You can't recall children like so many bad tires Paul A. Garcia
Imagine telling students they cannot learn or understand scientific principles in their primary language. Imagine prohibiting students from using their native language in class to discuss mathematical concepts. Imagine preventing parents from helping their children with homework because they do not speak English. Absurd as this may sound, it is implied in the message widely distributed recently by the popular press (New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today) that California banned bilingual education in 1998. The truth is about 170,000 students, 11% of English learners in California public schools, filed waivers that specifically authorized instruction in their primary language in 2000. Preliminary evidence suggests students in bilingual classrooms achieved to the same degree, and in some cases better, than students with similar levels of English language proficiency, but who received instruction overwhelmingly in English. The sensational reports to the contrary are based on little or no analysis of test data, supported only with anecdotal comments and reported with no theoretical framework to substantiate data interpretation. Rush to judgment Instead, test scores of all English learners were aggregated with no determination of instructional program, English-language proficiency level, or years in the United States. The rush to pass judgment is an affront to the dedicated work of teachers, the diligence of students, and the active participation of parents in their children's education. Fresno Unified School District has the fourth largest population of English learners in California. Analysis of the SAT-9 standardized norm-referenced test results suggests students in bilingual classes for two consecutive years (post Proposition 227) outperformed students in structured English immersion classes in reading, language and mathematics in second through sixth grades. These same students also had higher test scores on the Spanish language achievement test (SABE/2) than the previous year in six of the 10 grade levels tested. In addition, students in both Fresno Unified's bilingual two-way immersion programs equaled or surpassed achievement levels of students in structured English immersion classes required by Proposition 227. Moreover, a growing number of students in bilingual classes are becoming literate in English and Spanish, as indicated by the number of students achieving the 50th percentile on SAT-9 and SABE/2. In 1999, 75 students met this criterion, compared to 95 students in 2000, an increase of 26%. It is too early to determine the factors that led to increased achievement levels among students in bilingual classes. Improved instruction, increased availability of Spanish-language curricular materials and California's class-size reduction program are all contributing factors. However, opponents of bilingual education quickly jumped to the conclusions reported in the media without considering the contribution of such factors as fluctuations in student populations from the previous year. The two-year comparison of SAT-9 scores was not reported for the same students. In fact, there was an 8% increase in the number of English learners in California tested in 2000. Nonetheless, opponents argued that since Proposition 227, English learners increased English language skills as indicated by SAT-9 results. Yet SAT-9 is an achievement test, not a language-assessment instrument. It is designed to measure academic skills and knowledge in content areas. Confusing academic achievement tests and language proficiency assessments contributes to making faulty judgments about critical educational issues. Another serious mistake made by opponents was to narrowly define the goals of bilingual education as merely cognitive in nature. The master plan for English learners in Fresno Unified cites, among others, the goal to provide equal opportunity for academic achievement and promote positive self-concept and cross-cultural understanding. Indeed, researchers have consistently found bilingual, two-way immersion programs to increase positive cross-cultural attitudes. More disturbing has been the weakly presented and largely exaggerated claims to support the pundits' personal political viewpoints. Robert Samuelson argues in Newsweek (Sept. 4) that bilingual education victimizes immigrants much as the culture of poverty made victims of the poor. The business model George Will (Bee column Aug. 31) touted improved test scores among English learners to proclaim Proposition 227 and school choice as effective educational reform initiatives. Both writers suggest if we treat schools like corporations our students would be more successful. Samuelson blames governmental interference for restricting individual initiative (learning English). He considers having a second language a deficiency. Will wants more consumer choice and competition among schools. Yet charter schools have successfully provided parents an alternative and all parents must exercise parental choice for an alternative program before their child is placed in a bilingual classroom. To define educational reform in terms more appropriate to the corporate world, is to equate learning to an assembly line. One size fits all. However, our children are not products like so many Firestone tires that can be recalled. Paul A. Garcia is an administrative analyst for the Fresno Unified School District. |