Bilingual Ed Takes a Hit Editorial
Ken Noonan, a California public school principal, has an interesting story to tell. It begins: I was wrong. Noonan, whose story was related in The New York Times on Sunday, spent many years as a leading proponent of bilingual education. That's a way of educating students who enter school not knowing the English language. The theory is that these students can learn best by taking their math, science, history and other subjects in their native tongue. Over time, they make a gradual transition into English, partly as a result of studying it on the side as a second language. Or so the theory goes. So enamored of bilingual education was Noonan that, 30 years ago, he founded the California Association of Bilingual Educators. In the 1990s, when opponents of bilingual education proposed a ballot initiative to discontinue its use, he was one of the leaders in the fight to preserve the status quo. "I thought it would hurt kids," he said of the ballot initiative. But the initiative passed. In effect, students who don't speak English are required to plunge in and do their best. In the two years since the initiative took effect, test scores in the target group have risen sharply. Kids are learning English. And Noonan, who predicted that children would be hurt, now says: "The exact reverse occurred, totally unexpected." He said children are learning formal and written English "far more quickly than I ever thought they would." Research, he said, says it takes seven years for students to learn English. In practice, they showed considerable progress in 9 to 12 months. The Times, in its story about the higher test scores, noted that some educators are still reserving judgment. For one thing, it's uncertain how many schools made a complete break from bilingualism. Other improvements, including a reduction in class sizes, may account for some of the progress. And the overall scores, even though they rose, are still embarrassingly low. >From the experience of Noonan and others in California, however, it's possible to draw a few conclusions about the way society educates its children: Too often the educational establishment trusts in theories, such as the theory Noonan thought justified giving students seven years to learn English, when common sense cries out for more documentation. No one knows how much damage has been done by the various new maths and watered-down histories that have come along over the years in the name of making education more "progressive." One of the worst ways to harm children is to expect too little of them. That bores them and teaches that school is of little consequence. These feelings are compounded by artificial esteem-boosting, such as the praise of accomplishments that aren't really accomplishments. This makes them feel sheepish. Challenging them with real work makes them feel the pride that can come only from growing, stretching, maturing and mastering a difficult task. Immigrants, for the most part, want to learn English. Critics who accuse them of the contrary are generally basing their opinions on assumed or incomplete information. Bilingual education, The Times said, took root because of strong support in Congress. Extra money was provided for bilingual programs, following the idea that government knows best. Of course, government doesn't always know best. Just ask the founder of the California Association of Bilingual Educators. He has a story that's worth listening to in any other place where bilingual education is producing less-than-satisfactory results. |