Time has come to reform bilingual education program
I have filed legislation that will reform bilingual education in Massachusetts because statistic after statistic, fact after fact, has clearly demonstrated the inability of our current system to meet the needs of todays students. Our reliance on the current format is a mistake of epic proportions and we, as a government and as a society, have an obligation to correct a system that has done such a grave disservice to the very students it was intended to help. By secluding students for four, five, six and even seven years away from mainstream classes, the bilingual system has prevented these kids from access to the English language. In fact, today's bilingual students graduate to mainstream English classes at a dismal 10 percent annual rate, which equals a 90 percent failure rate. Contrary to bilingual advocates who gaze upon English as a privilege, I consider it a right that minority and immigrant children deserve, and we must guarantee this right as quickly and effectively as possible. The problem is quite simple: Our students are not learning English because they are not being taught in English. Dating back to the program's inception, the purpose of bilingual education has unequivocally been to teach children English using their native tongue only for instructional purposes. This idea has evolved into a system in which bilingual education teachers are not required to be fluent in English- and in which many teach only in native languages. Unbelievably, these children are no longer afforded their right to learn English and ultimately graduate to mainstream classes. Only by requiring certification and fluency in the English language can we guarantee the same opportunities as regular education students. With more than 45,000 bilingual education students in the state-- an increase of 10,000 in 10 years- we are compelled to reform this process now, before we are faced with a rising population of students who are unnecessarily retained. My bill will eliminate the current three-year enrollment structure and replace it with a one-year structured immersion program in which students are taught in an intensive learning environment. Parents can likewise seek a waiver to either advance their child more quickly or retain their students for additional bilingual education. I consider the current system to be more anti-immigrant and anti-minority than any other educational infrastructure we have in place now. The continued defense of a 28-year-old program that has yielded such abysmal failure is, in my view, an exceptional mistake. When 58 percent of our eligible limited English proficient'' third-graders are excused from taking the Iowa Reading Test by their own teachers (up from 42 percent the previous year) because of their inability to understand the English language, we know that a serious problem exists. This year's MCAS testing results, as well as last year's, paint a clear picture of a student population that is grossly underserved by the current format: 48 percent of limited English proficient eighth-grade students failed English language arts, 76 percent failed mathematics, 81 percent failed science and technology, and 84 percent failed history. Conversely, students who were limited English proficient in California and transferred to structured immersion classes scored 20 percent, 50 percent and sometimes 100 percent higher than their peers who remained in bilingual education classes. Massachusetts students have the chance to experience these same successes, and to develop and comprehend the English language faster and with more effectiveness than ever before in the program's history. With more than 100 different language backgrounds across the state, Spanish-speaking students comprise the highest percentage of students who receive some form of transitional bilingual education. However, these same students have the lowest test scores, the highest dropout rate, and the lowest college admission rate. If we fail to address this most obvious of problems, we are dooming these kids to failure. Why anyone would fight to keep our system stagnant and work to retain our students in a seemingly endless cycle of failure and segregation is beyond reason. Legislators, community leaders and parents are fortunate to have a working example in California of how our system could succeed if we focused on teaching students English. The success of California's effort has come because it adopted a proven method of teaching the English language: structured immersion. This format requires that a student be taught only in English for one full year, with their native language used rarely for instructional purposes, after which they can immediately graduate to mainstream classes or be retained, at the parent's request, for further instruction. And while almost every European country requires structured immersion for their bilingual education students, the results here in the U.S. have been remarkable. >From 1998 to 2000, California English learners in the elementary grades most affected by the changed curriculum (Grades 2 through 6) raised their scores by 35 percent in reading, 43 percent in mathematics, 32 percent in language and 44 percent in spelling, with an average increase of 39 percent across all subjects. The school districts that sought waivers from the new regulations saw their collective scores actually go down from previous years. The citizens of California decided to make a widespread change because they were addressing a widespread problem. With similar efforts being made in Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado and New York, the move to reform bilingual education continues to grow. It is now time that parents here start demanding the most effective education possible for their children, and time for legislators to make the necessary changes to ensure it. State Sen. Guy W. Glodis, D-Worcester, represents the 2nd Worcester District. |