Calif. shows bilingual ed fails
John Silber
Prior to November 1998, and the passage of Proposition 227, California was deeply committed to bilingual education. Children who did not speak English were taught in their native language. Proposition 227, by requiring that children be taught primarily in English, essentially abolished bilingual education. Proposition 227 was fiercely opposed as wrong-headed, even racist, and there were statewide protests against it even after it passed. Many school districts took advantage of every possible loophole to undermine the law, including encouraging parents to apply for waivers for their children. A notable exception was the Oceanside Unified School District near San Diego. Although Superintendent Ken Noonan was of Hispanic descent and had been a founder of the California Association of Bilingual Educators, he played it straight. Oceanside followed Proposition 227 faithfully and began to teach all its children in English. One year later, his stand was seen to be not merely honest and courageous, but in the best interests of the children. After seven months of English immersion classes, students with limited English proficiency took an annual standardized test. The results confirmed the wisdom of Proposition 227: These students doubled their scores in mathematics and tripled them in reading. Oceanside parents and children are fortunate to have an educator of Noonan's character. Last month test results showed that Oceanside was no aberration. Two years after the passage of Proposition 227, test scores of limited English proficiency students had improved significantly across the state. These students' average reading score had jumped from the 19th percentile to the 28th, and their average mathematics score from the 27th to the 41st. Predictably, the scores in Oceanside were among the most impressive. Over two years, the reading scores jumped from the 13th percentile to the 32nd. And as The New York Times reports, in the demographically similar but foot-dragging Vista district, where half the limited English proficiency students were granted waivers, the scores were half those in Oceanside. The negative correlation between bilingual education and performance appears to be 100 percent. California's results make it clear that bilingual education is educationally bankrupt. Any school district that continues bilingual education knowingly confines children in the prison of English illiteracy. This is bankrupt not merely intellectually, but morally. The clear proof of the California experience demolishes the rationale of bilingual education. No school district should continue to persecute children with this exploded superstition. Wherever bilingual education survives, parents should demand its replacement by immersion. And if they do not get satisfaction from the school authorities, they should turn to the politicians or the courts. Bilingual education denies equal opportunity and hence equal protection under the law. Up until this year, it was possible to believe that the proponents of bilingual education, although misguided, were acting in good faith. But no longer. The proponents of bilingual education are reduced to defending professional self-interest and misguided ethnic pride at the cost of denying children their birthright of education. They must not be allowed to get away with it. John Silber is chancellor of Boston University. |