|
Not a civil right Charles L. King
The DPS is about to settle its differences with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights over operation of its bilingual education programs. Roger Rice, identified by The Post as "an attorney familiar with the agreement," says that will allow DPS to "mainstream" students "whenever they are demonstrably proficient in English." But how long should it take for a 5- or 6-year-old child with limited English to become "proficient" in English at his or her grade level? Most of the 14,000 bilingual students in DPS schools speak little or no English. Had any of those now in second grade or higher been immersed in English in first grade, as is being done in California since passage last year of Proposition 227, most would now be speaking English acceptably and moving ahead in mainstream classes. That immigrants be taught in their native language at taxpayers' expense is not, despite the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, a civil right. All the law requires is that "some help" be given these children - not help in their native language, but help in learning English. Teaching such children their native language at an optimal age for learning a second language, which they desperately need, inevitably retards their development in both languages. The high dropout rate of Hispanics from high school is convincing evidence of the failure of Denver bilingual programs. Cutting "maintenance" bilingual programs to three-year "transitional" programs, as DPS has attempted, is no solution. The problem will be solved only when children are taught in English. Americans have no obligation to educate immigrant children in their native language any more than the French would feel obligated to educate your children in English at their expense should you move to France. CHARLES L. KING The writer is a Spanish professor emeritus at CU-Boulder and former editor of The Modern Language Journal, which reports on language-teaching methodology and research. |