Eating Crow on Bilingual Education?
Roger Hernandez
Ron Unz, the man behind Proposition 227 and the elimination of bilingual
education in California, e-mails me to say that "dozens of news stories have
appeared on the results of the initiative, virtually all of them very
favorable" and to urge that editorialists and columnists who urged its
defeat two years ago admit its success.
Time to eat crow served up by Mr. Unz? Well, at least this much is true: The
worse fears of bilingual education advocates-me, for one-have not come to
pass since California voters approved Proposition 227. At least in Los
Angeles.
The Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month disclosed that
32,402 out of 313,442 students classified as "English Language Learners" are
now considered "Fluent English Proficient." They were reclassified after
satisfactory performances in written and oral tests.
That's 10.3 percent making the transition. The previous year the figure was
9.9 percent and the year before that-the last year of bilingual education
before Proposition 227 did away with it in the state-the figure was 8
percent.
Good news for anyone on either side of the bilingual education debate.
Does that mean, as Unz claims, that the end of bilingual education has been
a good thing?
Not necessarily. It only means Proposition 227 has not had the disastrous
effect predicted (yes, by me among others). Look at it this way. Ten years
ago, only 4.2 percent of Los Angeles students were redesignated from English
learners to English fluent. For the next eight years, even with bilingual
education, that number grew until it doubled. Then Proposition 227 came
along. The increase simply continued thereafter.
In other words, the number of students the school system decided had become
fluent in English grew when California had bilingual education, and also
when California did not have bilingual education. Besides, factors other
than the end of bilingual education may account for the most recent
increase.
For instance, there is now better training for teachers who specialize in
teaching English learners, and the L.A. school district's goal to end social
promotion (the practice of advancing students to their age-appropriate grade
even if they fail courses) has meant an increased emphasis on basic skills
for all students whether English learners or native speakers.
Then there is the question of age and language acquisition: 78 percent of
the more than 30,000 students reclassified were enrolled in grades K-8. It's
a reminder that younger kids soak up a new language easily--a surprise for
no one except some bilingual education advocates who wrongly argue that
without bilingual education young kids will learn mere "playground English"
and not academic English. The testing suggests young kids are learning the
kind of English they need for school.
But it takes much longer for older kids to learn. One physiological study
suggests that at puberty the brain's neurons begin to fire in a way that
makes the acquisition of a new language more difficult. Which may explain
why only 702 Los Angeles high school seniors were reclassified as fluent in
English.
Teenagers need bilingual education so that while they struggle to master
English they can take mathematics, history and other subjects in their own
native language, and not fall behind. The concept is so obviously rational
that even Ron Unz himself conceded it to me in an e-mail around the time of
the Proposition 227 vote.
Lately, Unz has not been shy in reminding everyone that he was correct two
years ago when he predicted the end of bilingual education would not cause
catastrophic damage. But he has been awfully hesitant to remind everyone he
was also right when he agreed that high school students would continue to
need bilingual education.
Roger Hernández is a nationally syndicated columnist and Writer-in-
Residence at New Jersey Institute of Technology. He can be reached via email
at rogereh@prodigy.net. |