I disagree with Liz Peek’s views on bilingual education:
The results, according to Ms. Porter, are clear. In a bilingual system, children do not learn English as quickly. Moreover, they are segregated from the rest of the student body for much of the school day, which further impedes their progress. She advocates instead English immersion programs, in which children get special instruction in English, but also are immediately entered into English-only classes. It’s sink or swim, but most children apparently learn to dog paddle within a couple of years. She cites Massachusetts and Arizona, in addition to California, as test cases where the benefits of this approach have been verified.
because it’s too limited a view. She presents a stark choice between English-only education and a bilingual education from which students never transition to English. There’s another choice: better bilingual education.
The problem with that is that it requires thought as well as careful and consistent oversight, never a strong suit in resource-strapped school districts where the emphasis is on teachers in the classroom. The reality may be different but at least that’s the narrative.
It’s easier for a Spanish-dominant teacher to teach in Spanish but that’s not a bilingual education program. It’s a Spanish-only education program advertised as a bilingual education program.
I also wonder about the control groups in these studies. My observation has been that a lot of young people, including those who are fluent only in English, are functionally illiterate. I’m afraid that’s a sign of the times. Are students in bilingual education programs actually that much more functionally illiterate than their English-speaking peers?
