Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
JUNE 24, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1851 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
DON
SOIFER
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
LEXINGTON INSTITUTE
BEFORE THE
HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
SUBJECT - BILINGUAL EDUCATION REFORM:
CRITICAL FOR HISPANIC STUDENT SUCCESS
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
to participate in today's discussion on federal education programs for Limited
English-Proficient (LEP) students. My name is Don Soifer and I am the Executive
Vice President of the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan public-policy research
organization in Arlington, Virginia.
My remarks will focus on the need for
flexibility in the bilingual education program, and in that regard I will stress
the following three points:
- Now more than at any other time in our history
it is essential for young people to possess strong English-language skills.
Without them students are left to fall further behind their peers with less hope
of regaining lost ground the older they get.
- Bilingual education programs
currently funded under Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) favor initial instruction in students' native languages
rather than in English. Such programs are ill-suited to provide English learners
with the skills they need.
- The pending ESEA
reauthorization gives Congress an important opportunity to make policy changes
that will accelerate and improve the learning of English under these programs.
Before turning to these points, I would like briefly to address how my
organization views the importance of learning English. If students can graduate
from high school fluent in a second, or even a third language, they would
certainly be in an advantageous position. Better jobs, better college
educations, and increased opportunities would likely await them.
But when
students are denied the opportunity to learn English, segregated in separate
classrooms where they receive all of their instruction in Spanish, save for a
precious few hours per week or even less, and where they learn reading
exclusively in Spanish until the fifth grade, then they are receiving unfair
treatment and poor education. Their aptitude to acquire a new language -- an
aptitude which diminishes with age -- is being squandered. Parents want their
children to learn English at school because without it they will be at a
tremendous disadvantage - in commerce, in citizenship, on the internet, in many
important aspects of American life.
America's English Learners
The U.S.
Department of Education identified 3.5 million LEP students in 1996-1997, an
increase from 2.1 million in 1990-91.
85% of these reside in the following
ten states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, New Mexico,
New Jersey, Washington and Michigan. There are bilingual education programs
currently employed in all fifty states.
Three-quarters of LEP students are
Spanish-speaking, which is why bilingual education is widely perceived as an
Hispanic issue. The next three most common languages combined, Vietnamese,
Hmong, and Cantonese, are spoken by less than 8 percent of LEP students.
Much has been written in recent years about the challenges facing America's
Hispanic young people. The 1997 status dropout rate (those not enrolled in
school and who have not completed high school) among Hispanic 16- to 24-year
olds was 25.3%, as opposed to 13.4% for African Americans and 7.6% for
non-Hispanic whites. The annual, or event dropout rate, which describes the
proportion of students who leave school each year without completing a high
school program, was 9.5% for Hispanics in grades 10-12, 5.0% for
African-Americans and 3.6% for whites.
Shortcomings of Bilingual Education
Bilingual programs vary in methodology but share a common reliance on
segregated instruction in students' non-English native language. Advocates of
bilingual education emphasize that in their view, children acquire English more
smoothly when they are first taught to read (and speak) in their native
language. As a result, students can remain in these programs for seven or eight
years or even longer. But the reality of the situation is that they generally
learn English more slowly, later, and less effectively than their peers.
Much recent scientific research suggests that children who learn a second
language at a younger age can do so more effectively, more quickly, even with
less likelihood of a pronounced accent. To many parents and educators, this just
underscores what their common sense already makes plain. But once students reach
the third and fourth grade without adequate English skills, it becomes much more
difficult for them to regain the ground they have lost.
Currently, districts
are given little incentive to accelerate the rate at which students gain English
fluency and graduate to mainstream classrooms. When California voters last
spring considered an initiative to effectively end most bilingual education in
the state, one widely-cited statistic indicated that less than 7 percent of the
state's English learners had successfully graduated out of bilingual programs
the previous year. Arizona state Department of Education officials report that
only 4 percent of LEP students were reclassified as English proficient in
1998.As former Representative Herman Badillo, the nation's first Member of
Congress of Puerto Rican descent and a leading proponent of reforming bilingual
education, has said, "To keep children in classes where their own native
language is used in the hope that they will somehow make the transition to
English after five or six years is unacceptable to us."
Bilingual education
as we know it today evolved from the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. That
legislation in concert with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
designed with the noble intention of providing equitable education for all.
But over the intervening thirty years the federal Department of Education
has intermingled the goal of learning English with such tangential concerns as
multicultural awareness and cultivating higher self esteem among students. My
own review of Title VII bilingual grants has produced examples of such funded
programs as:
- A four week orientation class to encourage high school
students to pursue bilingual education degrees. While the need for more
bilingual education teachers may seem pressing in some districts, using Title
VII funds for a program of this purpose would certainly seem to detract
resources and energy away from helping English learners acquire basic language
skills. (Artesia, New Mexico, $220,000 2-year Program Enhancement grant,
#T289P50368, p ii)- SSOW (Summer School on Wheels) trip to the rain forests of
Costa Rica to offer LEP students new experiences. "Students gained valuable
insights into the rain forests, animals, volcanoes, and the aspects of life in
other countries," explains the program's Title VII grant report.
"9 of
the 14 students received passing grades for the trip," the document explains,
and "overall the trip was a huge success for the children and parents and
chaperones alike." (Rocky Boy School District, Box Elder, Montana, $144,920 2-
year Program Enhancement grant #T289950376, p 12.)
- Developing educational
software for students to use to develop written proficiency in Lakota (Sioux).
Lakota is an oral language for which no standard orthography exists, so one had
to be developed. The reasoning applied by the program's Title VII personnel
stated, "It is important to note that the Lakota language and Sioux culture are
a part of our national heritage and programs such as this will ensure this
language and culture will not be lost." (Takini School, Howes, South Dakota,
$240,039 4-year Comprehensive School grant #T90U50059, p. 13.)
It is not my
intention to deride the value of promoting cultural awareness, but it should not
dilute a program that Congress clearly intended to promote rapid acquisition of
English. And native languages can be preserved at home without causing children
to fall behind academically. While many of us have heard the call for wiser
spending on education, surely programs such as these seem of dubious value.What
Should Congress Do?
In considering reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 Congress faces an important opportunity to mend
these broken programs to the benefit of millions of this country's English
learners. What better way can Congress demonstrate to our Hispanic and other
language minority communities that it is working to promote the success of their
children than to guarantee that they are taught English as early as possible in
their schooling?
Since last June, when California voters approved the
"English for the Children" initiative, policymakers around the country have
pursued their own measures to reform bilingual education in their schools:
Denver and Chicago public schools have moved forward with plans to limit the
time students spend in bilingual programs to three years.
The Massachusetts
Board of Education earlier this year voted to bar bilingual students from being
excluded from taking the Iowa Reading Test. Connecticut legislators are
considering limiting bilingual programs to 30 months, and also standardizing
entrance and exit requirements.Just last month Arizona legislators passed a
bilingual education reform bill which, among other things, requires parental
consent to participate in bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL)
programs, require principals to remove students from these programs within 5
days of a parent's request, and requires school districts to provide parents
with detailed information in advance about their child's bilingual or ESL
program.
There are many policy prescriptions available to Congress which
could substantially help America's millions of English learners. I respectfully
suggest that the subcommittee consider the following measures:
Let parents
choose how their own children learn English, and require written consent before
placing a student in bilingual education.
Safeguard the right of parents to
have their child immediately removed from bilingual programs upon their request.
Limit the amount of time students spend in bilingual programs to three years
or less. Secretary of Education Riley testified in February that school
districts would be held accountable "for ensuring that LEP students reach the
three-year accountability goal" as part of ESEA accountability
provisions. Such accountability would have a significant effect on how many
school districts teach English.The subcommittee does not need me to remind it of
the broad expanse of programs included in the ESEA, and it may
decide that to pursue such measures appears daunting in perspective of other
desired reforms. But Hispanic young people have urgent educational needs that
cannot wait until the next ESEA reuthorization.
Today's
bilingual education programs such as those I have described, while designed with
noble intentions, seem less concerned with successfully providing our English
learners with the language skills they need than with striking a posture of
concern after continuing to fall. Would we not be better off to subscribe to a
bold vision of an America where everyone succeeds than to risk promoting failure
by renewing such faulty programs?
END
LOAD-DATE: June 30, 1999 
