together this past
February to celebrate my father's ninetieth birthday. My wife and I rented a
van, packed up the "kids" (now in their thirties) and drove out of Tucson,
heading west on Interstate 10. It had been raining in Los Angeles for several
days and I knew that the freeway traffic would be an even bigger mess than
usual. Thankfully my middle sister Corina, a school administrator from Las
Cruces, had planned all the events. The highlight would be a day spent at the
horses.
Yep, my dad's a gambler. Fortunately, my mother handles the money, so he has to
settle for making a limited number of two-dollar bets. With an uncanny knack for
picking winners, he loves telling stories about the ones that got away: "I
picked a winner-number 6 in the fifth-but the ticket seller gave me number 5 in
the sixth-¡Qué chihuahua!" Then he'll shake his head and laugh at what might
have been.
I, too, wonder about what might have been if my father hadn't moved the family
from Ciudad Juárez to Los Angeles in 1955. He was 39 at the time, a laborer with
wife and four children, a third-grade education, and no English. North of the
Rio Grande, the economy was booming and California, in particular, needed
workers. What my father offered America then is the same thing that Mexican
immigrants offer America today: a strong work ethic. In that America, the one he
gambled on, it was enough to win him legal residency.
The 1950s were not any sort of a Golden Age, particularly if you happened to
have dark skin. The nation was terrorized then, too, by the threat of nuclear
destruction, and then-as now-some politicians sought to use that fear to their
advantage. But perhaps because we had just won an honest war in defense of
freedom, we did not seem as shameless about our fear. We had a confidence about
the future that today is almost unimaginable, an optimism that my father shared
and which allowed him to spend the next thirty years of his life working in a
furniture factory.
I have vague memories of my father going to night school to learn English, a few
flakes of sawdust still stuck to his clothes. Though he never mastered
pronunciation (which may explain a ticket-seller's confusion), at some point
before retiring his English had improved to the point that he passed the
citizenship test.
Today, although he reads the Los Angeles Times faithfully and can tell you which
jockeys are on a hot streak, his first language remains and always will be
Spanish. Since becoming a citizen, my father has voted in every election, using
a Spanish ballot. To some people, that means that he is less than a true
American, and they would like to force him to vote in English "for his own
good."
As proud as my father is of his Mexican heritage, he is more American than those
who criticize his use of a Spanish ballot could ever hope to be. My father cares
enough about understanding complex ballot issues and voter initiatives to use
his strongest language in making such decisions. (We can only wish that more
native English speakers cared as much.) He understands the power of English. He
learned as much English as he could and made sure that his children-who all went
on to college-did, too. But at the ballot box, he believes he owes his adopted
country the best decision he can make. That means he must vote in Spanish.
The rain stopped just as we arrived at the Santa Anita Racetrack. Though I had
grown up in Los Angeles, I'd never been to the track and was astonished at the
beautiful setting. With the Los Angeles National Forest serving as a backdrop
and low clouds hovering among the mountain peaks, the proud thoroughbreds
strutted amid shafts of bright sunlight, their athletic power rippling beneath
shinny coats.
Sure enough, my dad won a hundred dollars. That evening we enjoyed a wonderful
dinner together, though by the time dessert was served, my father looked a
little tired. We ended with a toast to his health and the good fortune he had
brought the family. The good fortune he brought to America was left unspoken.
[728 words]
Sal Gabaldon, Oro Valley, AZ
Sent to the Arizona Daily Star, July 29, 2006:
Tom Horne's comments about the success of English learners (ELLs) in Nogales and
Sunnyside ("U.S. study: Learners of English left behind," July
27) expose a strange contradiction in his administration's testing policies.
ELLs annually must take a relatively easy fluency test. Only students who fail
remain as ELLs, a designation that indicates they're not yet proficient in
English and which allows their schools to qualify for extra funding. The AIMS
test is much more difficult than the fluency test.
How is it then that in some schools 20 to 80 percent of ELLs (students who
aren't fluent in English) are passing the AIMS test? Either there is something
wrong with the tests or students are being allowed to qualify for extra funding
long after they should have been removed from ELL designation.
Judging by the fishy smell, the extra rain Arizona has enjoyed this summer must
have left a few rotting fish at the Arizona Department of Education.
(158 words)
Salvador Gabaldón
Oro Valley, AZ
Sent to the Austin-American Statesman, July 28, 2006:
Support, don’t exhort.
R.H. Goodrich (letters, July 28) thinks that the American-Statesman should
“exhort” those here illegally to learn English. Both legal and illegal
immigrants are highly motivated to learn English and have been quite successful.
According to the 2000 census, only 1.3 percent of the US population does not
speak English, about one-third the rate of a century ago, and there are long
waiting lists to get into English-as-a-second-language classes. We don’t need
to “exhort” immigrants to learn English. We need to increase funding for ESL
classes.
James Crawford
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
PO Box 5960, Takoma Park, MD 20913
Published in the Sacramento Bee, July 24, 2006:
Make it comprehensible
Re "Best way to
teach English argued," July 19: Contrary to Marion Joseph's statements,
there is no research showing that giving English learners the same curriculum as
native speakers is a good idea. In fact, the research shows the opposite:
Instruction must be comprehensible, or it is useless.
Insisting that English learners sit through two hours a day of incomprehensible
instruction is a waste of money, a waste of time and inflicts needless suffering
on the children. And of course it also makes it much more difficult to teach the
English speakers in the class.
In this day and age of accountability, it seems as though quick fixes and
cure-all programs have to be put aside.
- Shannan Brown, Sacramento
Published in the Sacramento Bee, July 24, 2006:
Re "Best way to
teach English argued," Language diversity is a gift to us As an instructor
of Business English, I'm called in by corporations, cities and counties to teach
employees English writing skills. Because Sacramento is diverse, many in its
workforce are not native English speakers. In their language struggles,
employees have confided that taking ESL or English courses at junior colleges is
not helpful.
When asked if they are literate in their native languages, most admit they have
had no training in reading and writing it. Translation is often difficult, if
not impossible, as with slang. I urge them to educate themselves through classes
or self-instruction to master their native languages. English will come more
rapidly, and they will be more valuable as employees.
"All children should be taught English the same way" represents only one-half of
the educational possibilities. If non-English speakers were taught from
kindergarten to read and write in, say, Spanish as well as English, they would
be able to translate English much faster. If native English speakers took the
same classes, think of the benefit to the entire community. Yes, keep English as
our official language, but I urge policy makers to stop fighting language
diversity and recognize it as the gift to communication it is.
- Anne Peasley, Auburn
Sent to the Austin-American Statesman, July 24, 2006:
Contrary to statements in “The
king's English won't rule forever,”(July 24), a British Council report did
not predict a decline in “the global usage of English” or in the number of
people in the world who can speak English. It predicted that the number of
English learners will decline, because English is becoming a second language in
primary schools world-wide, and English use is increasing so rapidly.
I agree that Americans should take second language acquisition more seriously.
In fact, I have written papers and books on the advantages of bilingualism. But
English is clearly getting stronger. For example, in 1977, 83% of scientific
papers cited in the Science Citation index were written in English. In 1997, 95%
were.
Over 150 years ago, John Lubbock wrote that English is spreading so rapidly that
it “bids fair to become the general language of the human race.” He may have
been right.
Stephen Krashen
British Council Report: Graddol, David, 2006. English Next.
British Council. Available at:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/brussels-learning-english-next.htm
Sent to the Editor of the Arizona Republic, July 24,
2006:
(in
Response to "English immersion is working here" by Johanna Haver 7/22/2006)
No Evidence that English Immersion is Working
Johanna Haver, in her baseless attack on Arizona State University professor Jeff
MacSwan and the College of Education as a whole, claims that "immersion
education is working in Arizona." Of course, she provides no evidence for this
claim. News reported recently in the Arizona Republic suggests otherwise. If
immersion education is truly working, then why is Tom Horne trying so hard to
continue hiding the low test scores of as many ELLs as possible? He knows these
scores would lead to an additional 100 schools being labeled as failing under
NCLB.
Serious academic research conducted by professor MacSwan, myself, and others
utilizing data obtained from the Arizona Department of Education, reveals that
ELLs are not learning English faster than they were before Proposition 203, and
that reading and math scores of ELLs on both the AIMS and SAT-9 declined
significantly between 2003 and 2004. Haver also claims the state is doing a
tremendous job in training teachers in how to make their instruction
comprehensible for ELLs. A survey I conducted of ELL teachers throughout the
state revealed that teachers do not understand how English immersion differs
from mainstream sink-or-swim instruction, because no one has been able to
explain it to them. Many teachers have been told they cannot use students'
native languages at all in the classroom, and teachers are deeply concerned that
the state's policies and the English immersion model is leaving ELLs behind (see
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n13). Haver can only make baseless claims because
there is no evidence that English immersion is truly working in Arizona.
Wayne E. Wright, PhD
Assistant Professor
College of Education and Human Development University of Texas, San Antonio
Co-Director, Language Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University
Author is a former resident of Mesa, Arizona. He completed is PhD in Educational
Leadership and Policy studies at Arizona State University in 2004. His
dissertation focused on language and education policies for ELLs in Arizona.
Published in the Mining Gazette, Michigan, July 22, 2006:
Small gains over time
To the editor:
Letter-writer Harley Sachs (“Language matters,” June 27) thinks that
Spanish-speaking immigrants today are not motivated to learn English and in the
1900s people “couldn’t wait to learn English.”
Here are the facts: According to the 2000 census, 1.8 percent of the population
cannot speak English. The percentage for Michigan is nearly identical to the
national percentage (1.4 percent).
In 1890, 3.6 percent of the U.S. population could not speak English. The census
data also shows that Spanish speakers speak English just as well as immigrants
who speak other languages.
Many immigrants who can’t speak English are new arrivals. Language acquisition
takes time.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Valley Chronicle (Hemet, California), July 22,
2006 :
Congressman Haynes (“Bilingual Blues,”
July 22) has been misinformed about bilingual education in California, the US,
and in other countries. Bilingual education is not a leftist plot, but is in the
best interests of all Americans.
• When bilingual programs are compared to all-English alternatives, children
in bilingual programs typically acquire English better. Nearly every scholar
who has reviewed the scientific research has come to this conclusion. The
most recent analysis confirming the success of bilingual education was
released this month, and was part of a report from the National Literacy
Panel, funded by the US Department of Education.
• Similar to research results in the United States, studies show that
children in bilingual programs in other countries acquire the language of
the country at least as quickly as children in "immersion" programs and
often acquire it faster.
• A recent and widely publicized report from the American Institutes for
Research and West Ed found that dismantling bilingual education did not
result in any improvement in the English language of minority children in
California, confirming what previous studies have found.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Ventura County Star, July 20, 2006:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_4856114,00.html
Re: Bilingual debate costs education board (July 16)
Re: your July 16 article, "Bilingual
debate costs education board": Proponents of giving English learners the
same curriculum as native speakers apparently believe that forcing students to
sit through two hours a day of incomprehensible instruction is a good idea.
Professional educators call this "submersion," or "sink or swim." It is a
terrible idea, and study after study has shown that it doesn't work. We acquire
language when we understand what we hear and read, not when we don't.
— Stephen Krashen Professor emeritus, University of Southern California
Sent to the Ventura County Star, July 18, 2006:
Re: Bilingual
debate costs education board (July 16)
Proponents of giving English Learners the same curriculum as native speakers
apparently believe that forcing students to sit through two hours a day of
incomprehensible instruction is a good idea. Professional educators call this
“submersion,” or “sink or swim.” It is a terrible idea, and study after study
has shown that it doesn’t work. We acquire language when we understand what we
hear and read, not when we don’t.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Sacramento Bee: July 17, 2006:
Contrary to
Marion Joseph’s statements, there is no research showing that giving English
Learners the same curriculum as native speakers is a good idea. In fact, the
research shows the opposite: Instruction must be comprehensible, or it is
useless.
Insisting that English learners sit through two hours a day of incomprehensible
instruction is a waste of money, a waste of time, and inflicts needless
suffering on the children. And of course it will also makes it much more
difficult to teach the English speakers in the class.
In this day and age of accountability, it seems as though quick fixes and 'one
size fits' all approaches have to be put aside. Educational practices need to
meet the needs of individual students; let's get back to the basics of
good teaching for all kids.
Shannon Brown
Sacramento
Sent to US News and World Report, July 10, 2006:
Expand opportunities to learn English
Regarding “A Proud Immigrant's View,”
July 9
Does Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez truly believe that legislation is
needed to force immigrants to learn English? Nobody understands the importance
of English in this country better than those who face language barriers every
day.
If the Secretary doubts this, all he needs to do is visit an adult education
center in any American city. There he can learn about the long waiting lists to
get into English-as-a-second language classes because of inadequate funding.
Ironically, proposals in Congress to make English the official "national
language" do little to address this problem. The main thrust of these bills is
to restrict government's ability to provide information or services in other
languages.
Secretary Gutierrez might consider using his influence with fellow Republicans
to expand immigrants' opportunities to learn English rather than merely making
life difficult for those who are trying to do so.
James Crawford & Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
PO Box 5960, Takoma Park, MD 20913
Sent to the Arizona Republic July 7, 2006:
Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb thinks the state’s practice of
forbidding the use of children’s home language in the classroom, an
outgrowth of Proposition 203, is promising (“Lessons in language,” July 7).
“Voters deserve a good-faith effort to implement the policy they adopted,”
said Robb, “and thus far they have not gotten it.”
Actually, they have.
In fact, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne campaigned for
office on a promise to faithfully and vigorously implement a strongly
English-only interpretation of Proposition 203, and he has done so. As a
result, Arizona now has the most restrictionist English-only program in the
nation.
The Proposition 203 campaign promised voters that children would learn
English rapidly, generally within a year’s time, permitting them to enter
the mainstream classroom where they’d keep pace with other students.
But things didn’t turn out that way.
Indeed, a study by Arizona State University researchers, myself among them,
found the approach failed to achieve this proficiency goal for 89 percent of
English learners in the state’s 2003-2004 language proficiency testing data.
Moreover, the number of English learners who showed no growth in English
proficiency over the course of the year far exceeded the number of those who
did.
These are dramatically negative results for a program focused on rapid
acquisition of English.
Three comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence on the question of
how to best educate English learners have appeared in peer-reviewed journals
in recent years. Using a variety of methods, each review has found that
children taught using their native language as well as English have higher
academic achievement than those taught using English alone.
That’s because immigrant children in English-only programs can’t fully
understand what’s going on in the classroom until they’ve learned English
well. Using children’s native language to support the teaching of science,
social studies and other subjects helps them keep up during the time they’re
still learning English.
Another study, focused only on scientifically designed studies conducted in
Arizona and using meta-analysis -- a statistical approach to summarizing
research findings across multiple studies, widely used in medicine and other
fields -- reached the same conclusion.
And so did two recent reports of the National Research Council, formed
nearly a hundred years ago to advise the federal government on matters of
science and technology.
In other words, the strict English-only implementation of Proposition 203 we
now have under Superintendent Horne’s leadership -- an approach columnist
Robb sees as promising – is likely to lower children’s school achievement
relative to alternative methods, according to published scholarly research.
But rather than consult such sources, Robb seeks to squeeze bits and pieces
of evidence supporting his perspective out of two recent think tank reports
which have nothing to do with the question of language of instruction.
Robb and some members of the legislature base their commitment to
Proposition 203 on the fact that the law was passed by voters.
However, far too often forgotten, voters were additionally guaranteed that
parents could opt out of the English-only program by obtaining waivers.
“If a parental waiver has been granted,” the law states, “the affected child
shall be transferred to classes teaching English and other subjects through
bilingual education techniques.”
Rather than give schools the true range of options protected by the law,
Robb suggests that schools serving English learners should only receive
funding if they are “certified by the superintendent as being Proposition
203 compliant.”
And in the current political context, that means a continuation of the
one-sided, English-only interpretation of Proposition 203.
In other words, schools using the sort of programs which Robb and the
superintendent find politically appealing, but which are associated with
lower student academic achievement, will be rewarded by actually receiving
funding.
But schools which seek to use methods known to generally result in higher
academic achievement would be de-funded.
A perverse incentive system, if ever there was one, and one which would
certainly make our current ineffective and grim English learner policy even
less effectiveness and more grim.
--------------
Jeff MacSwan is associate professor of education in the Mary Lou Fulton
College of Education at Arizona State University. He is the author of
numerous scholarly articles on the education of English learners and a
2003-2004 fellow of the National Academy of Education.
Sent to the Arizona Republic reporter, July 7, 2006:
Dear Mr. Robb,
I read your analysis
of the ThinkAZ report on ELL and then went to the Policy Brief itself. I am an
expert in educating English Language Learners, and I can say without a doubt
that both the ThinkAZ and your analysis of the test scores you looked at are
dangerously misguided and misinformed. This is in part because you have made
some erroneous assumptions. First, you assume that because a student is
classified as ELL, it means that they are in some kind of a special program or
are receiving special English instruction. The ThinkAZ presents no data to
confirm this. In fact, in a study done by ASU researchers Wayne Wright and
Terrance Wiley (see URL below), 83% of the teachers in their survey received no
ESL or specialized English instruction. These researchers examined school
districts with the highest concentration of ELL student populations in your
state.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n13/v14n13.pdf
Second, you draw
erroneous conclusions as to why test scores drop after three years of language
learning, which the study mistakenly refers to “enrollment in an ELL program.”
This is a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the nature of second language
acquisition in academic contexts. Listening, speaking, reading and writing
skills do not develop at the same rate. Listening and speaking skills grow
rapidly when students begin to learn a new language, but reading and writing
(which are academic skills) lag behind. This is because it is very difficult to
learn to read and write in a language that a student does not speak fluently. In
the early grades, tests of language proficiency and academic tests more closely
parallel the oral language skills students have (therefore, even native English
speakers do better on these tests). However, at fourth grade, more demands are
placed on students’ literacy skills because the nature of their reading tasks
change. Reading is more technical, content oriented, and complex and abstract in
nature. This “fourth grade slump” for ELL does not mean that they are no longer
benefiting from specialized instruction (in those rare cases where they are
actually getting it). It means that they need a different focus in instruction,
ideally from teachers who know how to address their language and content area
learning and the gaps that have occurred as they have been focused on learning
to read and write in their second-language. To cut off funding for specialized
materials, teacher professional development, and other special services for ELL
at this point is a huge mistake and completely counter-productive. This would
only aggravate the academic deficits that ELL suffer as they move on into middle
school and high school, and to eventual passage of the high school exit exam.
Third, your and the
ThinkAZ’s comparisons between reclassified ELL or FEP students and currently
classified ELL are misguided. These students are reclassified as FEP because
they are scoring higher on standardized tests. They are not scoring higher on
standardized tests because they are reclassified. It is important to understand
cause and effect. The data from the study give no indication of how long these
students took to become proficient. Many of them may have begun school already
close to being fluent English speakers. Therefore, conclusions about how they
show that it is important for students to learn English “quickly” are
irrelevant. We know from millions of test scores around the country and in
California in particular on the CELDT test that it takes an average of 6.7 years
for ELL to go from initial classification as ELL to reclassification as FEP (and
only 40% of them will be reclassified after 10 years in school). Some language
groups have lower averages than others, but we know that this is associated with
factors that have very little if any relationship with the type of instructional
program they receive. In fact, the AIR/WestEd study released this year in CA
indicates that students in bilingual programs make progress in English just as
rapidly as students in English Only programs, with the added benefit of
developing biliteracy and content-area knowledge in their native language.
It is also
irresponsible to imply that school districts “game the system” to get more
funding for these students when by federal law, these students are entitled to
specialized services until they recoup any academic deficits they may incur
while learning English. There is no magic formula for deciding when to
reclassify a student as Fluent English Proficient. This determination must be
made based on multiple measures of language proficiency, literacy skills and
content knowledge in the best interests of the student, not based on some
arbitrary timeline or accusations of malevolence or greed on the part of
educators. For an analysis of this debate, see this URL.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/RedesignationDebate.htm
As you can see, Mr.
Robb, the experts disagree with your policy recommendations and the conclusions
of this study by the Arizona Center for Public Policy. It is indeed sad when
policy institutes and journalists do not take the time to consult people who
know what they are talking about based before running off and making sweeping
and dangerously off-target policy recommendations. This is irresponsible and
results in much greater harm than good and much wasted time, effort and
resources that could otherwise be applied to meeting the challenges we face in
providing better education for our language minority students.
Here are some
additional sources you may want to consult from my academic website:
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/whatworksEL_files/frame.htm A description
of the pitfalls for ELL in the K-12 system and the research base that indicates
how these can be addressed.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/celdt04lao.htm
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/celdt.htm Discussion of the true
meaning of CELDT results in CA and the policy implications.
Thank you for your
attention.
Jill Kerper
Mora, Ed.D.,
Associate Professor of Teacher Education, San Diego State University
Email:
jmora@mail.sdsu.edu
Website:
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora
Sent to the Star on July 7, 3006:
The Star's July 7 article ("Horne
sues feds on test scores") badly misleads the public on the issue of English
testing. While Arizona law does require testing in English, there's no
prohibition on testing in other languages.
In the first three years of learning English, students may be unable to give an
accurate indication of their reading, writing, math, and science skills on an
English test. However, once they have attempted to respond in English, the
students then may demonstrate their knowledge more accurately using a native
language version of the test. That's precisely why federal law permits the use
of native language testing in the first three years.
Is the falsehood about native language testing in Arizona a deliberate deception
from Horne's office, intended to promote English-only ideology at the expense of
students? Are Arizona tax dollars being wasted on yet another costly court case
in order to protect a policy that ultimately threatens to mislabel our schools
and deny them badly needed federal funds?
If so, then Arizona voters will have yet one more reason to hold Horne
accountable in November.
(183 words)
Salvador Gabaldón
Oro Valley, AZ
Sent to the Beacon Times (Illinois) July 1, 2006:
Congratulations to reporter Justina Wang and the Beacon Times for getting the
real story of immigrant English (“Immigrants flocking to English programs,” July
1). Contrary to popular opinion, immigrants are eager to take English classes,
and waiting lists are common. This is true in the Fox Valley and is also true
throughout the United States.
It is ironic that the proposals in Congress to make English the official
language of the US do not include additional support and funding for ESL
programs.
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Daily Mining
Gazette (Michigan), June 28, 2006:
Letter writer Harley Sachs (“Language matters,” June 27) thinks that
Spanish-speaking immigrants today are not motivated to learn English and in the
1900’s people “couldn’t wait to learn English.”
Here are the facts: According to the 2000 census, 1.8 percent of the population
cannot speak English. The percentage for Michigan is nearly identical to the
national percentage (1.4 percent). In 1890, 3.6 percent of the US population
could not speak English. The census data also shows that Spanish speakers speak
English just as well as immigrants who speak other languages.
Many immigrants who can’t speak English are new arrivals. Language acquisition
takes time.
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 12, 2006:
The Lexington Institute uses a familiar technique to distort the truth about
bilingual education (“To
make any language ‘official’, teach it well,” June 11). It "cherry
picks" raw test scores from individual schools and districts while ignoring
overall patterns.
In fact, scientific studies have
consistently shown that:
• Children in bilingual programs typically acquire English more rapidly --
and do better academically -- than those in all-English programs.
• In states that voted to restrict or eliminate bilingual
education, children in all-English classrooms are taking far longer than “a
year or two” to acquire the English they need to do academic work. •
Bilingual programs do not isolate children from English. Basic instruction
in English as a second language is provided from day one, and subject-matter
teaching in English is introduced as soon as it can be made comprehensible.
Political debates about an official "national language"
should be kept out of our schools. In deciding what's best for kids, let's
rely on science -- not ideology.
James Crawford
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California
Sent to the New Straits Times, Malaysia, June 8, 2006:
Victor Chew (“Improve
the quality of teachers,” June 8) feels that the quality of English will
be improved if teacher quality is improved and if students use more English
outside of the classroom.
Research in language acquisition says that Mr. Chew is partly right: There
is overwhelming evidence that the most powerful means of developing high
levels of competence in a second or foreign language is massive recreational
reading. Those who read more for pleasure in English show superior
development of reading ability, writing ability, vocabulary, grammar, and
spelling. Recreational reading is the missing link, the way English learners
can move from the classroom to the real world.
The problem is that many children do not have access to interesting,
comprehensible reading material in English. The obvious solution is making
sure all schools have first-class libraries, and that all communities have
high quality public libraries.
Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Published in the Arizona Daily Star June 7, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132453
Entrants not only lawbreakers
I am so tired of everyone that points out that illegal
immigrants have broken a law and therefore deserve what ever terrible fate
they encounter.
If you drive, you know that Tucson is full of lawbreakers.
You don't even have to be in a car to violate Tucson's laws. Everyday you
can see illegal pedestrian road-crossers walking against traffic lights or
in the middle of the road and not at street corners.
And don't get me started with illegal income tax filers. That
would probably include just about everybody that files the long form. No,
your dog's medical care is not a legitimate deduction.
When it comes to violating laws, only the American without
sin should cast the first stone.
Bruce Smith
Teacher, Tucson
American values in decline
As I read Friday's paper, I learn that a 20-year-old was
arrested for murdering an 18-year-old, and wonder how many similar stories
are in newspapers across the country. Unsupervised children of legal
residents, unloved, unwanted, or simply ignored. I also read reports of
16-year-old snipers killing people for no apparent reason, and teenage camp
counselors terrorizing younger children under their charge through something
called broomsticking.
And I read the hate-filled letters concerning a young lady
who graduated among the top in her class, and a mother who brought her to
the United States illegally over 10 years ago. A mother who has worked hard
at low-paying jobs, paid Social Security taxes she can never collect, paid
taxes on their house and everything else she buys.
I wonder just where in the hell our American values have
gone?
Jeff Jones
Archaeologist, Tucson
Poverty at heart of border issues
Re: the May 31 column "Redirect funds to assist neighbors."
Terje Skotheim not only presented a good idea, he has
presented the only idea possible. America cannot survive much longer leaving
a neighbor in the kind of poverty anyone can see with a quick trip to
Nogales. If we leave it like it is, ultimately the Mexican people will elect
someone that will make life for us miserable. The idea that we can ignore
Mexico and protect a 2,000-mile border is ridiculous.
I believe it is up to American citizens of Hispanic descent,
people like Rep. Raul Grijalva, to lead the way. It is they who better
understand the barriers of corruption, lack of transparency, inability to
collect taxes, and the distortions of the Mexican justice system Skotheim
says must be removed so that a healthy economy can take root in Mexico.
Let's hear a plan from them.
Richard Wilson
Retired, Green Valley
In response to the
May 28 article "A dream deferred."
I was saddened to read that Marcela Velasquez does not
qualify to accept a scholarship offered by the University of Arizona
because she is an illegal immigrant. This young Latina who ranked ninth
in her graduating class at Desert View High School aspires to be a
doctor one day. If she enrolls in college she should be granted
temporary legal status and citizenship eligibility. We as a society will
be the beneficiary if we can reach out and help her to achieve the
American Dream.
Remo Fioroni
Tucson
It has become very
fashionable to label illegals as criminals because they have entered our
country without visas or passports. It seems odd to me that many years
ago a whole bunch of Europeans came to this land, took it over, and,
despite the fact that they had no visas or passports when they arrived,
they called themselves pioneers, not criminals. Still, the crime is the
same: lack of visas or passports.
Maria Satterfield
Retired, Tucson
I am getting fed
up with all the super patriots saying that English should be the
official language in the United States. Hey, look around, it is.
However, one does not need to speak English to be a true American
patriot.
Consider José Martinez, who on December 8, 1941, swam the
Rio Grande at El Paso, went to an Army recruiter and enlisted in the
United States Army. No one cared if he was legal or able to speak
English. During the Battle of Attu, while the rest of his battalion was
pulling back because of murderous machine gun fire, José charged up the
hill, destroying three machine gun nests. He so inspired his brother
soldiers that they turned and took that hill. José was awarded the Medal
of Honor. His parents were brought from Mexico to America so that they
could accept the Medal of Honor in his behalf. He is but one of dozens
of illegals with little or no English-language ability who have served
with valor and honor as U.S. servicemen.
Ralph Echave
Tucson
Published in the Arizona Daily Star June 7, 2006:
Sears wise to include Spanish
Jun. 7, 2006 12:00 AM
Regarding "Even Sears is speaking Spanish" (Letters, Friday):
I think the letter writer believes making English the official language means no
one can speak any other language while in the United States. Not true.
It simply means official communications (like voting and other official
government business) and instructions will be spoken or printed in English.
Sears has recognized that Spanish-speaking people are major customers, and it is
catering to these customers. It's their right as Americans.
Also, the letter writer should be reminded that Arizona used to be part of
Mexico. Many Spanish-speaking Arizona residents are related to those who were
Arizona natives prior to the state being acquired by the United States (and they
speak Spanish as well as English).
I guess that makes her an "immigrant" to Arizona.
The letter writer should count her blessings if the fact that a Sears
announcement spoken in Spanish is the biggest problem she had to worry about
that day.
It is not against the law for anyone, including Sears, to speak Spanish in the
presence of Anglos. - Elain Mendez, Snowflake
Published in the Arizona Daily Star June 6, 2006:
In response to the May
28 article "A dream deferred."
Your story about Marcela Velasquez was inspirational.
However, for every Velasquez there are probably several million illegals who
should be returned to their native countries. I seriously hope something can
be done to help Velasquez and those like her to continue their American
Dream.
Claudia Benjamin
Tucson
In response to the May
28 article "A dream deferred."
Now that Marcela Velasquez cannot attend the UA, does that
make you happy? The 18-year-old honor student is denied her scholarship,
through no fault of her own, as she is an illegal non-citizen. Do you have
any idea of the persistent hard work and dedication it took for her to excel
enough to be ninth in her graduating class? She planned to follow her dream
and become a doctor, perhaps even aiding at some time your child or
grandchild. We lack medical personnel at this time, and that is only one of
the areas of need.
Take a look at the jobs advertised for restaurant help:
cooks, buspeople, servers, dishwashers and fast food outlets. It is only
just starting. Wait until your lettuce is $5 a head.
The unbridled anti-immigrant talk I have heard is the saddest
note of all. After the World War II era I had hoped to never hear it ever
again. It is here.
Patricia Espinosa
Published in the Arizona Republic
Jun. 3, 2006:It pays to
be multilingual, too
Regarding Tuesday's letter to the
editor "Common language simplifies life":
My grandparents lived in Douglas before Arizona was even a state. They
spoke Spanish and, like most people who lived there, their main goal was
to learn English. This is true today. I have never met a Mexican here in
the United States who does not want to learn English.
We all agree on a common language, but I feel extremely lucky to be able
to communicate in two languages. We only live a few hours away from the
Mexican border. If we bordered other countries, you bet I would make an
effort to learn those languages, too.
The letter writer says, "Many more people speak Chinese and Hindi than
speak Spanish; perhaps we should learn those languages."
Yes, perhaps we should learn those languages, since the United
States outsources our manufacturing to some of these countries. -
Priscilla Chomina-Bottz, Tempe
Sent to the Washington Post, May 30, 2006:
Reporter Lori Aratani tells a poignant story about the plight of immigrant
children arriving here in their high-school years ("Older
Students Who Need Basics Pose Challenge," Metro, May 29). Those without much
education or literacy in their native tongue have a very hard time in American
classrooms.
Imagine trying to learn intellectually challenging material in a language you
don't understand, with teachers relying on "visual aids and hand motions [to]
pantomime eating, sleeping, and other activities." Not a great way to master
geometry or U.S. history, much less Shakespearean drama.??Now consider how
helpful it would be to instruct newcomer students in a language they do
understand, while they are learning English.
It would offer them at least a chance to acquire the advanced
concepts they’ll need to graduate from high school. As research has shown, this
is also a better way to acquire a second language. The more subject-matter
knowledge students have, the more comprehensible English becomes.
There's a name for this approach: bilingual education.
Unfortunately, it's not among the options being discussed by
Montgomery and Fairfax officials. Why not?
James Crawford
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Language 'violation' reveals intolerance
May. 31, 2006 12:00 AM
While reading Friday's Republic, my head had barely begun to nod in agreement
with the letter writer from Bisbee, questioning our waste of time on gay
marriage and Spanish. ("Is this what we pay them for?")
Within seconds, another reader writes of feeling "violated" because an
announcement was being made in Spanish over a store's PA system ("Even Sears is
speaking Spanish.") Oh, the horror!
I wasn't there, but I'd guess she was hearing the Spanish follow-up to a
previous English-language announcement. But did it ever occur to the "violated"
that perhaps something more important was going on? Maybe a lost child was
looking for her parents, or the message was tipping off bilingual security
guards to a problem in the store. Regardless, what's the problem?
Now, had this shopper been unable to get service in English, I would be right
there with her complaining to Sears. But that's not what happened, is it?
Oh, and please show me where your "rights as an American" include never having
to hear another language? I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.
Hide behind "patriotism" all you want, but let's be honest: At best, it's
intolerance; at worst, racism. - Dave Maddox, Phoenix
Published in the Arizona Republic, May 30, 2006
Fund proper English programs
Regarding "Leap of faith in Senate" (Editorial, Friday):
The idea that volunteering to teach English should be a program for changing
perceptions regarding illegal immigrants - a sort of
get-to-know-your-new-neighbors experience for English-speaking Americans - is
asinine.
Will The Arizona Republic voluntarily pay for advertisements for my business or
help me sell a car? Will SRP voluntarily pay my power bill?
Why doesn't the state hire several hundred teachers and pay them a good salary,
like $30,000 a year, and make teaching English to new immigrants a career for
some people?
The problem with this state, and why the federal government imposes fines, is
because the state and business community refuse to take the necessary steps to
properly fund education programs for English as a second language.
That means paying people to teach English. That's how everything else is done in
this country. - Thomas Plazibat, Tempe
Published in the Los Angeles Times May 29, 2006:
English as the national language
Re "American spoken here," Opinion, May
24, 2006
I had fun with my erstwhile colleague David Eggenschwiler's response to the
Senate's passage of a bill intended to establish English as the "national
language." Purify the language! George Bush as the Sun King! What a concept!
The joke turns a little sour, however, when we recall that Adolf Hitler resorted
to the same techniques with the German language to further his nationalistic
goals. A sober and timely reminder that it's but a short step from patriotism to
nationalism.
PETER CLOTHIER
Los Angeles
Sent to the New York Times, May 29, 2006
To the Editor:
For Edward Rothstein and others worried about “Babel’s
growing tower” in the U.S., we have two words of advice: study
history.
German Americans, from Colonial times until the early 20th
century, were far more aggressive, and more successful, in maintaining their
language and culture than any ethnic group today. Pursuit of Deutschtum (German
“identity politics”) was combined with loyalty to an American nation-state based
on democratic values.
Linguistic diversity is now on the increase, thanks to increasing numbers of
immigrants. But immigrants today are learning English – and sadly, losing their
native languages – more rapidly than ever before.
The 1890 census reported that 4.6 percent of New York State residents did
not speak English. The comparable figure in 2004 was 1.8 percent,
according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. These numbers
are about average for the nation as a whole. Babel’s tower is crumbling in
America, now more than ever.
James Crawford
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Note: We are both directors of the Institute for Language and Education Policy,
a newly formed nonprofit organization.
Sent to the Korea Times, May 26, 2006:
Is starting English early a good idea?
I wonder if those responsible for establishing the policy of starting English
early in Korea are aware of research in second language acquisition. (“Early
English Education Stirs Controversy,” May 26) One of the best-established
findings in the field is that older children acquire second languages more
quickly than younger children. Starting in grade three is more efficient than
starting in grade one.
Stephen Krashen
Published in USA Today (05/25/2006):
Speaking English
For 230 years, the USA has survived without an official language. Mastery of
proper English would surely enhance any immigrant's experience in our society,
but it should not be required.
In our great nation,
even an obtuse person with rudimentary English language skills can become
president.
Tim Pfeifer
Long Beach, Calif.
Published in USA
Today (05/25/2006):
By all means, let's enact a law that declares English the official language of
the USA. In several states, marriage has already been officially declared as
being between a man and a woman. As a society, we can enact more laws to
discourage diversity and individuality and, in the process, leave some
minorities further disenfranchised.
While we're at it, let's declare baseball as the official U.S. pastime; forget
that many prefer football or basketball, and even a small minority favor
lacrosse. And let's ignore the evidence that many people just "knew" at an early
age that they liked to swim or were born to run.
We could declare apple as the official American pie flavor, flaunting it in the
face of those who enjoy pecan, cherry or even rhubarb.
We could even declare American Idol as the official U.S. television show, thus
alienating those who might prefer Desperate Housewives, Lost or CSI as well as
those people with viewing habits that barely register on the Nielsen ratings
scale. Idol seems most appropriate, given the show's enormous popularity, which
galvanizes the masses to actually vote — and on a weekly basis.
We can continue to enact such laws, thus rewarding and formalizing conformity as
our nation's premium ideal.
James J. Peters
Orlando
Sent to the Malibu Times, May 24, 2006:
Just plain wrong about bilingual education
Pam Linn’s statement that bilingual education “just plain didn’t work” is just
plain wrong (“Nonsense, our
official language,” May 24). Scientific studies consistently show that
children in bilingual programs typically score higher on tests of English than
do children in all-English immersion programs. Three major reviews coming to
this conclusion were published last year in professional, scientific journals.
In addition, a recent report from the American Institutes for Research and
WestEd found that dismantling bilingual education (Proposition 227) did not
result in any improvement in the English of language minority children in
California.
Bilingual education works because it uses the first language in ways that
accelerate English language development.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona Republic May 23, 1006:
Be careful what you say, Mr. President
So President Bush wants newcomers to learn English.
OK, Prez, you go first. - Jim Bryant, Tolleson
Published in the Arizona Republic May 23, 1006:
So much for 'e pluribus unum'
So Congress is diligently working on making English the official language of the
United States.
I would encourage them to make certain that all foreign-language references
found on U.S. currency are removed. Such phrases as annuit coeptis, novus ordo
seclorum and e pluribus unum have no business being on documents that clearly
represent the United States of America.
I wonder which of our ever-vigilant, patriotic and secular members of Congress
will take this most important action to protect our freedom? - Howard Israel,
Phoenix
Published in the Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2006:
Re "Senate Backs Role of English," May 19, 2006 Try the language of common sense
If the intention of the bill to declare English the "national language" is to
motivate immigrants to acquire English, it is unnecessary. English already is
the de facto language of the U.S., and nearly all immigrants are highly
motivated to acquire English.
According to the 2000 census, only 1.5% of the U.S. population cannot speak
English. There is also evidence that many illegal immigrants make rapid progress
in acquiring English, despite little education and the pressures of daily life.
Politicians should spend their time with legislation that serves the public
interest, not with "feel-good" proposals that do nothing.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Professor of Education, USC
Los Angeles
Sent to the Boston Globe, May 21, 2006:
Re: “Bilingual law fails
first test,” May 21, 2006
Missing from the discussion of the failure of English-only education in
Massachusetts (and Arizona and California) is the fact that children in
bilingual education programs typically score higher on tests of English than do
children in English immersion programs. In fact, three major reviews coming to
this conclusion were published last year in professional, scientific journals.
Massachusetts backed the wrong horse.
Stephen Krashen
Letter sent to the Washington Post, May 20, 2006:
The Attorney General got it right (“White
House: Gonzales In ‘Linguistic Snare,’” May 20). White House revisionism
notwithstanding, President Bush has a well documented record of opposing
“English only” restrictions and favoring policies of multilingual tolerance.
As recently as the 2004 campaign, speaking in Sedalia, Mo.,
Mr. Bush said: “When I was the Governor of Texas, I supported what's called
‘English Plus.’ English is necessary to be able to realize dreams in our
society, plus additional language. … Ours is a society based on English, but
we've got to recognize that a diverse society is one in which other languages
are learned and spoke as well.”
Not necessarily “spoke” correctly, but spoke nonetheless,
despite efforts to use language as a tool of discrimination against Latinos in
particular. The Senate's “national language” amendment, which would deny any
“right, entitlement, or claim” to government services in a language other than
English -- unless Congress makes an exception -- is just the latest assault.
Too bad the President and fellow Republicans who once endorsed English Plus –
Sen. John McCain is another example – now find it expedient to pander to
nativists.
James Crawford - Silver Spring, MD
Sent to the
Detroit Free Press, May 17, 2006:
The Michigan House has passed a bill to make English the state’s official
language (“English
may become official language, “ May 17).
As Cartoonist Tommy Tomorrow once pointed out, making English our official
language makes as much sense as declaring the sun our official source of energy.
English already is the de facto official language of every state in the United
States, and nearly all immigrants are highly motivated to acquire and improve
their English.
As the Free Press noted, a little more than eight percent of Michigan residents
speak another language at home, but most are bilingual: Only 1.4 percent of
Michigan residents cannot speak English (about 25,000 out of 7.4 million). This
is nearly identical to the figure nationwide, which represents an improvement
over the past: In 1890, 3.6 percent of the population could not speak English.
Politicians should spend their time with legislation that actually serves the
public interest, not with "feel-good" proposals that do nothing.
Stephen Krashen Published in the Birmingham News, May 9, 2006:
Representative Bachus (letters, May 5) claims that America’s success as a
melting pot was possible “… only because immigrants began learning English as
soon as they arrived in the United States.”
According to the 2000 Census, only 1.5% of the population in the US cannot
speak English. In 1890, 3.6 percent of the population could not speak English, a
much higher percentage than today.
Today’s immigrants are doing a better job acquiring English than those a
century ago. “Official English” attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona
Daily Star May 4, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/127538
It is sad
that President George W. Bush
missed a great unifying opportunity with respect to his recent
remarks about a Spanish-language version of the national anthem of the
United States. He said, "I think people who want to be a citizen of this
country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national
anthem in English."
What he could have said is that Americans
should take the opportunity to learn another foreign language — the true
evil is monolingualism in any single native language.
When one learns to speak another language, it
is much more difficult to fear people from non-English-speaking lands, to
believe in cultural stereotypes or to listen to negative propaganda doled
out by governments or individuals who cannot speak or understand the voices
of other cultures.
Perhaps Bush should consider facts before he
speaks, since as I recall "God Save the Queen," the traditional anthem of
England, now has the American title "Our Country 'Tis of Thee."
Kent Slinker
Philosophy instructor, Pima Community College,
Tucson
Sent to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram,
May 4, 2006:
Excellent article, misleading headline
The Star-Telegram’s treatment of the fate of English in the US is the most
accurate and informative article I have ever read on this topic in the media
(May 4). Too bad the headline writer didn’t read the article carefully. The
headline should have read: “A nation of immigrants embraces English” instead
of “Could
a nation of immigrants be losing its common tongue?” Clearly, English is
not in danger in the US.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona Daily Star May 4, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/127538
It is sad that
President George W. Bush missed a great unifying opportunity with respect to
his recent
remarks about a Spanish-language version of the national anthem of the
United States. He said, "I think people who want to be a citizen of this
country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national
anthem in English."
What he could have said is that Americans should take the
opportunity to learn another foreign language — the true evil is
monolingualism in any single native language.
When one learns to speak another language, it is much more
difficult to fear people from non-English-speaking lands, to believe in
cultural stereotypes or to listen to negative propaganda doled out by
governments or individuals who cannot speak or understand the voices of
other cultures.
Perhaps Bush should consider facts before he speaks, since as
I recall "God Save the Queen," the traditional anthem of England, now has
the American title "Our Country 'Tis of Thee."
Kent Slinker
Philosophy instructor, Pima Community College, Tucson
Published in the Arizona Daily Star May 1, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/126830
In shame
My name is Luz Patricia Castillo and I am a Mexican
immigrant. I have mastered the English language better than my native
language, but because my accent remains — the last bit that remains of me as
a Mexican child — many Americans have the nerve to tell me I need to learn
to speak English the right way.
It's days like this when I cry for the suffering of my people
and the subhuman conditions in which they live. Day by day they pick the
produce which I cheaply buy just to throw away when it goes to waste in my
refrigerator.
I went to school with children who had no shoes, with school
books that had to be shared by several students, and here I find myself in
shame, under my air conditioner, doing nothing to support or even minimize
the suffering of my people.
Patsy Castillo
Tucson
Sent to the Greeley Tribune (Colorado), April 22, 2006:
Latinos and English: Getting the Facts Straight
Marvin Wirth (Guest Commentary, April 22) wants to know “why can’t or won’t
Latinos learn to speak English.” But they do. A look at statistics from the
census shows that Spanish-speakers acquire English at the same rate as
others do. In addition, according to the census, only 1.5% of the population
in the US cannot speak English. (In 1890, 3.6 percent of the population
could not speak English.)
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Denver Post, April 22, 2006
The Official Language Proposal
The Denver Post is correct (“Language
ban a non-starter,” April 21): Fears about the use of Spanish and
failure to acquire English are groundless.In
Colorado, only about 46,000 out of 3.2 million people speak no English, a
little over one percent of the state's population. English already is the
de facto official language of every state in the United States, and nearly
all immigrants are highly motivated to acquire English or to improve their
English.
As Cartoonist Tommy Tomorrow once pointed out, making English our official
language makes as much sense as declaring the sun our official source of
energy.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Washinton Post, April 22, 2006:
According to the Post (“Chinese
language blossoms in US schools,” April 20), the US government is
“allocating $1.3 billion over six years to Chinese language programs under
the U.S.-China Cultural Engagement Act, which if passed by Congress will
also create cultural exchange programs and bolster the teaching of Chinese
at home and abroad.” This is an extraordinary sum: Bush’s recent proposal
for language study calls for $114 million.
The $1.3 billion proposal, however, includes much more than language
teaching; for example, it would provide funds to “increase American consular
activity supporting American commercial activity in China” (Congressional
Record, 5/25/05).
Also, according to the Library of Congress Thomas tracking system, nothing
has happened to this proposal since May 25, 2005.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona Daily Star, April 17. 2006:
'Criminals' defined
In the April 10 letter "Entrants are criminal," a letter
writer asks "Doesn't breaking the law make a person a criminal?" Not
usually.
It breaks the law to speed, even a little bit, even when all
the other drivers are doing it, even when you are late and no cop is around.
If mere lawbreaking made one a criminal, we'd all be jailed. Criminals, the
dictionary instructs, are usually those who commit serious crimes, felonies
like rape, murder and robbery. Monday's "I am not a criminal" protester
clearly meant that she was a hardworking person, not a thief or thug.
My view is that the speeder endangers me more than the
undocumented hotel maid paying into my Social Security fund. So, when we
start switching misdemeanors into felonies, that's where I'd start.
Claudia Ellquist, Grandchild of a Norwegian who crossed over
from Canada instead of going through Ellis Island, Tucson
Sent to the Greeley Tribune (Colorado), April 15, 2006:
I would like to know more about the sixth grader Bill
Jerke met who couldn’t speak English (“What’s
the best way to teach English?” April 15). Was the student a new arrival to
the US? If not, this case deserves careful study, because research consistently
shows that children in bilingual programs typically acquire English more quickly
than those in all-English immersion programs.
Stephen KrashenSent to the Columbus Dispatch, April 12, 2006:
Re: “Let’s
speak English in Ohio, legislator says,” April 11, 2006.
Ohio State Representative Courtney Combs wants to make English Ohio’s “official
language,” to make sure that all Americans speak the same language. But they
already do. According to the 2000 Census, only 1.5% of the population in the US
cannot speak English. In Ohio, only one tenth of one percent (about 12,000 out
of 8.5 million) speak no English.
Perhaps after passing Official English, politicians can follow cartoonist Tommy
Tomorrow’s suggestion and pass a law making the sun our official source of
energy.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona Daily Star 04.12.2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/124135.php
My ancestors came
from Spain in the mid-1500s. They moved north, and we have lived in what is
now New Mexico and Arizona since the mid-1600s. They spoke Spanish and some
Native American languages.
When the Americans arrived several centuries later, they
brought their English with them. They were never concerned with learning the
languages of my ancestors. My grandmother was punished in school for
speaking Spanish.
Considering this pattern of behavior by American
immigrants, I find it curious that we are so intolerant of the newest wave
of immigrants in their use of their native tongues. I guess what goes around
comes around.
Rick Sanchez
Published in the Washington Post April 7, 2006:
In the March 31 front-page article "Tuning In to Anger on Immigration,"
Shailagh Murray and T.R. Reid wrote:"The first time Rep. Tom Tancredo got
really angry about immigration, the year was 1975 . . . The state had
recently passed the nation's first bilingual education law, and Hispanic
kids were taken from his class to study in Spanish."
This is incorrect on two points: Colorado did not pass the first state
bilingual education law; Massachusetts did. I helped draft that law, enacted
by the Massachusetts legislature in 1971. Bilingual education in Colorado
was the result of an administrative directive.
Mr. Tancredo (R-Colo.) also was wrong if he believed
Hispanic students were taken from his class to be taught in Spanish. The
Colorado directive called for children with limited English ability to be
taught subject matter (math, science, etc.) in their native language
and English until they were proficient in English and could be
"mainstreamed." The bases of Mr. Tancredo's xenophobia are best left to him
to unravel.The accuracy of the historical record is a journalistic
responsibility. I hope thisletter helps to correct the record.
ALEX RODRIGUEZ
Annandale
The writer was chairman of the state Bilingual Advisory Council that over
saw the implementation of the Massachusetts law.
Sent to USA Today, April 5, 2006:
The Senate wants to provide an incentive for immigrants to acquire English
by making it possible to become a citizen in four years instead of five if
they acquire English quickly (“Senate OK’s amendment to immigration bill,”
April 3) This is like offering a bonus to starving people if they gain
weight quickly. Every study done shows that nearly all immigrants are eager
to acquire English; their problem is finding time and, as noted in USA
Today, having enough money to take classes.
The good part of the Senate’s action is that it provides grants to groups
that offer such classes. I hope the additional classes will be inexpensive
or free, and will be provided at convenient times and places.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Nogales International newspaper March 31,
2006:
Superintendent Horne's anti-immigrant campaign has hit a new
low. First he promised to enforce a "ban" on bilingual education, ignoring
the fact that bilingual education is legal in Arizona. The people of Arizona
voted for all of Proposition 203, including the part that established
qualifications for legally participating in bilingual programs. That's why
thousands of English learners in Arizona continue receiving instruction
bilingually.
Then Horne went to court to delay badly needed funding for programs that
teach English. Even after the state was found guilty of under-funding the
education of English learners, he continued to demand that, despite their
programs having been shortchanged, the students would be held to the AIMS
graduation requirement.
Now Horne has the gall to credit Kelt Cooper, Superintendent of Nogales
Unified School District (NUSD), with creating a "miracle."
Credit for academic success should go to hard working students and teachers.
Even Superintendent Cooper, I suspect, would insist on that.
Contrary to what Horne suggests, it is not a miracle when teachers and
students achieve success. It's what happens in classrooms around the state
every day, both in bilingual education and in immersion programs, as well as
in the mainstream. My guess is that the overall results for NUSD are similar
to results in many districts, with or without bilingual education.
Its great that in five NUSD schools many students who had once been ELLs
passed all three parts of the AIMS test. But can any logically valid
conclusions be drawn from that isolated fact? Not without answers to several
key questions, such as:
· How many years on average, had those students been studying English?
· Had any of the students developed literacy initially in Spanish?
· Among what grades were the students distributed?
· What percentage of NUSD's ELLs did those students represent?
· What do NUSD test scores on nationally norm-referenced tests indicate?
Without such critically important information, Horne's assertions only serve
to disparage the great majority of dedicated teachers who serve in our
public schools.
--Sal Gabaldón
Published in the Arizona Republic Mar 31, 2006:
'Official'
English is a long process that has to start with our children
Before we waste a lot of time and energy passing another useless law making
English the official language of Arizona, we ought to ask ourselves what we
want to accomplish and determine the best way to accomplish that objective.
I think our objective is to make all the residents of Arizona as fluent as
possible with English, so they can work, shop, go to church and engage in
all other normal activities.
Will the proposed resolution to make English the official language do that?
Probably not. After all, we have already a voter-approved law to that effect
that hasn't worked. Can we have much effect on older people who don't speak
fluent English? Probably not.
They will work, shop and worship in the language with which they are
comfortable, whether it's Spanish, Native American, German, or whatever.
Where should we start? With the children. Teaching children English will
achieve the desired results.
Who knows how to teach the children? Certainly not the average voter or the
average legislator.
We require teachers to be trained and certified. We should get them
involved.
Will it cost money? Yes, it will. I'm sure that's a shock to all who are
seeking to wipe out the state's temporary surplus.
Can English be taught overnight? No. It will take time. After all, all
students take English grammar in high school and some take English grammar
in college. - Howard Dendurent Gilbert
Published in the Arizona Republic March 27, 2006:
In plain English, put up the money
The Arizona House of Representatives has passed another unfunded mandate to
go on the ballot this year.
It would call for all official business to be done in English. That's great
in principle, but why do our leaders fail to fund English-language learners
at the high school level?
We all know English is the business language of the world. Why can't we pony
up the funds to truly teach it and make Arizona the envy of the nation? -
Aaron Jahneke, Phoenix
Sent to the Arizona Republic March 27, 2006:
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne
(My turn, March 23) claimed there
was a "miracle" in Nogales with rising ELL student test scores with no increases
in funding. He does not tell us names of these five schools where these "really
shocking data" and "spectacular results" come from. The type of data and the
details Superintendent Horne utilized to conduct his study are not available on
the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) website to enable verification of his
findings. However, an analysis of data that is available on the ADE website for
Nogales paints a much different picture than Horne's "miracle."
Most ELLs in Arizona are in the primary grades (K-3). There are five elementary
schools in Nogales which reported test scores for 30 or more ELL students in 3rd
grade between 2002 and 2004: Lincoln, Welty, Francisco, Challenger, and
Mitchell. Over half of the 3rd Grade ELL students failed the AIMS Reading and
Math tests in four out of these five schools. In all five schools, 3rd grade ELL
Math scores declined or did not improve between 2002 and 2004. AIMS Reading
scores declined between 2003 and 2004 in three out of the five schools.
On the SAT-9, 3rd grade ELL students, on average fall well below the 50th
percentile in these five Nogales schools. In 2004, 3rd grade ELLs on average
never exceeded the 43rd percentile in Math, the 41st percentile in Language, or
the 29th percentile in Reading. Furthermore, there were declines or no
improvements in SAT-9 percentile rankings for 3rd grade ELLs on all three
subtests between 2003 and 2004 in three out of the five schools.
Superintendent Horne claimed specifically that ELLs did better on the AIMS test
as they moved up in grade level in his five unnamed Nogales schools. Again, the
data and details are not available to verify Horne's claim, but a look at
results from the SAT-9-a more stable testing instrument as no changes have been
made to this test -tells a much different story for the five Nogales Elementary
Schools identified above. Average percentile rankings as ELL students moved from
3rd grade in 2003 to 4th grade in 2004 declined or did not improve in four out
of the five schools in Language, and in three out of the five schools in Math.
Only three of these schools reported 5th grade ELL percentile rankings in 2004,
and in all three, average ELL percentile rankings declined or did not improve on
Language, Math, or Reading as ELL students moved from 4th grade in 2003 to 5th
grade in 2004.
The situation in Nogales with declining ELL test scores across the board is
consistent with declining ELL test scores statewide, as documented in a study I
conducted in 2005, published by the Education Policy Studies Laboratory (EPSL)
at Arizona State University, which is available at
www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0509-103-LPRU.pdf. In a subsequent
study I conducted a state-wide survey of 3rd teachers of ELL students, and no
teachers reported that ELL students were performing at higher academic levels or
learning English at a faster rate. These highly dedicated, hardworking but
frustrated teachers made a number of recommendations for improving the education
of ELL students, many of which would require additional funding. This study is
also published by EPSL and ASU and is available at:
www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0512-104-LPRU.pdf
Furthermore, Superintendent Horne may have been comparing Apples and Oranges in
his study. In 2005 the old AIMS test was replaced with a new test called the
AIMS Dual Purpose Assessment, which is essentially a shorter version of the old
AIMS test with new items (replacing the SAT-9
test) which are nationally-normed. Thus, it is not clear how similar the new
test is from the old one, or if meaningful comparisons between 2003 and 2005 can
be made.
Regardless, ELLs in Nogales, and in the rest of state, are not doing well. It is
appalling that Superintendent Horne-as an elected official charged with the
education of Arizona students-would fight against increased funding for some of
the state's neediest students. Also, as a member of the legal profession, he
shows a surprising high-degree of disregard for the legal process and court
rulings of the American judicial system.
Horne identified seven things that the Nogales did to create the purported
"miracle." Ironically, many of these steps, such as summer remediation, offering
advanced programs, reducing class size, and providing SIOP training, cost money!
Horne claims Nogales did this by eliminating their teacher aides. I doubt this
would be enough, and I'm certain if Horne talked to Nogales teachers, they would
like to have their teacher aides back. What a shame to have to fire dedicated
and much needed paraprofessionals to make up for gross inadequacies in state
funding.
Having moved recently from Arizona to Texas, the contrast is striking.
Bilingual education programs are abundant here, and recent testimony to the
State Board of Education from educators across the state provided ample evidence
that these programs are successful. On February 12, the San Antonio Express News
published a featured story on a border-area school district succeeding despite
all the odds. The district's bilingual (dual language) programs was cited among
other things as a key to their success. Another major key was substantial
efforts to obtain external grants to make up for the lack of funding from the
state.
Another article appearing March 27 in the Express News reports on the high
success of school districts on the city's military bases, under the headline of
"Money is a major difference." These military base schools receive nearly twice
as much funding as their off-base counterparts in order to meet the academic
needs of "an ethnically diverse student population, high rates of children who
come from poor homes, and staggering mobility rates." If money makes the
difference for the students of military families, it can clearly make a
difference for ELL students who share these unique needs plus many more.
Dr. Wayne E. Wright is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education and
Human Development at the University of Texas, San Antonio, and a recent graduate
of Arizona State University where he received his PhD in Educational Leadership
and Policy Studies.
Wayne E. Wright, PhD
University of Texas, San Antonio
College of Education & Human Development Bicultural-Bilingual Studies
Sent to the Republic and the Citizen on March 26, 2006:
Superintendent Horne is making it a habit to publicize data that has not been
scientifically validated (My Turn, March 23). ASU researchers have time and
again pointed out the flaws in his reports, but he continues to massage
statistics to fit his ideology. His most recent claim is that the Nogales
Unified School District (NUSD) has created a "miracle" at most NUSD schools by
having 60 to 78% of its 2003 English Language Learners (ELLs) pass all three
AIMS tests in 2005. Yet ADE's own website calls that miracle into question.
Because the English proficiency test is so much easier to pass than the AIMS
test, ELL students generally are reclassified into the mainstream well before
they are able to pass all three portions of AIMS. In 2003, NUSD had 280 ELLs in
Grade 3. Two years later, after the district supposedly
created the miracle, NUSD still had 205 ELLs in Grade 5. If 70% of those Grade 3
ELLs had passed AIMS, then they certainly would have been reclassified, meaning
that there should only be about 80 ELLs left in grade 5. Did 120 or so new ELLs
unexpectedly enter NUSD at Grade 5? Horne conveniently fails to identify the
schools, making it impossible to verify the figures he uses. Yet the same
discrepancy appears in between Grade 5 and Grade 7. In 2003 NUSD reports 200
ELLs in Grade 5. If two years later 70% had been reclassified, there would be
only 60 ELLs in Grade 7. But, in fact, ADE reports that in 2005 NUSD had 180
ELLs in Grade 7. The true miracle in this story would be finding anyone naive
enough to believe Superintendent Horne's election year blather.
--Sal Gabaldon
Sent to the Tucson Citizen, March 25, 2006:
The Arizona House has approved a ballot measure to make English the state’s
official language (“Official-English measure gets House approval,” March 24).
As Cartoonist Tommy Tomorrow once pointed out, making English our official
language makes as much sense as declaring the sun our official source of energy.
English already is the de facto official language of every state in the United
States, and nearly all immigrants are highly motivated to acquire and improve
their English. According to the 2000 Census, only one percent of the US
population cannot speak English. (In 1890, 3.6 percent of the population could
not speak English.)
Politicians should spend their time with legislation that actually serves the
public interest, not with “feel-good” proposals that do nothing.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Los Angeles Times, March 21, 2006:
Re: “California’s
English learners,” March 21
Kelly Torrance feels that the increase of English learners scoring in the two
highest levels of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) shows
that dismantling bilingual education worked.
Ms. Torrance has not done her homework.
The CELDT has five levels. The Public Policy Institute found that English
Learners in California are making very modest progress, advancing an average of
less than one level per year.
This January, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office reported that at least
some of the increase in the percentage of students at the top two CELDT levels
was because of a traffic jam: Many children in these levels have been there for
several years; the percentage of those moving into the advanced levels has
actually decreased.
Some of the increase may be due to “test score inflation.” When new tests are
introduced, scores are initially low, but increase as students and teachers get
more familiar with the test and instruction is more focused on the test. The
CELDT was introduced in 2001, and its trajectory is typical. CELDT gains may
have nothing to do with real improvement.
Finally, an analysis done by the American Institutes for Research and WestEd
shows that dismantling bilingual education has not accelerated the English
development of California’s English learners.
Stephen Krashen
Some bibliography:
Hill, E. 2006. Update, 2002-2004: The progress of English learner students.
Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst.
Jepsen, C. and de Alth, S. 2005. English learners in California schools. San
Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Linn, R., Graue, E., and Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test
results to national norms: The validity of claims that “everyone is above
average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10: 5-14.
Parrish, T. et. al. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on
the Education of English Learners, K–12, American Institutes for Research and
WestEd.
Sent to the Denver Post, March 18, 2006:
English immersion is not the answer.
Those considering dismantling bilingual education in Colorado (“Two
sides on two languages,” March 18) might want to consider the experience of
other states that have opted for “English immersion.”
In California and Arizona, English learners are currently gaining less than one
level per year out of five, where level five means “ready for the mainstream.”
In Massachusetts, after three years of study, only half of the English learners
are eligible to be considered for regular instruction. Progress, in other
words, has been less than spectacular.
Bilingual education is not the problem, it is part of the solution. Scientific
studies consistently show that children in bilingual programs typically score
higher on tests of English than do children in all-English immersion programs.
In fact, three major reviews coming to this conclusion were published last year
in professional, scientific journals.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Dallas Morning News, March 16, 2006
Lynn Wooley thinks that tests scores “shot up” after bilingual education was
dismantled in California (“Texas
public schools don’t need more money to waste, “ March 16). Actually,
scores in California increased for everybody. The same time Proposition 227 was
passed, a new test was introduced, the SAT9. The first time a new test is given,
scores are low, and they increase each year as students and teachers get more
familiar with the test and instruction is more focused on the content of the
test.
This is exactly what happened in California. A number of studies have shown that
the gains for English learners were identical to the gains other students made.
The most recent, from the American Institutes for Research and WestEd, found
that dismantling bilingual education did not result in any real improvement in
the English of language minority children in California. This report has been
widely-publicized.
Less widely known is the scientific research. Scientific studies consistently
show that children in bilingual programs typically score higher on tests of
English than do children in all-English immersion programs. In fact, three
major reviews coming to this conclusion were published last year in
professional, scientific journals.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Jewish Journal, March 10, 2006:
Villaraigosa was right about Prop. 227
Jill Stewart (“A definite maybe,” March 10)
scolds Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for opposing Proposition 227, the initiative
that dismantled bilingual education in California. But Villaraigosa was right.
Contrary to Stewart’s claim, English-language reading and
writing skills have not improved dramatically among Latino children since Prop.
227 passed. A recent (and widely-publicized) report from the American Institutes
for Research and WestEd found that dismantling bilingual education did not
result in any improvement in the English of language minority children in
California. Less widely known is the scientific research. Scientific studies
consistently show that children in bilingual programs typically score higher on
tests of English than do children in all-English immersion programs. In fact,
three major reviews coming to this conclusion were published last year in
professional, scientific journals.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
The three major publications that support bilingual education,
all published in 2005.
1. Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. 2005. "A synthesis of research of
reading instruction for English language learners," Review of Educational
Research 75(2): 247-284.
2. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., and Glass, G. 2005. The big picture: A
meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners.
Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.
3. Genesse, F., Lindolm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and Christian, D. 2005.
“English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An Overview of Research.” Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
Sent to USA Today, March 1, 2006:
Ric Rosa (“Common-sense approach,” Letters, Feb. 28) says that when his
grandparents arrived in the US a hundred years ago, they took pride in learning
the language. Rosa suggests that this attitude is lacking today.
Language policy scholar Jim Crawford has pointed out, however, that today’s
immigrants are very successful in learning English. According to US Census data,
in 1890 about 3.6% of the US population (age 10 and older) was non-English
speaking. According to the 2000 Census, only about 1.5% of the population (age 5
and older) said that they spoke no English at all.
Today’s immigrants clearly do take pride in learning the language.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Published in the Arizona Republic Feb.
28, 2006:
In clear language:
Get it done
The standoff on English-language learners between the
governor and the Legislature, in concert with the
court-ordered fine, is ridiculous.
This is an election year, so political posturing is
expected. However, the fine has doubled and, according
to The Republic, no solution is in sight.
If the governor and members of the Legislature had to
pay the fine, the problem would have been solved before
it reached the crisis stage.
Of course, it is the Arizona taxpayer who foots the
bill.
The governor now recognizes that the fine is about to
exceed the amount of money that she had requested in the
first place. There is a simple message that we can send
to the parties involved. Get it done! - Dale E.
Singleton, Chandler
Sent to MetroFamily Magazine,
Central Oklahoma, February 28, 2006:
On a visit to the University of Central Oklahoma School
of Education in Edmond, where I presented a lecture on
literacy development, I picked up a copy of MetroFamily,
which I greatly enjoyed reading. But there may be an
error in the “It Figures” column. The column stated that
only 80% of American teens speak fluent English.
I was unable to track down the source of this statement,
but the usual source for these kinds of statistics is
the US Census. The 2000 Census did not examine teenagers
as a separate category, but reported for the US
population as a whole, only about 10 million out of 262
million said they spoke English “not well” or “not at
all.” That’s about 4% of the population.
For children ages 5 to 17, about 1.25 million out of
about 53 million said they spoke English “not well” or
“not at all,” or about 2% of that group. In addition,
studies show that second generation immigrants (children
of immigrants) typically speak English better than they
do the heritage language. It is thus very unlikely that
only 80% of American teens do not speak English
fluently.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Published in the San Antonio
Express-News Feb. 26, 2006
Studies support bilingual
As a product of bilingual education and a San Antonio
teacher of English language learners, I have to correct
James Ryan's comment "Immersion method a proven success"
(Feb. 19).
Let's begin with what research says: When comparing
bilingual education to immersion, bilingual education
has been the consistent winner.
Children in properly implemented bilingual programs do
better than children in all-English classes. They
receive a strong academic foundation in their native
language, which scaffolds the learning of English.
Learning to read is difficult enough for most children.
Learning to read in a language they don't understand
makes it 20 times harder. Bilingual education teaches
kids, not just language.
Also, contrary to Ryan's assertion, immersion did not
work very well for newcomers to the United States in the
beginning of the last century. Few immigrants were
well-educated in those days, but education was not a
prerequisite to economic success.
Years ago, there was work in manufacturing and
agriculture that did not require high school or college.
Today, nearly all work that leads to a decent living
requires education: U.S. government figures show those
who are not high school graduates earn under the poverty
level, on average. The $15- to $20-per-hour job in the
steel mill has been replaced by the minimum wage job at
the hamburger stand.
—Laura Carrasco
Published in the San Antonio
Express-News Feb. 26, 2006
Kids' progress amazing
James Ryan's attack on bilingual education is
unjustified.
I came to the United States more than two years ago
because my husband lost his job and we were doing poorly
back in Mexico.
When we arrived, my children became students in a
two-way dual-language program, where a group of native
English speakers interacts with a group of native
Spanish speakers. My children were first taught
primarily in Spanish and then were gradually switched to
English for much of their instruction.
Their Spanish is growing, and the progress in their
English is remarkable.
My oldest child was commended in the English TAKS in
both math and reading in the sixth grade and won first
place in the school's Spanish spelling bee, second place
districtwide.
My 9-year-old is developing an amazing talent for
writing and will be tested for the gifted and talented
program this year.
My 7-year-old won first place in his category in the
school science fair, second place districtwide. He
presented his project in English. He has been on the
honor roll since the beginning.
Has bilingualism confused my kids? I don't think so.
—Elvia Leyva, parent representative, Texas Association
for Bilingual Education
Sent to the Dallas Morning News,
Feb. 24, 2006:
Jim Boulet is right: English should be the goal of
bilingual education programs (letters, Feb. 24). Mr.
Boulet should be interested in knowing that scientific
studies consistently show that children in bilingual
programs typically score higher on tests of English than
do children in all-English immersion programs. In
fact, three major reviews coming to this conclusion were
published last year in professional, scientific
journals.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
The three major publications that support bilingual
education, all published in 2005.
1. Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. 2005. "A synthesis of
research of reading instruction for English language
learners," Review of Educational Research 75(2):
247-284.
2. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. and Glass, G. 2005.
“Weighing the Evidence: A Meta-Analysis of Bilingual
Education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal” 29(1),
43-67.
3. Genesse, F., Lindolm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and
Christian, D. 2005. “English Language Learners in U.S.
Schools: An Overview of Research.” Journal of Education
for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
Published in San Antonio Express
News Feb. 24, 2006:
Bilingual classes better
James Ryan is incorrect in his comment "Immersion method
a proven success" (Sunday). Bilingual education has been
compared to immersion in many scientific studies over
the past several decades. Children in bilingual classes
consistently outperform those in all-English classes on
tests of English reading.
There is considerable evidence that learning through the
native language has many advantages for
language-minority students. It facilitates the
development of literacy in the native language and in
English, and it allows students to gain important
content knowledge that will make the English they
encounter more comprehensible.
Furthermore, it enhances cognitive and social
development. Minority language students benefit from
"additive" bilingual environments, where students'
native languages are highly valued and their language
knowledge is considered a resource.
Ryan is misinformed when he says bilingualism causes
confusion. Study after study shows it does not. I invite
Ryan to converse with my 2-year-old in English and
Spanish. If anyone is confused, it appears to be Ryan.
Iliana Alanis, assistant professor, University of Texas
at San Antonio
Published in Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2006
Re "English Fluency Rate Causes Concern," Feb. 16
California first administered the California English
Language Development Test to its English learners in
2001, and 25% scored at the top two levels. This jumped
to 34% in 2002 and 43% in 2003, increases that were
interpreted as signs of improvement. Scores have now
have leveled off at 47% for both 2004 and 2005, causing
"concern." Research tells us that the first time a new
commercial test is given, scores appear to be low, and
they increase each year as students and teachers get
more familiar with the test and instruction is more
focused on the content of the test. After a few years,
improvement stops.
The trajectory of the test scores is, in other words,
typical. The initial increase and subsequent flattening
out of scores may have nothing to do with students
improving or not improving.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Professor EmeritusPublished in the San Antonio
Express-News, February 19, 2006:
Bilingual is best choice
I am in full agreement with the major points in Jo Beth
Jimerson's comment "Bilingual
education a better choice than immersion" (Feb 12).
There is no question that bilingual education is the
best choice.
I hope to reduce misinterpretation of some of her
remarks.
Jimerson notes that in immersion, children can learn
survival English quickly. This happens in bilingual
programs as well. Researcher Kenji Hakuta found no
difference between bilingual and immersion students in
rate of development of oral English in California.
Researchers Jeff MacSwan and Lisa Pray found children in
bilingual education in Arizona had acquired high levels
of proficiency in oral English in a little more than
three years, which is as fast or faster than children in
all-English programs have been progressing since
bilingual education was voted down in Arizona.
Jimerson also notes that "the educational system in
Texas wants to eradicate (the child's first) language in
the school environment." If "the educational system" in
Texas means the State Board of Education, this is not
true. I spoke at the last board meeting (Feb. 9),
interacted with board members and heard a great deal of
discussion. The issue was whether bilingual education
should be required or be an option. Even those board
members most enthusiastic about immersion made it clear
they were not proposing eradicating bilingual education.
—Stephen Krashen, member, executive board, National
Association for Bilingual Education, Los Angeles
Published in the Arizona Daily Star, Feb. 18, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/116357
U.S. kids behind language 8-ball Re: the Jan. 31 letter
to the editor "Only in America."
Only in America would people make a big stink out of someone
trying to enlighten our children by teaching them another language.
By contrast, nearly all pupils in Europe study at least one
foreign language as part of their compulsory education, and they are better
for it.
As far as any language being that of an "illegal invader,"
let's not go there, because the writer's suggestion could wipe out English
as well.
Kristie Rabago
Tucson
Sent
to the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 17, 2006:
Test Scores and Student Improvement
Re: “English
fluency rate causes concern,”
Feb 16.
California first administered the CELDT test to its English
learners in 2001, and 25% scored at the top two levels. This
jumped to 34% in 2002, and 43% in 2003, increases that were
interpreted as signs of improvement. Scores have now have
leveled off at 47% for both 2004 and 2005, causing
“concern.”
Research tells us that the first time a new commercial test
is given, scores appear to be low, and they increase each
year as students and teachers get more familiar with the
test and instruction is more focused on the content of the
test. After a few years, improvement stops.
The trajectory of CELDT scores is, in other words, typical.
The initial increase and subsequent flattening out of scores
may have nothing to do with students improving or not
improving.
Stephen
Krashen
Sent to the San Antonio Express-News, Feb 12,
2006: I am in full agreement with the major points in Jo Beth Jimerson’s “Comment:
Bilingual education a better choice than immersion,” (Feb 12): There is no question that bilingual education is the best choice. I have some comments that I hope will serve to reduce misinterpretation of some of her remarks.
Ms. Jimerson notes that in immersion, children can learn survival English quickly. This happens in bilingual programs as well. Researcher Kenji Hakuta found no difference between bilingual and immersion students in rate of development of oral English in California. Researchers Jeff MacSwan and Lisa Pray have found that children in bilingual education in Arizona acquire high levels of proficiency in
oral English in a little over three years, which is as fast or faster than children in all-English programs have been progressing since bilingual education was voted down in Arizona. Ms. Jimerson also notes that “the educational system in Texas wants to eradicate (the child’s first) language in the school environment …”. If “theeducational system” in Texas means the State Board
of Education, this is not true. I spoke at the last board meeting (Feb 9), interacted with board members, and heard a great deal of discussion. The issue was whether bilingual education should be required or bean option. Even those board members most enthusiastic about immersion made it clear that they were not proposing eradicating bilingual education. Stephen Krashen
Sent to the San Antonio Express News, 2/10/06:
Research supports bilingual education
The Express-News (“Board hears English debate,” February 10) missed the main point of my presentation at the State Board of Education: Scientific research consistently shows that children in bilingual programs typically outperform those in all-English programs on tests of English.
Educators are constantly urged to base their practice on scientific studies. We should at least consider the scientific research on bilingual education.
Stephen Krashen
Member, Executive Board, National Association for Bilngual Education
Sent to the Chronicle Feb. 10, 2006:
I was happy to read The Chronicle’s (State educators hear defense of bilingual programs By JANET ELLIOTT) accurate description of the State Board
of Education meeting (“State educators hear defense of bilingual programs, ”Feb 9), The Chronicle quite properly focused on the significant and impressive accomplishments of English-learners in bilingual programs in HISD. There is more to the story, however: Houston’s results agree with what researchers have concluded.
Educational practice is supposed to be based on “scientific” studies.
Scientific studies consistently show that children in bilingual programs typically score higher on tests of English than do children in all English immersion programs. In fact, three major reviews coming to this conclusion were published last year in professional, scientific journals.
Stephen Krashen Member, Executive Board, National Association for Bilingual
Education Presenter, Texas State Board of Education meeting ,February 9
Published in the Arizona Republic Feb. 12, 2006:
A fine fix the state is in
More attention needs to be paid to Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Legislature
over the lack of an English-language learning agreement.
The Republic covered this issue when the fines first started accumulating but
since then the governor and Legislature have not made much progress and there
hasn't been much coverage.
At the very least, on the front page, put a box every day that says how much the
fine has accumulated to. My word to the Legislature and governor is: Get over it
and start negotiating! - J.D. Kuennen, Phoenix
Published in the Arizona Republic, Feb. 6, 2006 :
Latino immigrant patriotism shines
Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth's column equates violence in Europe with
resilient U.S. Latino identity and renews Samuel Huntington's libel of
ambivalent patriotism among Latino immigrants ("Immigrants need to embrace U.S.
culture" (Viewpoints, Jan. 29).
Tell that to my Uncle Eliseo, an immigrant from Guanajuato, who still suffers
from the malaria contracted during combat in Mindanao. Tell that to the many
families who have posted Marine and Army portraits in saints' shrines all over
Mexico seeking succor and protection for their loved ones. Many of these were
"illegal" immigrants covered by the 1986 IRCA law.
Ah, patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels . . . and scapegoating
politicians. - Daniel Ramirez, Scottsdale
Published in the Arizona Republic Feb. 6, 2006:
Good subs add value to classroom
Regarding "Absent teachers" (Republic, Jan. 27):
Professor Michael Podgursky of the University of Missouri-Columbia asserts "kids
don't accomplish anything when a substitute is running the class." To the
contrary, a good substitute teacher can bring insights, enthusiasm and fresh
pedagogy into the classroom.
In the first 100 days of this school year, I have substituted more than 40
times. It is not an easy job to learn 40 sets of names, 40 classroom routines
and review 40 lesson plans. However, I do it because I want real learning to
continue in the absence of the "real" teacher. I certainly don't do it for the
princely sum of $90 daily.
The students in my care are actively learning. I might be editing their papers,
working with them on anything from phonograms to physical science, or giving
English-language-learners the extra attention they need.
On any given day, I might teach special education students, or gifted students.
So, please, professor, come into my classroom one day and see if the students
are learning or "treading water." - Sue Lowther, Glendale
Sent to the Arizona Daily Star, Monday, Feb. 6, 2006:
Thank you for publishing Timothy Dinkel's letter criticizing the
Foothills School District
for forcing students to learn Spanish (Feb. 5). I share Mr. Dinkel's outrage.
How dare those school officials insist that students become bilingual! Next
thing you know, they'll be wasting tax payers'
money, demanding that students read full-length novels, recognize sound
argumentation, and understand geometry. We should demand that schools quit
trying to offer a so-called quality education and get back to English-only
basics. After all, if English was good enough for Jesus, it should be good
enough for our kids.
Sal Gabaldón
Oro Valley, AZ
Published in the Arizona Daily Star. Feb. 6, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/114365
Spanish native to Tucson area
Re: the Jan. 31 letter to the editor "Only in America."
Excuse me? Who is the illegal invader who occupied this
sovereign area via eminent domain and violent conflict in the 1800s?
Spanish is the language that was predominant in this area
long before the letter writer was alive. As a native Tucsonan, I respect the
area and its heritage, which has endured through the centuries.
Any language — be it Spanish, Greek, Italian or Chinese —
enhances a student's global view of the world community, unlike the narrow
view of life as the writer experiences.
I applaud the Catalina Foothills School District for
attempting to further their students' view of their region and the world.
Frank M. Mendoza
Architect, Tucson
Published in the Arizona Republic Feb. 6, 2006
Can't they understand English?
Regarding the English-learner language legislation from the Arizona House and
Senate:
The inclusion of tax credits and other stuff does not meet the court order.
Do the representatives and senators not understand the judge's English? - Don
Begalke, Phoenix
Sent to
Dallas Morning News 05 Feb 2006:
US Dept of Ed uninformed
about bilingual education
A high-ranking official in the US Department of Education, responsible for
English Language Acquisition, has proclaimed that there is “not much research
available” on the effectiveness of English-only, dual language and bilingual
education (“Bilingual methods gain notice,” Feb 4). Neither she nor her staff
have been reading the professional literature.
The effectiveness of bilingual education, as compared to English-only, has been
researched in many scientific studies. In fact, three major reviews were
published last year in professional journals. They all concluded that children
in bilingual programs typically do better on tests of English than comparison
children in all-English programs.
Stephen Krashen
Member, Executive Board, National Association for
Bilingual Education
Published in the Arizona Daily Star. Feb. 5, 2006:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/114362
Re: the Jan. 31 letter to the editor "Only in America."
Only in America do people believe the remainder of the world is insignificant
and unworthy. The author's outcry was ignorant and childish. Obviously he has no clue how hard
it is to learn a second language. It takes discipline and an open mind, and
students are extremely fortunate to start the process at such a young age. Not
only will they have a chance to learn a new language, but also learn to
understand its abiding culture. To label Spanish as the language of illegal invaders is completely ignorant and
prejudiced. There is an entire world full of Hispanic cultures, and there are
millions of Spanish speakers in the United States who are not illegal
immigrants. I suggest any parents upset about the plan take a seat next to their
child and attempt to get an education.
Trevor Bulzing, Pima Community College student, Tucson
Published in the Arizona Republic Feb. 4, 2006:
Learning proper English is no easy task
Regarding "Why is learning English always a 'struggle' " (Letters, Jan. 28):
Please help a newly arrived legal immigrant family from Bosnia whose English
is limited to the very minimum how to define "to fast," "too fast," "stand
fast."
Or, how to pronounce cough, rough, though, thought, through or bough. Or
pronounce boot vs. foot, tool vs. took. Wound (as in war) vs. wound (as in
clock).
Just to mention just a few common "English" words. Or is that too "tough" a
struggle? - Joshua Missal, Chandler
Sent to the Dallas
Morning News, Feb 3, 2006:
Re: Education board considers immersion for non-English speakers, Feb.
1, 2006
In a story taken from the Houston Chronicle, the Morning News reported that
“In California, non-English speaking students are required to spend at least
one year in an English-immersion classroom.” Wrong. California’s Proposition
227, which dismantled bilingual education and mandated all-English, stated
that children are to spend a period of time “not normally to exceed one
year” in special immersion classes. One year is not the minimum, it is the
maximum.
The interesting story is that this isn’t happening: Children are spending a
lot longer than one year in special classes. Current research shows that
fewer than 10% of English learners in California schools are considered
English fluent by the end of grade three. As noted in the article, data from
Arizona, which also passed an anti-bilingual education law, is similar, as
are results from Massachusetts, another state that dismantled bilingual
education. Rejecting bilingual education has clearly not resulted in rapid
English language acquisition.
Stephen Krashen
San Antonio
Express News. Published as On-Line Extra of the San Antonio Express News,
Feb 1, 2006:
Gap in students' performance not alarming
The Express-News notes English learners don't do as well as English fluent
students on tests: "The performance gap for Limited English Proficient
students is wide." ("Bilingual ed help pushed," Sunday).
This is not a cause for alarm. By definition, English learners don't do as
well as others on tests that require a knowledge of English. If they did as
well as English fluent students, they would not be classified as Limited
English Proficient.
A more interesting question is which methods help children acquire English
best. As Texas Bilingual Association President Leo Gomez points out, the
evidence supports the use of bilingual education.
Dr. Grace McField and I have recently completed a review of scientific
research in this area. As have nearly all other reviewers of this research,
we have concluded that children in bilingual programs typically do better on
tests of English reading than do comparison students in all-English classes.
In these bilingual programs, the first language is used in ways that
accelerate English language development.
Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus, University of
Southern California
Published in the Arizona Republic, 2 /4/06:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0204satlets3-044.html
You can be sure we won't forget the politicians. Regarding the
English-language learner issue:
Let us all take a moment and reflect on what has brought us as a people and
unified state to this point.
While the elected officials in Arizona, albeit not all, but most, act like
youngsters in the playground throwing sand ($500,000 in fines daily) into the
breeze of Neverland, the hard-working citizenry toil away, watching our tax base
erode like the sands of time.
Are we so thankless downtown that we must continue to bicker endlessly?
Attention elected officials! We will not forget at the polls. -Don Myers,
Phoenix
Published in the Arizona Republic, 2 /4/06:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0204satlets3-042.html
Learning
proper English is no easy task
Regarding "Why is learning
English always a 'struggle' " (Letters, Jan. 28): Please help a newly
arrived legal immigrant family from Bosnia whose English is limited to
the very minimum how to define "to fast," "too fast," "stand fast." Or,
how to pronounce cough, rough, though, thought, through or bough. Or
pronounce boot vs. foot, tool vs. took. Wound (as in war) vs. wound (as
in clock).
Just to mention just a few common "English" words. Or is that too
"tough" a struggle? - Joshua Missal, Chandler
Sent to the Houston Chronicle, 2/1/06:
The Texas Board plans to take a peek at all-English programs in
California and Arizona to see if it might make sense to require all
schools to use them ("Bilingual
classes to get second look," February 1).
All-English instruction is heralded by right-wing extremists, like
the folks at the Lexington Institute, and Ron Unz, who funded the
passage of anti-bilingual initiatives in California and Texas.
But these programs are known to be poorly conceived and extremely
ineffective among educators and researchers.
While the program promises children will learn English quickly in
such programs and enter the mainstream overnight, the facts tell us
otherwise.
In Arizona, the state's all-English program failed 89 percent of its
English learners, putting them at serious risk of falling behind
academically in classrooms with incomprehensible instruction
rendered entirely in English.
Research conducted on such programs predicted the disaster. In
bilingual programs, kids learn English faster, and they also have
higher academic achievement as a result.
Children's home language is an important educational resource. Texas
is wise to continue to use it to promote children's academic success
in school. Following California or Arizona would be a divisive step
backward.
Jeff MacSwan
Associate Professor of Education
Arizona State University
Sent to the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 31, 2006:
Re: “Chinese,
y'all: Mandarin language becomes the new Spanish” (January 29)
Having read many newspaper articles on this topic over the last few
months, I have concluded that Mandarin is not challenging Spanish as
a foreign language in US. In every case, few students are studying
Mandarin, often just one class. Mandarin has a long way to go before
it challenges Spanish: Three million students are studying Spanish;
25,000 are studying Mandarin.
We are also told that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “is
considering a proposal to allocate $1.3 billion to public schools
for teaching Chinese,” an extraordinary sum: Bush’s recent proposal
for language study calls for $114 million.
The $1.3 billion proposal, however, includes much more than language
teaching; for example, it would provide funds to “increase American
consular activity supporting American commercial activity in China”
(Congressional Record, 5/25/05).
Is the press deliberately misleading us, or is this simply a case of
sloppy reporting?
Stephen Krashen
Sent to
the YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC January 28, 2006:
Re:
Bilingual education changes on hold in Wapato
Washington State officials are right to question Wapato’s School
District decision to weaken bilingual programs by reducing the use
of the native language. Bilingual director David Juarez’s
assertion that the use of both the native language and English will
retard the development in English is false (Greene, 1998; Krashen
and McField, 2005). Research in second language acquisition
consistently shows that the use of the native language accelerates
the acquisition of English, the opposite of Juarez’s belief. The
proposed “remedy” to the “problem” of students’ rate of
English language acquisition is problematic for two reasons: one is
that more time spent in English, the “time on task” hypothesis, has
no credible evidence to support it (Crawford, 1998), and two, the
amount of time students are given to acquire academic, grade level
English proficiency is being driven by arbitrary English language
testing deadlines which are totally unrelated to second language
acquisition research (Collier, 1987, 1992, 1995; Cummins, 1981,
1984, 2000), an therefore akin to killing the patient with the
so-called medicine.
Juliet Luther
Bilingual Educator/ESL Specialist
Bronx, New York
Below I provide references for the statements of fact, to comply
with your policy regarding such statements in letters to the
editor.
References
Collier, V.P. (1987) Age and Rate of Acquisition of Second
Language for Academic Purposes. TESOL Quarterly 21, 617-41.
_________. (1992) A Synthesis of Studies Examining Long-Term
Language Minority Students Data on Academic Achievement. Bilingual
Education Research Journal 16, 187-212.
_________. (1995) Promoting Academic Success for ESL
Students. Elizabeth, N.J. TESOL-BE. Crawford, J. (1998) Ten Common
Fallacies About Bilingual Education.
Eric Digest Online, EDO-FL-98-10. Retrieved Jan 29, 2006 from:
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/crawford01.html
Cummins, J. (1981) The Role of Primary Language Development in
Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students. In
California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and
Language
Minority Students: A Theoretical Rationale (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles,
CA: California State University. __________. (1984) Bilingualism
and Special
Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego, CA:
College-Hill Press.
__________. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual
Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Greene, J. 1998. A Meta-Analysis
of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Claremont, CA: Tomas
Rivera Policy Institute.
Krashen, S.D. and McField, G. (2005) What Works? Reviewing the
Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education. Language Learner vol.
1:2, 7-10.
Sent to the
Herald-Republic (Yakima, Washington), January 28, 2006:
To the editor:
Bilingual Education and English: What the Research Says
Wapato School District
officials, under pressure from new testing requirements, want Spanish-speaking
students to acquire English more quickly, and plan to weaken bilingual education
by reducing the amount of Spanish used in classes ("Bilingual
education changes on hold in Wapato,"
January 28).
State officials are correct in questioning whether this is the right thing to
do.
Dr. Grace McField and I have recently completed a review of scientific research
in this area. As have nearly all other reviewers of this research, we have
concluded that children in bilingual programs typically do better on tests of
English reading than do comparison students in all-English classes. In these
programs, the first language is used in ways that accelerate English language
development.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Krashen, S. and McField, G. 2006. What works? Reviewing the latest evidence on
bilingual education. Language Learner 1(2): 7-10, 34.
Published in the Arizona Republic
Jan. 31, 2006:
Teach all illiterate children
English-language learning?
We need to take all the money the government and private sector spends on
publishing everything in dual languages and funnel it into our education system,
not only to teach non-English speaking, but to teach all our illiterate children
English.
Have any child write a simple essay without a computer and you will see what I
am talking about. - Douglas Morgan, Phoenix
Published in the Arizona Republic
Jan. 31, 2006:
Bill deceitful, dishonest
Thank you to the governor for vetoing the recent English Language Learner
bills sent by the Legislature.
Arizona must comply with the court order to fund ELL students, but this should
not be approved with the concept of corporate tuition tax credit for private and
religious-based schools attached to it.
In both of the bills dealing with ELL sent to the governor, the intent was
tarnished with an attempt to hold the governor hostage to sign into law
corporate tuition tax credits for religious-based schools. These are two
different issues. The far right-wing conservative Republicans in this state have
tried in recent years to get the corporate tax credit in place and failed.
It should fail; it is not good for our struggling traditional public schools
that most of our children attend. It is a poorly veiled attempt at a voucher
system to illegally use public funds for religious-based education. It will
siphon monies out of the general fund and channel them to private and
religious-based schools.
The arrogance of our conservative lawmakers is appalling. This attempt to push
through their agenda stacked on a court mandate is deceitful, dishonest and
unethical. I live and vote in District 20. Rep. Bob Robson was a sponsor of the
bill. Rep. John McComish and Sen. John Huppenthal voted for it.
They have lost my trust and I will not vote for them in the future. It is time
for new leadership in this district.
Ted V. Maish
Chandler
Published in the Arizona Republic
Jan. 31, 2006:
Raid on taxpayers an outrage
Words cannot express my total outrage at the federal judge who ordered our state
to use taxpayer money to fund special programs to teach kids English when they
should already have learned to speak and read the language of this country.
I am also outraged at the federal judge who ordered the rancher in Douglas to
give his ranch to two illegal aliens (not undocumented citizens) when they had
committed not one, but two crimes, by entering our country illegally and
trespassing on the man's property.
If we don't start fighting back, these liberal judges will achieve their goal of
turning our country into a socialist state, and that will be the death knell of
our way of life.
It is absurd that we actually let these village idiots stay in office. - Steve
"Willy" Williams, Phoenix
Published in the Arizona Republic
Jan. 31, 2006:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0131breakout312.html
Let's deal with the 'monster'
In the words of Carlos Santana, "People, put your lights on; there's a monster
living under the bed, whisperin' in my ear."
That monster is the blatant racism and elitism that drive the Republican
Legislature to submit a bill that would steal from students in poverty programs
to create the money to meet the long-overdue court-mandated decree to fund
English-language learner programs, while tacking on a provision that would
siphon off money from public schools for private-school vouchers.
It's time we put the lights on, left them burning and exposed the monster! -
Delight Diehn, Phoenix
Sent to the San Antonio Express
News, Jan 30, 2006:
The Express-News notes that English learners don’t do as well as English fluent
students on tests: “The performance gap for Limited English Proficient students
is wide.” (“Bilingual ed help pushed,”
January 28).
This is not a cause for alarm. By definition, English learners don’t do as well
as others on tests that require a knowledge of English. If they did as well as
English fluent students, they would not be classified as Limited English
Proficient.
A more interesting question is which methods help children acquire English best.
As Texas Bilingual Association President Leo Gomez points out, the evidence
supports the use of bilingual education. Dr. Grace McField and I have recently
completed a review of scientific research in this area. As have nearly all other
reviewers of this research, we have concluded that children in bilingual
programs typically do better on tests of English reading than do comparison
students in all-English classes. In these bilingual programs, the first language
is used in ways that accelerate English language development.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Orlando
Sentinel, January 30, 2006:
Bilingual education and bilingualism
According to Wahneta Principal Victor Duncan, “"Research shows the best way is
for (English learners to acquire English is) to be immersed," but according to
Tomasita Ortiz, director of multilingual services for Orange County Public
Schools, providing support in the native language is very helpful (“Language
barrier a big hurdle,” Jan 28).
Dr. Grace McField and I have recently completed a review of scientific research
in this area and we agree with Ms. Ortiz. As have nearly all other reviewers of
this research, we concluded that children in bilingual programs typically do
better on tests of English reading than do those “immersed” in all-English
classes.
The Sentinel article also tells us that according to the 2000 US Census, “More
than 23 percent of people in the United States primarily speak a language other
than English.” Not true. The census question was: “Does this person speak a
language other than English at home?” The respondent could be English-dominant
and answer “yes” to this question.
The census actually found that 18 percent said they spoke a language other than
English at home (47 million out of 262 million), and 77 percent said they spoke
English “very well” or “well.” Only seven percent of this group could not speak
English at all, about one percent of the US population.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona Republic
Jan. 30, 2006: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0130breakout303.html
Flawed GOP bills
are real culprits
Robert Robb's column regarding the
Arizona Legislature's six-year struggle to maintain its head firmly
planted in ignorance over the English-language learners issue ignores
reality ("Political system taking a hit," Opinions, Friday).
Robb states that Gov. Janet Napolitano's budget figure is "based on a
couple of days of noodling by purported experts." In fact, the case has
plodded along for six long years.
School districts throughout the state have been involved in the fray.
The governor's budget figure, though not "magic," is certainly rooted in
reality.
Robb concludes that the governor's vetoes and the court's subsequent
order to place all fines in a fund for English learners is an "affront
to representative government."
In the same issue of The Republic,
Rep. Bill Konopnicki,
R-Safford, says of the federal judge, "He took our ability to negotiate
away. Now the governor can wait until she gets enough money in the fund
. . . "
The affront to government is the callous inaction by the Legislature in
the face of federal court orders to correct a continuing harm to
Arizona's children.
The further affront to government is the swaggering parliamentary
incompetence of the Republican leadership when it did send its flawed
bills to the governor.
The governor's vetoes and her strategy to direct the fines to Arizona's
children are brilliant and courageous. It was not the judge that took
away the legislature's ability to negotiate; it was their own arrogance.
-
Alfredo Gutierrez, Phoenix
The writer is a former state Senate majority leader.
Published in the Arizona Republic Jan. 27, 2006:
Legislature betrays students
In passing a flawed bill to comply with an order in the Flores vs. Arizona
lawsuit, Republican members of the Legislature have committed a shameful act.
They've betrayed kids and flouted the rule of law. They offer a pitiful extra
$75 per student in the classroom to assist English-language learners, when only
about one in five of these kids currently passes AIMS. Others frequently drop
out, instead, leading many toward a self-destructive path that often leads to
prison.
Regardless of where these kids were born, our policy should never be to punish
kids for the acts of their parents. And, anyway, many of these children are
American by birth.
The Legislature's proposed Flores resolution demanded low-income communities
transfer federal poverty money to English-language learners before receiving any
state dollars and tried to sneak in a corporate tax credit for English programs
at private schools. But unlike their public school counterparts, there is no
accountability enforcement. - Dave Wells, Tempe
Published in the Arizona Republic Jan. 26, 2006:
Nothing has changed in 4 years
During the 2001 Second Special Session, as a member of the Arizona House of
Representatives, I introduced House Bill 2013.
After participating in hearings all summer related to the Flores lawsuit and
after having the Republicans present a bill that did nothing to address the
court's request, I submitted my bill. Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in
the Public Interest testified in committee that my bill would most likely meet
the criteria outlined in the lawsuit while the Republican bill did not. Of
course my bill was killed in Rules Committee.
Here we are some four years later facing the same situation. How many more
children must fall through the cracks before the Republican majority does the
right thing? Enough of this nonsense.
The governor needs everyone's help to make this finally happen. Please support
the governor's English-learners language proposal and send a message to
the Legislature that our kids do matter. - Kathi Foster,
Litchfield Park The writer is a former state representative.
Published in the Arizona Republic, Jan. 23, 2006:
America sliding into illiterate wasteland
As I slide up on the windward side of 70 and as I watch America blissfully
spiral down to Third World status through deliberate rejection of literacy, I'm
thankful to be a member of the last few American generations that can still read
a complex sentence in English and understand it.
Beyond that, because I can read and understand Spanish, French, German, some
Italian and a smattering of Russian and Swahili, I can get on this computer and
read the news as reported by our own media (including your very fine Arizona
Republic) and then go to Prensa Latina or Le Figaro or Der Spiegel instead of
being the intellectual hostage of CNN, FOX or "talk radio."
Many immigrants, including those who, because of unrealistic quotas, enter our
country illegally, can speak two or three languages and discourse on social or
political or cultural matters. Too many Americans, railing about lost jobs and
the influx of foreigners, can barely communicate in our own mother tongue.
Some 20 years ago, Iris DeMent, in her album The Way I Should (some of the best
country protest music I've heard since Woodie Guthrie) sang, "We've got kids
walkin' 'round in Calvin Klein and Guess. Who cannot pass a sixth-grade readin'
test. But if you ask them they can tell you the name of every crotch on MTV.
Ain't it lovely, livin' in the wasteland of the free."
Most Americans consider Mozart to be "elevator music," and most of them wouldn't
recognize a Van Gogh or a Renoir if it jumped up and bit them. And most of our
"warrior elitists" never read Sun Tsu or Lin Piao or Clausewitz.
They never saw a play by Arthur Miller, much less Shakespeare.
So, when I hear some borderline illiterate demand, "Speak English, damn it!," I
just smile and say to myself . . . "Hey, I will if you will." - Bob Francaviglia,
Bisbee
Published in the China Post, January
16, 2006:
Father Bauer is right (Daniel J. Bauer’s column, January 16; “Bush
plan to push foreign language study inadequate.”). The recent Bush foreign
language proposal is “ridiculously inadequate” in terms of the number of
students it will help. It also ignores that fact that many young people in the
United States already speak these languages quite well, those who came to the US
as children or who are children of immigrants. One study, for example, found
that five-year-old Korean immigrant children have more proficiency in Korean
than graduates of intensive Korean programs run by the US military.
Jim Crawford, current director of the National Association for Bilingual
Education, has pointed out that “Developing heritage language resources would be
far more efficient, not to mention more economical, than trying to create them
from scratch.”
There is no shortage of heritage language resources: According to the 2000
census, there are about 2 million speakers of Chinese languages in the US, a
million speakers of Korean, and over a half million speakers of Arabic.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Boston
Globe, January 10, 2006:
As noted by the Globe, Question 2, the law passed in 2002 that dismantled
bilingual education in Massachusetts, “expects most students to spend one year
in immersion classes and then be mainstreamed” (“Immersion
therapy,” Jan. 10). The Globe editorial is the first media statement I have
read acknowledging that this expectation has not been fulfilled. An analysis
from the Massachusetts Department of Education shows that fewer than ten percent
of English learners who scored “non-proficient” in English in 2004 had acquired
enough English a year later to be considered for mainstreaming, a result similar
to that seen in other states that passed similar initiatives.
The Globe feels that “it is too early to tell whether children are learning
better” without bilingual education. Not at all. Nearly every reviewer of the
research in bilingual education has concluded that English learners in bilingual
education programs typically acquire English faster than those in all-English
programs. In the last year three major studies appeared in scientific journals
confirming this, but we have known about the effectiveness of bilingual
education for years. This information was ignored in the Question 2 campaign, to
the detriment of thousands of children.
Stephen Krashen
Member, Executive Board
National Association for Bilingual Education
Sent to Governor's Office on
Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2006:
Dear Governor Napolitano:
I want to thank you most sincerely for your courageous stand in support of
English language learners. Please continue to fight for these children by
vetoing HB 2008. The public will stand with you if you explain that without your
veto the children would have languished for yet another year in schools that are
woefully unprepared to serve them. It would be the kind of bold and principled
action in defense of education that has won you so much admiration throughout
Arizona. You are our students' best hope for eventually securing a truly
equitable education.
Respectfully,
Sal Gabaldón
Oro Valley, Arizona
Sent to the China Post
(Taiwan), January 7, 2006:
Research in second language acquisition comes to the same conclusion as the
China Post editorial in some respects: The traditional grammar approach is not
efficient, and there needs to be more emphasis on communication (“Why our
children's English is inferior, “ January 7, 2006). The Post, however, also
feels that there should be less of a focus on reading. Current research tells
us that it is a good idea to emphasize reading, and several of the more recent
studies in this area have been done in Taiwan.
The studies tell us that one kind of reading is extremely effective: Free
voluntary reading, wide reading for pleasure that students select on their own,
reading that is understandable and so interesting that students “get lost” in
the books and even forget they are reading in English.
Researchers Syying Lee and Ching Kang Liu at National Taipei University have
done studies confirming that more reading in English leads not only to better
reading ability, but also to better writing and vocabulary development. Beniko
Mason of Japan and Kyung-Sook Cho of Korea have also presented their work in
conferences in Taiwan, showing that free reading is effective for students of
all ages.
These studies show that reading is more efficient than traditional grammar
instruction, and of course students (and teachers) find it more pleasant.
Reading alone is not enough to develop speaking and listening ability, but there
is evidence that extensive reading contributes to oral/aural competence as well.
The implications are clear: English programs should include opportunities for
self-selected reading, and interesting reading material should be easily
available to the public, to ensure that students can continue to improve in
English after they finish their English classes in school.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Sent to the Washington Post, January 4, 2006:
(Thanks to Susan Ohanian and Jim Crawford for help on this
one.)
Strange way to do a budget
In “Mandarin makes inroads in American schools,” (Jan 3), we
are told that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is
considering allocating $1.3 billion “to boost classes on
Chinese language and culture in public schools.”
Not quite. The proposal, made by Senator Joe Lieberman in
May, includes more than Chinese language and culture
teaching. According to Sen. Lieberman’s statement in the
Congressional Record (May 25, 2005), it also includes, among
other things, funding to “increase American consular
activity supporting American commercial activity in China.”
Where did Lieberman come up with the 1.3 billion dollar
figure? According to the Congressional Record, it is “ a
symbolic gesture for the recent birth of China’s one billion
three hundred millionth citizen.” This is a strange way to
do a budget.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Seattle Times, January 2, 2006:
1.3 billion?
I wonder if the Times got the figure right.
In “Chinese language study catching on” (January 1) we are
told that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is
considering spending $1.3 billion for Chinese language and
culture instruction in public schools in the US. That is
extraordinary.
The federal government budget calls for only $1.1 billion
for Reading First, and only $676 million for English as a
second language and bilingual education (“English Language
Development”). Also by way of contrast, the federal
government budgets a mere $200 million per year for school
libraries (Library Services and Technology Act).
Coincidentally, the population of China is estimated to be
1.3 billion.
Stephen Krashen
|
AABE
is a