LEAD Supports Bilingual Education Goals

Once again, The Times (April 20) has misrepresented the positions and purpose of Learning English Advocates Drive. The Times labels LEAD “a statewide anti-bilingual education movement.” Had any officer of LEAD been consulted, it would have been clear that this characterization is wholly inaccurate.

LEAD is fully supportive of what the state Legislature meant bilingual education to be: a means of teaching language-minority children English and keeping them up on their other studies while they are learning it. Leo Lopez, director of the state office of bilingual education, has said students in bilingual programs “are supposed to be taught English, and to receive assistance in their native language when necessary to bridge the gap” between their home language and English.

What LEAD decries is the monster that bilingual education has become in certain school districts throughout the country, including the L.A. Unified School District. The Times states that the district’s bilingual program “is intended to teach students subjects in their native language while they learn English gradually over one to three years.”

What actually happens in Los Angeles schools is quite different. Most non-Spanish-speaking language-minority children are given intensive English instruction and are effectively “transitioned” into the regular English curriculum rather quickly. Most Spanish-speaking students, on the other hand, are held back, receiving only 20 minutes of English instruction per day for four years before being dumped into the English-only classroom when state and federal funds run out.

The district has taken great pains to convince the public that this discriminatory, two-track, anti-Hispanic program actually benefits Spanish-speaking children. Apparently the public relations ploy is working since the district’s program flourishes in spite of dismal test scores and a 45% Hispanic dropout rate.

It should be noted that although The Times reported that LEAD-member teachers were criticized for not properly implementing a particular bilingual education model, there is no law in California mandating formal native language instruction in bilingual programs. Also, the state has never suggested that non-language subject matter be taught exclusively in the student’s native language.

Bilingual education is not one specific teaching methodology, but the Los Angeles schools have chosen to adopt one narrow approach. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of credentialed university professors throughout the country with differing opinions of how bilingual programs should operate.

Research has shown that the approach the district has selected--a Spanish maintenance model--is least effective in teaching English to language-minority children. In fact, the research indicates the more opportunities children have to interact in a new language, the more the new language is learned. Today, effective bilingual programs incorporate English as a Second Language and “sheltered English teaching” strategies.

LEAD wants the goals of bilingual education to be fulfilled. Bilingual education can only work if as much of the research information as possible is made available to those who implement the program, if individual teachers are allowed the latitude to employ those teaching techniques that work best for them, and if program guidelines are flexible enough for the individual student’s unique needs to be addressed.

LEON WORDEN

Santa Clarita

Worden is president of the Santa Clarita Valley chapter of LEAD.