The Real Impact of English Only

* Were there really “benefits in English immersion” as reported April 18?

We are told only that “almost a quarter” of the limited English proficient children in Orange improved their oral fluency by “at least one level” after five months.

What happened to the other three-quarters? What does one level mean? On most measures of oral fluency, there are five levels, and level 4 is considered good enough to function in English in a mainstream class.

If this kind of measure was used, it means that these children made very little progress, and would be nowhere near ready for the mainstream after one year, the limit imposed by Proposition 227.

STEPHEN KRASHEN

Professor of Education

USC

* As the English department chair at Orangeview Junior High School in Anaheim, I am extremely concerned about the disastrous implications of Proposition 227, the “English only” initiative.

While all the attention is on how to teach immigrant children English, no one is talking about what will happen to our mainstream academic classes and “regular” students if this initiative takes effect.

Placing limited English proficient children into regular classes after only one year of sheltered English support might sound like a good idea, but what about our mainstream kids?

What will happen to the quality of their education when one-third to one-half of their peers are not fluent in English? Rather than leave the LEP students behind, most teachers, who by their nature are generally altruistic and caring, will alter their curriculum and slow down the rate of instruction.

With mainstream teachers already facing daunting challenges of large classes, integration of emotionally and physically challenged students, influences of gangs and drugs, and low parental support, dealing with a large influx of limited English-speaking students will only exacerbate the problem.

It will result in further “dumbing down” of the core curriculum for mainstream American children.

Proposition 227 is yet another attempt at a rigid, statewide mandate that does not address the needs of mainstream and LEP children caught in the cross-fire between liberals and conservatives.

RON NELSON

Anaheim

* I find it most difficult to sort out the real underlying issues relating to Proposition 227.

The basic objective of our educators and parents should be to take kids with limited English and turn them into kids with unlimited English in the least amount of time.

Can there be any disagreement on this objective?

The debate should be more focused on what approach and methodology accomplishes this in the least amount of time at the most reasonable cost.

Are our educators being honest with the public in providing assurance that they are now using the best available teaching methodologies that provide English literacy on an accelerated basis--other than first teaching kids in their native language?

Or is their concern really about advancing their political agenda and preserving jobs, budgets and control?

Visiting France, Spain and Germany, I was impressed by the number of people in these countries--young and old-- who could both speak and think in English.

Talk about diversity in native languages! What do the educators in these countries know about teaching English that educators in this country don’t know?

We should research the European approach to teaching and motivating kids to learn English as a second language, and see if we’ve overlooked something.

MAURICE R. DAHN

Laguna Hilla

* Your April 16 article about the debate over bilingual education in other states illustrated some interesting points.

Is it any wonder that this debate is so full of smoke when those who are not Latino and who question bilingual education are called racist, and Latinos who question bilingual education are called sellouts? Do the bilingual education advocates have anything to their argument besides name-calling?

Your April 16 article about Latino math scores rising while their incomes were falling states that a common supposition about education achievement is that “most students from low-income families can advance only as far in mathematics as their socioeconomic lot allows.”

If this supposition is widely held, it may reveal some frightening truths about the educational community, and may explain why inner city schools often do so poorly.

The poor performance of these schools is not then the fault of the parents, legislators, or budgets, but the fault of the educators.

If they believe people can seldom rise above their class, if they believe that these poor students have little chance of understanding anything more complex than addition and subtraction, then it is their prejudices that are condemning these people to a life of underachievement.

GREG GREEN

Lake Forest