Roundtable: The future of bilingual education

Everybody wants students to learn English as quickly as possible.

But educators part ways when it comes to teaching methodologies and approaches to reach that goal.

A state initiative on the June ballot would drastically curtail or eliminate bilingual and second-language programs in districts throughout California, including Newport-Mesa.

Though bilingual education has not been a high-priority issue in Newport-Mesa recently, trustees, parents, teachers and administrators agree that the district needs to analyze how programs for second-language learners are working.

Data from March 1997 shows that 5,400 students in Newport-Mesa are classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). Many are concentrated in the heavily Hispanic west side of Costa Mesa.

Whittier Elementary had 700 LEP students last year, Pomona Elementary had 600 and Wilson Elementary had 500.

The Breeze interviewed five individuals who have different opinions on bilingual education: Board members Martha Fluor and Wendy Leece, district special projects director Rose Marie Bodrogi, parent Eva Marin and fourth-grade teacher Margaret Anderson.

Q: Do you support or oppose bilingual education in Newport-Mesa?

Fluor: I support bilingual education because in general all children should learn two languages. I support any type of program that supports students as they transition into English.

Leece: We may have a good program, but we haven’t gone out of the way to see if we can do better to move kids faster through hurdles that they have to go through to get into regular English classes.

Anderson: You can have research on both sides to justify your point of view. I teach all in English, but it’s at a pace that is comprehensible. It takes days or weeks just to get newcombers to speak to me in Spanish because of the culture shock.

Bodrogi: The philosophy of the district is that we want students to be functioning at a level of achievement. We do this by providing specially designed instruction. That instruction might include primary language support, as well as English Language Development (ELD) every day of the week.

Marin: It’s important for kids to learn English, because it gets them ready for what they’ll face when they have to do reports in high school. I do consider having two languages important, but English is what they should be taught in.

Question: What’s your position on the “English for the Children” ballot initiative?

Anderson: I’m against it. It’s badly written. I understand the idea of wanting to push more English. The expectations of learning English in one year are unrealistic.

Marin: I would support it. My personal opinion is that English should be taught immediately. Even though they might be speaking Spanish, kindergardners can go to English-speaking classes.

Fluor: It takes away all flexibility for a district. It boils down to local control, that the state knows best. The bottom line is that we can’t meet the needs of the community and the district by saying it’s this way and the only way.

Leece: It may not be the best solution, but it’s better than what we have now. It’s not a perfect initiative, but we don’t live in a perfect world. It’s a start in the right direction.

Bodrogi: We’re taking a wait and see approach. It’s understandable that there are some concerns about some students being in the program too long. But it takes five to seven years to learn a language. We’re expecting them to learn in one or two years.

Q: If the initiative passes, what impact would it have in the classroom?

Anderson: It depends on how strictly it’s enforced. In my heart, I want to do what’s best for students, not what’s best for popular opinion.

Marin: I do consider having two languages important. Is it going to get to the point where they ban teachers from speaking Spanish? If the teachers are bilingual, they can tutor students.

Leece: The worse case scenario is that it will be tied up in the courts. If we really want to have better programs, it’s best to do it locally, like they did with waivers in Westminister and Orange.

Fluor: What will change is less tolerance. It’s intimidating.

Someone could walk into the district and file a complaint. You’re taking away all the options parents now have.

Bodrogi: We’d evaluate what we’re doing, and get staff input. It would depend on the community, student needs, and the feeling of the board. We’ll do what’s best for the child.



Comments are closed.