riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (02/09/85)
> I heard on the radio last week that two senators ... are trying to pass a > law that will make English the official language of the United States. All > I can say is "It's about time." > > As I understand it, if passed, all public school classes would be taught > in English. This means no more bi-language programs where students are > taught in a language other than English. I've seen only one other response to this, so I guess I'll have to be the one to bite. You seem to be pretty confused as to the purpose of bilingual education. There may be a few school districts left in the country somewhere that really try to maintain a full curriculum in more than just English, but the vast majority of bilingual programs are aimed precisely at doing just what you claim to want, namely, to teach people English. You may find it surprising, but I don't, that if you take a bunch of kids from non-English- speaking backgrounds (and most likely the children of poorly educated parents to boot) and put them in an English-speaking classroom, they're not going to do very well at first. The idea behind bilingual education is that if you let them get used to the fundamentals -- like reading, writing, arithmetic, and the discipline and habits of going to school -- in their native tongues and then introduce them to English gradually, they'll have far more success at it. Personally, I'm enough of a pluralist at heart that I'd love to see *truly* bilingual education in the parts of the country where it is appropriate. In parts of the Rio Grande Valley, for instance, most people of all ethnic backgrounds speak both English and Spanish, and I think it would be great if the school system encouraged them to be literate in both languages. But the fact is, that's not what existing bilingual education programs are all about. As far as I can tell, this flap about "making" English the official language (it seems pretty official to me already) is just another bunch of traditional U.S. jingoism, and bilingual education is a convenient scapegoat. > Hopefully this will also end the printing of official signs in foreign > languages, as this is an expense taxpayers can do without. If the > government took the money that they spend on printing signs & teaching in > foreign languages & used the money to teach people English the problem > would be solved at the source. "The problem will be solved at the source?" What do you want to do, teach everybody in the whole world English? Boy, you're sure going to have to rip down an awful lot of bilingual signs to pay for that! :-) --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle@zotz.ARPA
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/09/85)
> [...] You may find it > surprising, but I don't, that if you take a bunch of kids from non-English- > speaking backgrounds (and most likely the children of poorly educated > parents to boot) and put them in an English-speaking classroom, they're not > going to do very well at first. The idea behind bilingual education is that > if you let them get used to the fundamentals -- like reading, writing, > arithmetic, and the discipline and habits of going to school -- in their > native tongues and then introduce them to English gradually, they'll have > far more success at it. A method that is experimentally MUCH better than this is to give those of a non-English background a crash course in English (it's the only thing taught in their first year, for example) and then let them join the all- English curriculum on an equal basis. This works better, is cheaper (you don't have the expense of training teachers above first year in the problems of bilingual education), and it's less controversial. > Personally, I'm enough of a pluralist at heart that I'd love to see *truly* > bilingual education in the parts of the country where it is appropriate. In > parts of the Rio Grande Valley, for instance, most people of all ethnic > backgrounds speak both English and Spanish, and I think it would be great if > the school system encouraged them to be literate in both languages. I've never lived further than 30 miles from the Rio Grande and I don't know very many people of any local ethnic group that supports this idea. Even many of those adults whose own English skills are slight would prefer that their children be taught English ASAP. One problem is that until the overall literacy rates in at least ONE language is seen to go up, it seems unproductive to strive for two. The other problem is that a complete bilingual curriculum will allow non- English speaking students to go clear through without picking up fluent English skills. Even good students may be lazy in their efforts to learn English. This, of course, limits their employment and college opportunities to places where their native tongue is spoken (doesn't really make them equal citizens, does it?). The final point is that children of ages 4-7 learn languages with MUCH less effort and with MUCH greater fluency than if they wait until later. Bilingual education is a great idea if you have LOTS of money to spend on your school system. But many minority schools barely have operating costs as it is. I would prefer that any children I have receive a multi-lingual education (because, despite my residence in New Mexico, I find a need to read German or French in my work much more pressing than Spanish). But the primary issue here is to use the most cost effective way of getting education to everybody. J. Giles