Sent to the Washington Post,
29 Oct
2006:
To the Editor:
Why are federal officials pressing Virginia schools to test English language
learners in the same way they test fluent English speakers? [Metro, October 29].
Assessments with a built-in language barrier are simply not valid for measuring
what these students have learned. Nobody, including the U.S. Department of
Education, seriously claims otherwise.
Mandating meaningless tests will only serve to frustrate children, demoralize
their teachers, and unfairly brand their schools as “failing.”
If the No Child Left Behind Act is intended to improve public schools, how does
the Bush Administration foster that goal by requiring tests that generate
misinformation about student achievement? If the purpose is to discredit public
schools and make way for privatization schemes, then the federal action makes a
lot more sense.
James Crawford, President
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Houston Chronicle, October
27, 2006:
English Learners and TAKS
I have no involvement in the current trial in which the Texas Education Agency
is accursed of neglect of limited English proficient children (“Limited-English
students trial halted,” October 26), but on reading the report in the
Chronicle, something struck me as wrong: The article gives the impression that
the case rests mainly on the fact that English learners do worse than other
students on TAKS. But English learners are supposed to do worse on tests like
TAKS. In fact, according to the TEA, when they can pass the TAKS reading test,
they are typically no longer classified as limited in English. Also, students
with low English proficiency enter the school system all the time, so TAKS
scores for English learners must remain low.
It took me only ten minutes to get more detail on the case from the internet,
and I learned that the accusations of neglect are also based on valid criteria,
such as dropout and retention rates and the failure of TEA to monitor programs.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Daily Breeze (Torrance,
CA), Oct 21, 2006:
(Similar version sent to Whittier Daily News)
Bilingual education: Consider all the data
A high percentage of 5 to 17 year olds from Spanish-speaking households in
California say they speak fluent English. Tom Elias thinks this “confirms
(the) success of English immersion” (October 19). It doesn’t. First, less
than half of Spanish speaking children in California were ever limited in
English, and of these, only half were in bilingual programs before Prop 227
passed. Second, scientific studies show that students in bilingual education
typically do better in English than those in “immersion.” Third, research has
also shown that dropping bilingual education did not improve English language
proficiency for English learners in California. Elias should consider all the
data before coming to conclusions.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Published in the Boston Globe, October
19, 2006:
PETER SKERRY ("Immigration realities,"
op-ed, Oct. 15) says we should end ``the arguments over bilingual education . .
. and get serious about making sure immigrants learn English." Agreed. The best
way to end the arguments is to embrace bilingual education.
There is a consensus among researchers that bilingual programs significantly
accelerate English language development. Studies show that English learners in
bilingual programs typically outperform similar students in all-English programs
on tests of English reading. A number of analyses also show that dropping
bilingual education did not increase achievement in Massachusetts, Arizona, or
California.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Los Angeles
The writer is on the board of the Institute for Language and Education Policy in
Takoma Park, Md
Published in the Arizona Republic Oct, 25, 3006:
Horne's policies hurting immigrants
The Republic rightly characterized the Legislature's anti-immigrant Propositions
100, 102 and 300 as failing "to provide a meaningful response to the problem of
illegal immigration" (Editorial, Oct. 11).
The Republic also recommended a "no" vote on Proposition 103, the "official
English" initiative (Editorial, Oct. 10).
"The state legislator who cited a rights-abusing 1950s deportation scheme as a
solution to today's illegal immigration problems," The Republic noted, "is also
the moving force behind (Proposition 103)."
But The Republic failed to note the veiled nativism of incumbent Superintendent
of Public Instruction Tom Horne.
Acting against the good advice of our best teachers and educational researchers,
Horne has significantly decreased training requirements for teachers responsible
for English-learners, now about one-fifth of previous standards.
And he has implemented an inflexible English-only education policy, reflecting a
dismal success rate of only 11 percent, according to statewide data.
Meaningful solutions are needed to fix our broken immigration policy.
But no such solutions will be found in policies seemingly designed to hurt
immigrants and their families.
Jeff MacSwan,
Chandler
The writer is an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton College of
Education at Arizona State University
Sent to the Boston Globe, October 15,
2006:
Peter Skerry (“Immigration
realities,” October 15) says we should “… (end) the arguments over bilingual
education … and get serious about making sure immigrants learn English.” Agreed.
The best way to end the arguments is to embrace bilingual education. Nearly
everyone who has examined the professional scientific research has concluded
that bilingual programs significantly accelerate English language development,
and that dropping bilingual education did not increase achievement in
Massachusetts, Arizona or California.
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Published in the Los Angeles Daily News,
September 22, 2006:
Re: "Lawmakers block efforts to help kids" (Sept.16)
Research in first- and second-language acquisition has shown us that we acquire
language when we understand what we hear and read, not when we don't. If Senate
Bill 1769 is not passed, English learners will be forced to sit through several
hours a day of incomprehensible instruction. This is a waste of time and money -
and a cause of needless frustration for children eager to learn English.
- Stephen Krashen
Los Angeles
Sent to the New York Times,
September 15, 2006
Re: More Time Given for
Grading Schools, September 14, 2006
The Education Department will allow schools to excuse children learning English
from taking reading/language arts tests if they have been in the US for 12
months or less.
Why not 15 months, 18 months, or 36 months? The federal decision is entirely
arbitrary, with no basis in research.
We know, from study after study, that one year is nowhere near enough time to
acquire enough English to have a meaningful score on tests designed for fluent
English speakers. For example, in California, after two years of immersion,
fewer than 3% of English learners were reclassified as fluent. After one year of
immersion in Massachusetts, fewer than 10% reached the level where they were
even eligible for regular instruction.
Allowing only one year before testing is an enormous waste of time and money,
and needless frustration for children eager to learn English. Policy should be
based on real data, not imagination.
James Crawford
Director, Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
Member, Board of Directors, Institute for Language and
Education Policy
Published in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, September 7,
2006
Immigrants know English important
The article about waiting lists for English-as-a-second-language classes ("Many
strive to learn it, but bilingualism grows," ajc.com, Sept. 4) provides strong
evidence for the proposition that immigrants are highly motivated to learn our
language. They don't need lectures from politicians or anyone else about the
importance of English in the United States.
There's no justification for coercive, "English-only" legislation, now pending
on Capitol Hill, which would restrict government's ability to use other
languages to provide essential services. Instead, Congress should be expanding
opportunities to learn English with adequate funding for ESL classes.
JAMES CRAWFORD and STEPHEN KRASHEN
Crawford, who lives in Takoma Park, Md., is director of the Institute for
Language and Education Policy. Krashen, who lives in Los Angeles, is on the
institute's board of directors.
Published in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, September 7,
2006:
Immigrants know English important The article about waiting lists for
English-as-a-second-language classes ("Many
strive to learn it, but bilingualism grows," ajc.com, Sept. 4) provides
strong evidence for the proposition that immigrants are highly motivated to
learn our language. They don't need lectures from politicians or anyone else
about the importance of English in the United States.
There's no justification for coercive, "English-only" legislation, now pending
on Capitol Hill, which would restrict government's ability to use other
languages to provide essential services. Instead, Congress should be expanding
opportunities to learn English with adequate funding for ESL classes.
JAMES CRAWFORD and STEPHEN KRASHEN Crawford, who lives in Takoma Park, Md., is
director of the Institute for Language and Education Policy. Krashen, who lives
in Los Angeles, is on the institute's board of directors.
Sent to the Los Angeles Times, August 30, 2006:
The LA Times editorial staff (“Forgetting
the bilingual lesson,” August 29) thinks that forcing English learners to
sit through several hours a day of incomprehensible instruction is a good idea.
It is a terrible idea. The last three decades of research in first and second
language acquisition have shown us that we acquire language when we understand
what we hear and read, not when we don't.
Stephen Krashen, PhD
Member, Board of Directors, Institute for Language and
Education Policy
Sent to the Whittier Daily News, August 22, 2006:
Governor Schwarzenegger opposes “separate
curricula and textbooks” for English learners, because he “learned English
by immersion.” Not so. In a speech delivered in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger said
that after coming to the US, he did not rely only on “immersion” but took a
course in English as a second language (ESL). Then he took “another, then
another, and another” until he knew enough English to take regular English
courses.
This is not immersion. ESL classes have “separate curricula and textbooks.”
The Governor did not begin with regular English classes, but insists that
English learners today do so.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Los Angeles Times, August 18, 2006:
Ana Gamiz (“Phony arguments in an education debate,” letters, August 18) thinks
that “teaching students English in English does not need to be debated.” Yes it
does. And the winner of the debate is consistently bilingual education, a method
that uses the child’s first language to accelerate English language development.
Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the research has concluded that children
in bilingual programs acquire more English than those in all-English programs,
and every scientific analysis has shown that dropping bilingual education in
California did not improve English language development for English learners.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Guardian, August 11, 2006:
Did Arnold kearn English by immersion? (no)
Arnold Schwarzenegger claims that he learned English “by immersion, (taking)
every opportunity to spend time with friends who spoke English and practice
English all the time.” (“English
classes for Hispanic students branded as 'return to segregation',” August
11)
This is not quite accurate.
In a speech delivered in 2005, Schwarzenegger said that soon after he came to
the US (in 1968), he took a number of classes in English as a second language at
Santa Monica Community College, and he described the classes as excellent. He
also had the advantage of a basic education in Austria, in his first language.
The ESL classes, his education, and his real-world experiences helped him
understand his English-speaking friends and take advantage of “immersion.”
Bilingual programs provide the same advantages to children: Classes in English
as a second language and academic knowledge gained through the first language
help make instruction delivered in English much more comprehensible.
This explains why research consistently shows bilingual education to be more
effective than English-only approaches in helping children acquire English. The
same principles explain why Gov. Schwarzenegger acquired English so rapidly and
so well
Stephen Krashen
Published in the North County Times, August 6, 2006:
Trust teachers, not exit exams
English learners don't do well on the state high school leaving exam ("Most
OUSD exit exam failures are English learners," Aug. 2). The Oceanside
district thinks that the cure is more tutoring and test preparation.
Some members of an advocates for English learners organization think that the test should be offered in Spanish, and wonder whether the students were taking the right classes. The California Department of Education suggests more education.
None of these suggestions questions the value of having a state high school exam. There is no scientific evidence that students' interests are served by a standardized high school leaving exam.
The presence of such an exam is simply a statement that we trust distant test item writers more than we trust professional teachers who work with students every day.
One Oceanside official said that the exam helps the district
get a clearer idea of how many English learners need help. A district that needs
an exam to do this isn't consulting with its own teachers.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
For related discussion, please see: Exit Exam Debate Heats Up, Again--ETS Contract in the Background, Jo Scott-Coe, at http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=6376
Published inTucson Citizen August 1, 2006:
In response to the July 27 guest column, "Lost
in translation: Teddy Roosevelt had it right."
My Father Who Votes in Spanish
From New Mexico, Arizona and California, the family came together this past
February to celebrate my father's ninetieth birthday. My wife and I rented a
van, packed up the "kids" (now in their thirties) and drove out of Tucson,
heading west on Interstate 10. It had been raining in Los Angeles for several
days and I knew that the freeway traffic would be an even bigger mess than
usual. Thankfully my middle sister Corina, a school administrator from Las
Cruces, had planned all the events. The highlight would be a day spent at the
horses.
Yep, my dad's a gambler. Fortunately, my mother handles the money, so he has to
settle for making a limited number of two-dollar bets. With an uncanny knack for
picking winners, he loves telling stories about the ones that got away: "I
picked a winner-number 6 in the fifth-but the ticket seller gave me number 5 in
the sixth-¡Qué chihuahua!" Then he'll shake his head and laugh at what might
have been.
I, too, wonder about what might have been if my father hadn't moved the family
from Ciudad Juárez to Los Angeles in 1955. He was 39 at the time, a laborer with
wife and four children, a third-grade education, and no English. North of the
Rio Grande, the economy was booming and California, in particular, needed
workers. What my father offered America then is the same thing that Mexican
immigrants offer America today: a strong work ethic. In that America, the one he
gambled on, it was enough to win him legal residency.
The 1950s were not any sort of a Golden Age, particularly if you happened to
have dark skin. The nation was terrorized then, too, by the threat of nuclear
destruction, and then-as now-some politicians sought to use that fear to their
advantage. But perhaps because we had just won an honest war in defense of
freedom, we did not seem as shameless about our fear. We had a confidence about
the future that today is almost unimaginable, an optimism that my father shared
and which allowed him to spend the next thirty years of his life working in a
furniture factory.
I have vague memories of my father going to night school to learn English, a few
flakes of sawdust still stuck to his clothes. Though he never mastered
pronunciation (which may explain a ticket-seller's confusion), at some point
before retiring his English had improved to the point that he passed the
citizenship test.
Today, although he reads the Los Angeles Times faithfully and can tell you which
jockeys are on a hot streak, his first language remains and always will be
Spanish. Since becoming a citizen, my father has voted in every election, using
a Spanish ballot. To some people, that means that he is less than a true
American, and they would like to force him to vote in English "for his own
good."
As proud as my father is of his Mexican heritage, he is more American than those
who criticize his use of a Spanish ballot could ever hope to be. My father cares
enough about understanding complex ballot issues and voter initiatives to use
his strongest language in making such decisions. (We can only wish that more
native English speakers cared as much.) He understands the power of English. He
learned as much English as he could and made sure that his children-who all went
on to college-did, too. But at the ballot box, he believes he owes his adopted
country the best decision he can make. That means he must vote in Spanish.
The rain stopped just as we arrived at the Santa Anita Racetrack. Though I had
grown up in Los Angeles, I'd never been to the track and was astonished at the
beautiful setting. With the Los Angeles National Forest serving as a backdrop
and low clouds hovering among the mountain peaks, the proud thoroughbreds
strutted amid shafts of bright sunlight, their athletic power rippling beneath
shinny coats.
Sure enough, my dad won a hundred dollars. That evening we enjoyed a wonderful
dinner together, though by the time dessert was served, my father looked a
little tired. We ended with a toast to his health and the good fortune he had
brought the family. The good fortune he brought to America was left unspoken.
[728 words]
Sal Gabaldon, Oro Valley, AZ
Sent to the Arizona Daily Star, July 29, 2006:
Tom Horne's comments about the success of English learners (ELLs) in Nogales and
Sunnyside ("U.S. study: Learners of English left behind," July
27) expose a strange contradiction in his administration's testing policies.
ELLs annually must take a relatively easy fluency test. Only students who fail
remain as ELLs, a designation that indicates they're not yet proficient in
English and which allows their schools to qualify for extra funding. The AIMS
test is much more difficult than the fluency test.
How is it then that in some schools 20 to 80 percent of ELLs (students who
aren't fluent in English) are passing the AIMS test? Either there is something
wrong with the tests or students are being allowed to qualify for extra funding
long after they should have been removed from ELL designation.
Judging by the fishy smell, the extra rain Arizona has enjoyed this summer must
have left a few rotting fish at the Arizona Department of Education.
(158 words)
Salvador Gabaldón
Oro Valley, AZ
Sent to the Austin-American Statesman, July 28, 2006:
Support, don’t exhort.
R.H. Goodrich (letters, July 28) thinks that the American-Statesman should
“exhort” those here illegally to learn English. Both legal and illegal
immigrants are highly motivated to learn English and have been quite successful.
According to the 2000 census, only 1.3 percent of the US population does not
speak English, about one-third the rate of a century ago, and there are long
waiting lists to get into English-as-a-second-language classes. We don’t need
to “exhort” immigrants to learn English. We need to increase funding for ESL
classes.
James Crawford
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
PO Box 5960, Takoma Park, MD 20913
Published in the Sacramento Bee, July 24, 2006:
Make it comprehensible
Re "Best way to
teach English argued," July 19: Contrary to Marion Joseph's statements,
there is no research showing that giving English learners the same curriculum as
native speakers is a good idea. In fact, the research shows the opposite:
Instruction must be comprehensible, or it is useless.
Insisting that English learners sit through two hours a day of incomprehensible
instruction is a waste of money, a waste of time and inflicts needless suffering
on the children. And of course it also makes it much more difficult to teach the
English speakers in the class.
In this day and age of accountability, it seems as though quick fixes and
cure-all programs have to be put aside.
- Shannan Brown, Sacramento
Published in the Sacramento Bee, July 24, 2006:
Re "Best way to
teach English argued," Language diversity is a gift to us As an instructor
of Business English, I'm called in by corporations, cities and counties to teach
employees English writing skills. Because Sacramento is diverse, many in its
workforce are not native English speakers. In their language struggles,
employees have confided that taking ESL or English courses at junior colleges is
not helpful.
When asked if they are literate in their native languages, most admit they have
had no training in reading and writing it. Translation is often difficult, if
not impossible, as with slang. I urge them to educate themselves through classes
or self-instruction to master their native languages. English will come more
rapidly, and they will be more valuable as employees.
"All children should be taught English the same way" represents only one-half of
the educational possibilities. If non-English speakers were taught from
kindergarten to read and write in, say, Spanish as well as English, they would
be able to translate English much faster. If native English speakers took the
same classes, think of the benefit to the entire community. Yes, keep English as
our official language, but I urge policy makers to stop fighting language
diversity and recognize it as the gift to communication it is.
- Anne Peasley, Auburn
Sent to the Austin-American Statesman, July 24, 2006:
Contrary to statements in “The
king's English won't rule forever,”(July 24), a British Council report did
not predict a decline in “the global usage of English” or in the number of
people in the world who can speak English. It predicted that the number of
English learners will decline, because English is becoming a second language in
primary schools world-wide, and English use is increasing so rapidly.
I agree that Americans should take second language acquisition more seriously.
In fact, I have written papers and books on the advantages of bilingualism. But
English is clearly getting stronger. For example, in 1977, 83% of scientific
papers cited in the Science Citation index were written in English. In 1997, 95%
were.
Over 150 years ago, John Lubbock wrote that English is spreading so rapidly that
it “bids fair to become the general language of the human race.” He may have
been right.
Stephen Krashen
British Council Report: Graddol, David, 2006. English Next.
British Council. Available at:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/brussels-learning-english-next.htm
Sent to the Editor of the Arizona Republic, July 24, 2006:
(in
Response to "English immersion is working here" by Johanna Haver 7/22/2006)
No Evidence that English Immersion is Working
Johanna Haver, in her baseless attack on Arizona State University professor Jeff
MacSwan and the College of Education as a whole, claims that "immersion
education is working in Arizona." Of course, she provides no evidence for this
claim. News reported recently in the Arizona Republic suggests otherwise. If
immersion education is truly working, then why is Tom Horne trying so hard to
continue hiding the low test scores of as many ELLs as possible? He knows these
scores would lead to an additional 100 schools being labeled as failing under
NCLB.
Serious academic research conducted by professor MacSwan, myself, and others
utilizing data obtained from the Arizona Department of Education, reveals that
ELLs are not learning English faster than they were before Proposition 203, and
that reading and math scores of ELLs on both the AIMS and SAT-9 declined
significantly between 2003 and 2004. Haver also claims the state is doing a
tremendous job in training teachers in how to make their instruction
comprehensible for ELLs. A survey I conducted of ELL teachers throughout the
state revealed that teachers do not understand how English immersion differs
from mainstream sink-or-swim instruction, because no one has been able to
explain it to them. Many teachers have been told they cannot use students'
native languages at all in the classroom, and teachers are deeply concerned that
the state's policies and the English immersion model is leaving ELLs behind (see
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n13). Haver can only make baseless claims because
there is no evidence that English immersion is truly working in Arizona.
Wayne E. Wright, PhD
Assistant Professor
College of Education and Human Development University of Texas, San Antonio
Co-Director, Language Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University
Author is a former resident of Mesa, Arizona. He completed is PhD in Educational
Leadership and Policy studies at Arizona State University in 2004. His
dissertation focused on language and education policies for ELLs in Arizona.
Published in the Mining Gazette, Michigan, July 22, 2006:
Small gains over time
To the editor:
Letter-writer Harley Sachs (“Language matters,” June 27) thinks that
Spanish-speaking immigrants today are not motivated to learn English and in the
1900s people “couldn’t wait to learn English.”
Here are the facts: According to the 2000 census, 1.8 percent of the population
cannot speak English. The percentage for Michigan is nearly identical to the
national percentage (1.4 percent).
In 1890, 3.6 percent of the U.S. population could not speak English. The census
data also shows that Spanish speakers speak English just as well as immigrants
who speak other languages.
Many immigrants who can’t speak English are new arrivals. Language acquisition
takes time.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Valley Chronicle (Hemet, California), July 22,
2006 :
Congressman Haynes (“Bilingual Blues,”
July 22) has been misinformed about bilingual education in California, the US,
and in other countries. Bilingual education is not a leftist plot, but is in the
best interests of all Americans.
• When bilingual programs are compared to all-English alternatives, children in bilingual programs typically acquire English better. Nearly every scholar who has reviewed the scientific research has come to this conclusion. The most recent analysis confirming the success of bilingual education was released this month, and was part of a report from the National Literacy Panel, funded by the US Department of Education.
• Similar to research results in the United States, studies show that children in bilingual programs in other countries acquire the language of the country at least as quickly as children in "immersion" programs and often acquire it faster.
• A recent and widely publicized report from the American Institutes for Research and West Ed found that dismantling bilingual education did not result in any improvement in the English language of minority children in California, confirming what previous studies have found.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Ventura County Star, July 20, 2006:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_4856114,00.html
Re: Bilingual debate costs education board (July 16)
Re: your July 16 article, "Bilingual
debate costs education board": Proponents of giving English learners the
same curriculum as native speakers apparently believe that forcing students to
sit through two hours a day of incomprehensible instruction is a good idea.
Professional educators call this "submersion," or "sink or swim." It is a
terrible idea, and study after study has shown that it doesn't work. We acquire
language when we understand what we hear and read, not when we don't.
— Stephen Krashen Professor emeritus, University of Southern California
Sent to the Ventura County Star, July 18, 2006:
Re: Bilingual
debate costs education board (July 16)
Proponents of giving English Learners the same curriculum as native speakers
apparently believe that forcing students to sit through two hours a day of
incomprehensible instruction is a good idea. Professional educators call this
“submersion,” or “sink or swim.” It is a terrible idea, and study after study
has shown that it doesn’t work. We acquire language when we understand what we
hear and read, not when we don’t.
Stephen Krashen
Sent to the Sacramento Bee: July 17, 2006:
Contrary to
Marion Joseph’s statements, there is no research showing that giving English
Learners the same curriculum as native speakers is a good idea. In fact, the
research shows the opposite: Instruction must be comprehensible, or it is
useless.
Insisting that English learners sit through two hours a day of incomprehensible
instruction is a waste of money, a waste of time, and inflicts needless
suffering on the children. And of course it will also makes it much more
difficult to teach the English speakers in the class.
In this day and age of accountability, it seems as though quick fixes and 'one
size fits' all approaches have to be put aside. Educational practices need to
meet the needs of individual students; let's get back to the basics of
good teaching for all kids.
Shannon Brown
Sacramento
Sent to US News and World Report, July 10, 2006:
Expand opportunities to learn English
Regarding “A Proud Immigrant's View,”
July 9
Does Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez truly believe that legislation is
needed to force immigrants to learn English? Nobody understands the importance
of English in this country better than those who face language barriers every
day.
If the Secretary doubts this, all he needs to do is visit an adult education
center in any American city. There he can learn about the long waiting lists to
get into English-as-a-second language classes because of inadequate funding.
Ironically, proposals in Congress to make English the official "national
language" do little to address this problem. The main thrust of these bills is
to restrict government's ability to provide information or services in other
languages.
Secretary Gutierrez might consider using his influence with fellow Republicans
to expand immigrants' opportunities to learn English rather than merely making
life difficult for those who are trying to do so.
James Crawford & Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
PO Box 5960, Takoma Park, MD 20913
Sent to the Arizona Republic July 7, 2006:
Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb thinks the state’s practice of
forbidding the use of children’s home language in the classroom, an
outgrowth of Proposition 203, is promising (“Lessons in language,” July 7).
“Voters deserve a good-faith effort to implement the policy they adopted,”
said Robb, “and thus far they have not gotten it.”
Actually, they have.
In fact, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne campaigned for
office on a promise to faithfully and vigorously implement a strongly
English-only interpretation of Proposition 203, and he has done so. As a
result, Arizona now has the most restrictionist English-only program in the
nation.
The Proposition 203 campaign promised voters that children would learn
English rapidly, generally within a year’s time, permitting them to enter
the mainstream classroom where they’d keep pace with other students.
But things didn’t turn out that way.
Indeed, a study by Arizona State University researchers, myself among them,
found the approach failed to achieve this proficiency goal for 89 percent of
English learners in the state’s 2003-2004 language proficiency testing data.
Moreover, the number of English learners who showed no growth in English
proficiency over the course of the year far exceeded the number of those who
did.
These are dramatically negative results for a program focused on rapid
acquisition of English.
Three comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence on the question of
how to best educate English learners have appeared in peer-reviewed journals
in recent years. Using a variety of methods, each review has found that
children taught using their native language as well as English have higher
academic achievement than those taught using English alone.
That’s because immigrant children in English-only programs can’t fully
understand what’s going on in the classroom until they’ve learned English
well. Using children’s native language to support the teaching of science,
social studies and other subjects helps them keep up during the time they’re
still learning English.
Another study, focused only on scientifically designed studies conducted in
Arizona and using meta-analysis -- a statistical approach to summarizing
research findings across multiple studies, widely used in medicine and other
fields -- reached the same conclusion.
And so did two recent reports of the National Research Council, formed
nearly a hundred years ago to advise the federal government on matters of
science and technology.
In other words, the strict English-only implementation of Proposition 203 we
now have under Superintendent Horne’s leadership -- an approach columnist
Robb sees as promising – is likely to lower children’s school achievement
relative to alternative methods, according to published scholarly research.
But rather than consult such sources, Robb seeks to squeeze bits and pieces
of evidence supporting his perspective out of two recent think tank reports
which have nothing to do with the question of language of instruction.
Robb and some members of the legislature base their commitment to
Proposition 203 on the fact that the law was passed by voters.
However, far too often forgotten, voters were additionally guaranteed that
parents could opt out of the English-only program by obtaining waivers.
“If a parental waiver has been granted,” the law states, “the affected child
shall be transferred to classes teaching English and other subjects through
bilingual education techniques.”
Rather than give schools the true range of options protected by the law,
Robb suggests that schools serving English learners should only receive
funding if they are “certified by the superintendent as being Proposition
203 compliant.”
And in the current political context, that means a continuation of the
one-sided, English-only interpretation of Proposition 203.
In other words, schools using the sort of programs which Robb and the
superintendent find politically appealing, but which are associated with
lower student academic achievement, will be rewarded by actually receiving
funding.
But schools which seek to use methods known to generally result in higher
academic achievement would be de-funded.
A perverse incentive system, if ever there was one, and one which would
certainly make our current ineffective and grim English learner policy even
less effectiveness and more grim.
--------------
Jeff MacSwan is associate professor of education in the Mary Lou Fulton
College of Education at Arizona State University. He is the author of
numerous scholarly articles on the education of English learners and a
2003-2004 fellow of the National Academy of Education.
Sent to the Arizona Republic reporter, July 7, 2006:
Dear Mr. Robb,
I read your analysis of the ThinkAZ report on ELL and then went to the Policy Brief itself. I am an expert in educating English Language Learners, and I can say without a doubt that both the ThinkAZ and your analysis of the test scores you looked at are dangerously misguided and misinformed. This is in part because you have made some erroneous assumptions. First, you assume that because a student is classified as ELL, it means that they are in some kind of a special program or are receiving special English instruction. The ThinkAZ presents no data to confirm this. In fact, in a study done by ASU researchers Wayne Wright and Terrance Wiley (see URL below), 83% of the teachers in their survey received no ESL or specialized English instruction. These researchers examined school districts with the highest concentration of ELL student populations in your state.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n13/v14n13.pdf
Second, you draw erroneous conclusions as to why test scores drop after three years of language learning, which the study mistakenly refers to “enrollment in an ELL program.” This is a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the nature of second language acquisition in academic contexts. Listening, speaking, reading and writing skills do not develop at the same rate. Listening and speaking skills grow rapidly when students begin to learn a new language, but reading and writing (which are academic skills) lag behind. This is because it is very difficult to learn to read and write in a language that a student does not speak fluently. In the early grades, tests of language proficiency and academic tests more closely parallel the oral language skills students have (therefore, even native English speakers do better on these tests). However, at fourth grade, more demands are placed on students’ literacy skills because the nature of their reading tasks change. Reading is more technical, content oriented, and complex and abstract in nature. This “fourth grade slump” for ELL does not mean that they are no longer benefiting from specialized instruction (in those rare cases where they are actually getting it). It means that they need a different focus in instruction, ideally from teachers who know how to address their language and content area learning and the gaps that have occurred as they have been focused on learning to read and write in their second-language. To cut off funding for specialized materials, teacher professional development, and other special services for ELL at this point is a huge mistake and completely counter-productive. This would only aggravate the academic deficits that ELL suffer as they move on into middle school and high school, and to eventual passage of the high school exit exam.
Third, your and the ThinkAZ’s comparisons between reclassified ELL or FEP students and currently classified ELL are misguided. These students are reclassified as FEP because they are scoring higher on standardized tests. They are not scoring higher on standardized tests because they are reclassified. It is important to understand cause and effect. The data from the study give no indication of how long these students took to become proficient. Many of them may have begun school already close to being fluent English speakers. Therefore, conclusions about how they show that it is important for students to learn English “quickly” are irrelevant. We know from millions of test scores around the country and in California in particular on the CELDT test that it takes an average of 6.7 years for ELL to go from initial classification as ELL to reclassification as FEP (and only 40% of them will be reclassified after 10 years in school). Some language groups have lower averages than others, but we know that this is associated with factors that have very little if any relationship with the type of instructional program they receive. In fact, the AIR/WestEd study released this year in CA indicates that students in bilingual programs make progress in English just as rapidly as students in English Only programs, with the added benefit of developing biliteracy and content-area knowledge in their native language.
It is also irresponsible to imply that school districts “game the system” to get more funding for these students when by federal law, these students are entitled to specialized services until they recoup any academic deficits they may incur while learning English. There is no magic formula for deciding when to reclassify a student as Fluent English Proficient. This determination must be made based on multiple measures of language proficiency, literacy skills and content knowledge in the best interests of the student, not based on some arbitrary timeline or accusations of malevolence or greed on the part of educators. For an analysis of this debate, see this URL.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/RedesignationDebate.htm
As you can see, Mr. Robb, the experts disagree with your policy recommendations and the conclusions of this study by the Arizona Center for Public Policy. It is indeed sad when policy institutes and journalists do not take the time to consult people who know what they are talking about based before running off and making sweeping and dangerously off-target policy recommendations. This is irresponsible and results in much greater harm than good and much wasted time, effort and resources that could otherwise be applied to meeting the challenges we face in providing better education for our language minority students.
Here are some additional sources you may want to consult from my academic website:
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/whatworksEL_files/frame.htm A description of the pitfalls for ELL in the K-12 system and the research base that indicates how these can be addressed.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/celdt04lao.htm
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/celdt.htm Discussion of the true meaning of CELDT results in CA and the policy implications.
Thank you for your attention.
Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Teacher Education, San Diego State University
Email: jmora@mail.sdsu.edu Website: http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora
Sent to the Star on July 7, 3006:
The Star's July 7 article ("Horne
sues feds on test scores") badly misleads the public on the issue of English
testing. While Arizona law does require testing in English, there's no
prohibition on testing in other languages.
In the first three years of learning English, students may be unable to give an
accurate indication of their reading, writing, math, and science skills on an
English test. However, once they have attempted to respond in English, the
students then may demonstrate their knowledge more accurately using a native
language version of the test. That's precisely why federal law permits the use
of native language testing in the first three years.
Is the falsehood about native language testing in Arizona a deliberate deception
from Horne's office, intended to promote English-only ideology at the expense of
students? Are Arizona tax dollars being wasted on yet another costly court case
in order to protect a policy that ultimately threatens to mislabel our schools
and deny them badly needed federal funds?
If so, then Arizona voters will have yet one more reason to hold Horne
accountable in November.
(183 words)
Salvador Gabaldón
Oro Valley, AZ
Sent to the Beacon Times (Illinois) July 1, 2006:
Congratulations to reporter Justina Wang and the Beacon Times for getting the
real story of immigrant English (“Immigrants flocking to English programs,” July
1). Contrary to popular opinion, immigrants are eager to take English classes,
and waiting lists are common. This is true in the Fox Valley and is also true
throughout the United States.
It is ironic that the proposals in Congress to make English the official
language of the US do not include additional support and funding for ESL
programs.
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Daily Mining
Gazette (Michigan), June 28, 2006:
Letter writer Harley Sachs (“Language matters,” June 27) thinks that
Spanish-speaking immigrants today are not motivated to learn English and in the
1900’s people “couldn’t wait to learn English.”
Here are the facts: According to the 2000 census, 1.8 percent of the population
cannot speak English. The percentage for Michigan is nearly identical to the
national percentage (1.4 percent). In 1890, 3.6 percent of the US population
could not speak English. The census data also shows that Spanish speakers speak
English just as well as immigrants who speak other languages.
Many immigrants who can’t speak English are new arrivals. Language acquisition
takes time.
Stephen Krashen
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Sent to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 12, 2006:
The Lexington Institute uses a familiar technique to distort the truth about
bilingual education (“To
make any language ‘official’, teach it well,” June 11). It "cherry
picks" raw test scores from individual schools and districts while ignoring
overall patterns.
In fact, scientific studies have
consistently shown that:
• Children in bilingual programs typically acquire English more rapidly --
and do better academically -- than those in all-English programs.
• In states that voted to restrict or eliminate bilingual education, children in all-English classrooms are taking far longer than “a year or two” to acquire the English they need to do academic work. • Bilingual programs do not isolate children from English. Basic instruction in English as a second language is provided from day one, and subject-matter teaching in English is introduced as soon as it can be made comprehensible.
Political debates about an official "national language"
should be kept out of our schools. In deciding what's best for kids, let's
rely on science -- not ideology.
James Crawford
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California
Sent to the New Straits Times, Malaysia, June 8, 2006:
Victor Chew (“Improve
the quality of teachers,” June 8) feels that the quality of English will
be improved if teacher quality is improved and if students use more English
outside of the classroom.
Research in language acquisition says that Mr. Chew is partly right: There
is overwhelming evidence that the most powerful means of developing high
levels of competence in a second or foreign language is massive recreational
reading. Those who read more for pleasure in English show superior
development of reading ability, writing ability, vocabulary, grammar, and
spelling. Recreational reading is the missing link, the way English learners
can move from the classroom to the real world.
The problem is that many children do not have access to interesting,
comprehensible reading material in English. The obvious solution is making
sure all schools have first-class libraries, and that all communities have
high quality public libraries.
Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Published in the Arizona Daily Star June 7, 2006: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132453
Published in the Arizona Daily Star June 7, 2006:
Sears wise to include Spanish
Jun. 7, 2006 12:00 AM
Regarding "Even Sears is speaking Spanish" (Letters, Friday):
I think the letter writer believes making English the official language means no
one can speak any other language while in the United States. Not true.
It simply means official communications (like voting and other official
government business) and instructions will be spoken or printed in English.
Sears has recognized that Spanish-speaking people are major customers, and it is
catering to these customers. It's their right as Americans.
Also, the letter writer should be reminded that Arizona used to be part of
Mexico. Many Spanish-speaking Arizona residents are related to those who were
Arizona natives prior to the state being acquired by the United States (and they
speak Spanish as well as English).
I guess that makes her an "immigrant" to Arizona.
The letter writer should count her blessings if the fact that a Sears
announcement spoken in Spanish is the biggest problem she had to worry about
that day.
It is not against the law for anyone, including Sears, to speak Spanish in the
presence of Anglos. - Elain Mendez, Snowflake
In response to the May 28 article "A dream deferred."
It pays to be multilingual, too
My grandparents lived in Douglas before Arizona was even a state. They spoke Spanish and, like most people who lived there, their main goal was to learn English. This is true today. I have never met a Mexican here in the United States who does not want to learn English.
We all agree on a common language, but I feel extremely lucky to be able to communicate in two languages. We only live a few hours away from the Mexican border. If we bordered other countries, you bet I would make an effort to learn those languages, too.
The letter writer says, "Many more people speak Chinese and Hindi than speak Spanish; perhaps we should learn those languages."
Yes, perhaps we should learn those languages, since the United States outsources our manufacturing to some of these countries. - Priscilla Chomina-Bottz, Tempe
Sent to the Washington Post, May 30, 2006:
Reporter Lori Aratani tells a poignant story about the plight of immigrant
children arriving here in their high-school years ("Older
Students Who Need Basics Pose Challenge," Metro, May 29). Those without much
education or literacy in their native tongue have a very hard time in American
classrooms.
Imagine trying to learn intellectually challenging material in a language you
don't understand, with teachers relying on "visual aids and hand motions [to]
pantomime eating, sleeping, and other activities." Not a great way to master
geometry or U.S. history, much less Shakespearean drama.??Now consider how
helpful it would be to instruct newcomer students in a language they do
understand, while they are learning English.
It would offer them at least a chance to acquire the advanced concepts they’ll need to graduate from high school. As research has shown, this is also a better way to acquire a second language. The more subject-matter knowledge students have, the more comprehensible English becomes.
There's a name for this approach: bilingual education.
Unfortunately, it's not among the options being discussed by Montgomery and Fairfax officials. Why not?
James Crawford
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Language 'violation' reveals intolerance
May. 31, 2006 12:00 AM
While reading Friday's Republic, my head had barely begun to nod in agreement
with the letter writer from Bisbee, questioning our waste of time on gay
marriage and Spanish. ("Is this what we pay them for?")
Within seconds, another reader writes of feeling "violated" because an
announcement was being made in Spanish over a store's PA system ("Even Sears is
speaking Spanish.") Oh, the horror!
I wasn't there, but I'd guess she was hearing the Spanish follow-up to a
previous English-language announcement. But did it ever occur to the "violated"
that perhaps something more important was going on? Maybe a lost child was
looking for her parents, or the message was tipping off bilingual security
guards to a problem in the store. Regardless, what's the problem?
Now, had this shopper been unable to get service in English, I would be right
there with her complaining to Sears. But that's not what happened, is it?
Oh, and please show me where your "rights as an American" include never having
to hear another language? I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.
Hide behind "patriotism" all you want, but let's be honest: At best, it's
intolerance; at worst, racism. - Dave Maddox, Phoenix
Published in the Arizona Republic, May 30, 2006
Fund proper English programs
Regarding "Leap of faith in Senate" (Editorial, Friday):
The idea that volunteering to teach English should be a program for changing
perceptions regarding illegal immigrants - a sort of
get-to-know-your-new-neighbors experience for English-speaking Americans - is
asinine.
Will The Arizona Republic voluntarily pay for advertisements for my business or
help me sell a car? Will SRP voluntarily pay my power bill?
Why doesn't the state hire several hundred teachers and pay them a good salary,
like $30,000 a year, and make teaching English to new immigrants a career for
some people?
The problem with this state, and why the federal government imposes fines, is
because the state and business community refuse to take the necessary steps to
properly fund education programs for English as a second language.
That means paying people to teach English. That's how everything else is done in
this country. - Thomas Plazibat, Tempe
Published in the Los Angeles Times May 29, 2006:
English as the national language
Re "American spoken here," Opinion, May
24, 2006
I had fun with my erstwhile colleague David Eggenschwiler's response to the
Senate's passage of a bill intended to establish English as the "national
language." Purify the language! George Bush as the Sun King! What a concept!
The joke turns a little sour, however, when we recall that Adolf Hitler resorted
to the same techniques with the German language to further his nationalistic
goals. A sober and timely reminder that it's but a short step from patriotism to
nationalism.
PETER CLOTHIER
Los Angeles
Sent to the New York Times, May 29, 2006
To the Editor:
For Edward Rothstein and others worried about “Babel’s
growing tower” in the U.S., we have two words of advice: study
history.
German Americans, from Colonial times until the early 20th
century, were far more aggressive, and more successful, in maintaining their
language and culture than any ethnic group today. Pursuit of Deutschtum (German
“identity politics”) was combined with loyalty to an American nation-state based
on democratic values.
Linguistic diversity is now on the increase, thanks to increasing numbers of
immigrants. But immigrants today are learning English – and sadly, losing their
native languages – more rapidly than ever before.
The 1890 census reported that 4.6 percent of New York State residents did
not speak English. The comparable figure in 2004 was 1.8 percent,
according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. These numbers
are about average for the nation as a whole. Babel’s tower is crumbling in
America, now more than ever.
James Crawford
Institute for Language and Education Policy
Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Note: We are both directors of the Institute for Language and Education Policy,
a newly formed nonprofit organization.
Sent to the Korea Times, May 26, 2006:
Is starting English early a good idea?
I wonder if those responsible for establishing the policy of starting English
early in Korea are aware of research in second language acquisition. (“Early
English Education Stirs Controversy,” May 26) One of the best-established
findings in the field is that older children acquire second languages more
quickly than younger children. Starting in grade three is more efficient than
starting in grade one.
Stephen Krashen
Published in USA Today (05/25/2006):
Speaking English
For 230 years, the USA has survived without an official language. Mastery of
proper English would surely enhance any immigrant's experience in our society,
but it should not be required.
In our great nation,
even an obtuse person with rudimentary English language skills can become
president.
Tim Pfeifer
Long Beach, Calif.
Published in USA
Today (05/25/2006):
By all means, let's enact a law that declares English the official language of
the USA. In several states, marriage has already been officially declared as
being between a man and a woman. As a society, we can enact more laws to
discourage diversity and individuality and, in the process, leave some
minorities further disenfranchised.
While we're at it, let's declare baseball as the official U.S. pastime; forget
that many prefer football or basketball, and even a small minority favor
lacrosse. And let's ignore the evidence that many people just "knew" at an early
age that they liked to swim or were born to run.
We could declare apple as the official American pie flavor, flaunting it in the
face of those who enjoy pecan, cherry or even rhubarb.
We could even declare American Idol as the official U.S. television show, thus
alienating those who might prefer Desperate Housewives, Lost or CSI as well as
those people with viewing habits that barely register on the Nielsen ratings
scale. Idol seems most appropriate, given the show's enormous popularity, which
galvanizes the masses to actually vote — and on a weekly basis.
We can continue to enact such laws, thus rewarding and formalizing conformity as
our nation's premium ideal.
James J. Peters
Orlando
Sent to the Malibu Times, May 24, 2006:
Just plain wrong about bilingual education
Pam Linn’s statement that bilingual education “just plain didn’t work” is just
plain wrong (“Nonsense, our
official language,” May 24). Scientific studies consistently show that
children in bilingual programs typically score higher on tests of English than
do children in all-English immersion programs. Three major reviews coming to
this conclusion were published last year in professional, scientific journals.
In addition, a recent report from the American Institutes for Research and
WestEd found that dismantling bilingual education (Proposition 227) did not
result in any improvement in the English of language minority children in
California.
Bilingual education works because it uses the first language in ways that
accelerate English language development.
Stephen Krashen
Published in the Arizona Republic May 23, 1006:
Be careful what you say, Mr. President
So President Bush wants newcomers to learn English.
OK, Prez, you go first. - Jim Bryant, Tolleson