Bilingual Education

* Re “Pressure Grows to Reform Bilingual Education in State,” (May 22):

I would just add one local note concerning the legislative moves. LAUSD’s LEARN schools are touted as providing the ultimate in local control. Yet the LEARN schools, like all other L.A. schools, are now being told that they may not modify any aspect of the bilingual programs. School officials maintain that the state mandates these programs. A state law stating explicitly that local districts can create their own bilingual programs would help refute LAUSD’s highly questionable claim.

DOUGLAS LASKEN

Woodland Hills

* For some time now, teachers in Westminster have been fighting against bilingual education and for local control of our programs. Our opposition is based on several factors: Students learn English quickly if given the opportunity to do so. Primary language classes keep students out of the English-speaking mainstream for far too long.

Bilingual education is too costly. With the financial strain public schools are under, one cannot justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a program that shows so little results. This money could be used to reduce class size.

The parents of limited and non-English speaking students do not want their children in bilingual education classes. They want their children taught in English so that they will learn it as quickly as possible. They know that English is one of the keys to success for their children.

Teachers believe that students should be instructed in English with the assistance of bilingual aides on an as-needed basis. We do not intend to let our students “sink or swim,” but we do want to move them into the English-speaking mainstream as quickly as possible.

CAROLYN ANDERSON, President

Westminster Teachers Assn.

* The article refers to “the 1.2 million children in this state who speak little or no English.” The attempt to translate the legal term Limited English Proficient (LEP) for the general reader distorts the profile of these children. They include the newcomer who doesn’t understand a word of English, the child who has some playground English, and the child who speaks English, but whose reading and writing skills are below the school district’s threshold for being redesignated as Fluent English Proficient.

The article states that California’s bilingual education policy requires districts to teach children “primarily in their native language.” This is also misleading. Under the state guidelines, when there is a cluster of children with the same first language, they receive academic subjects through that language, while at other periods they receive English language development (ESL). As they grow more proficient in English, some subjects are taught in English using a sheltered approach. Programs in which students “learn English for as little as 20 minutes a day” are not typical or desirable.

On the map and chart, the three columns dealing with student programs are labeled “Taught in native language,” “Taught English as Second Language” and “Other instruction.” This implies that students taught in native language are not taught ESL. State guidelines mandate that ESL is always part of the program for students in a bilingual program. A member of the general public not familiar with these issues could easily conclude that our state is flooded with children who speak very little English, and that most of these children are taught for years and years in their own language and not given the opportunity to learn English. This is simply not true.

SARA FIELDS, Elementary Level Chair

California Assn. of Teachers of English

to Speakers of Other Languages

Culver City