Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28254; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <971113130350_2004451043@mrin41.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: SaraF11655@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1506] English only X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO Content-Length: 4705 Lines: 84 Date: Thu, Nov 13, 1997 11:10 AM EDT From: SaraF11655 Subj: English Only discussion To: SaraF11655 In an earlier posting Deanna [I think] wrote: >Simply put, English Only programs in public schools can only help to >streamline and make more efficient, the job of American teachers who >must conform to Government (whether local or national) guidelines for >teaching subject matter within a given time period...Teachers who must, >not only teach the material, but translate on a one-to-one basis, can not >possibly do their jobs in a timely and effective way...Intensive >English programs taught early can only help the new citizen in job search >and society placement when their mandatory education requirements are >satisfied. I would like to jump in to address this point from the standpoint of an elementary school teacher with 17 years teaching and coordinating program for kids learning English at school. Some of these students were in English-Spanish bilingual programs and some were not. In general, the students in bilingual programs learned English at least as fast as the others; most of them also maintained a greater interest in school, since they always had access to subject matter teaching which they could understand. Most young children come to school with very little in the way of literacy skills or content knowledge. If the student doesn't understand the language of the classroom it's easy to tune out. As students begin to acquire enough English to understand some of what's going on, they tend to do a lot of listening but don't speak up or participate much. Of course their parents can't help them much because the parents don't understand the language of the classroom either. When there's a good bilingual program it provides a bridge. For a few years while the knowledge of English is being built, the content of the curriculum is available via the home language. By the way teachers don't usually translate one-to-one. In some schools where there are a lot of newcomers they're clustered for part of the day for subjects in the home language, then mixed for other parts of the day with English speakers; sometimes both groups are in the same class and the teacher works with one group, then gives a lesson to the other group. Dual immersion programs, which teach both English speakers and speakers of the second language to be bilingual and biliterate, are wonderful. These are the ideal. However they demand a high level of bilingualisma and biliteracy in the staff. I'd especially like to point out that the proposed Unz initiative eliminates flexibility for school districts. If a district has a good bilingual program that's working, and many do, they will not be able to keep it, even if teachers, administrators parents and community members feel it's successful. They'll have to go through an elaborate waiver request process and have 20 kid per grade level whose parents apply for the waiver each year . . . that's not realistic for most schools. In addition, Unz mandates that kids get a year maximum of intensive English -- then into the mainstream with no more help or even monitoring. This might work for a very few highly educated immigrant teens but it will not be enough for younger children, or those with limited schooling in their home language. Even when bilingual programs aren't available, these students need years of special methodology and curriculum for teaching English and content. They need a chance to develop native-like speaking and literacy skills, and that usually takes 4 to 7 years of school. No one is denying that students need to learn English, but at least for kids, faster isn't necessarily better. It's not only ESL and bilingual teachers' organizations that oppose this initiative. The professional organizations for school administrators, school boards and the two big teacher unions also oppose it -- because this initiative will put into place a single method that has never been tested or proven to work! Unz purports to want to help immigrant children, but he acknowledges that he came up with his idea based on newspaper articles and common sense. This is an insult to our profession and to the body of knowledge and practice we have developed about how children learn. I hope list members who live and vote in California will move beyond the theoretical issues raised in this thread. Take action and point out to your friends, colleagues, families and neighbors the tremendous harm to children from this initiative. Sara Fields ESL/Bilingual Specialist, Culver City Unified School District President-Elect California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages [CATESOL]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:42 EDT