This is the text of the Alameda Green Party's voter guide, https://acgreens.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gpac-vg-11-16-web2.pdf
accessed 10/16/16, reformatted to eliminate line breaks with my own comments added in ALL CAPS. Sorry about the shouting, but I wish to make it easy to differentiate the party's text from my own commentary. As far as I know, I have not compromised their text at all except by my commentary in all caps. And one “sic”. :)
I started being a bilingual teacher when I was a long-term substitute in 2000 in West Contra Costa Unified School District. I used bilingual teaching methods in an ostensibly English-only classroom because I saw a need, and I did not seek license or permission to do so. I was hired as a bilingual teacher in that district in 2001. I have been a bilingual teacher ever since, except for 3 years when I resigned in protest from the bilingual position and taught in English-only classes. I teach a bilingual class in Hayward Unified School District now, where the bilingual program of the school where I used to work was canceled in 2015 for lack of sufficient numbers of bilingual teachers. The state college in that town, Cal State East Bay, does not currently have a bilingual teaching credential program. -Piet Bess
Proposition 58 - YES
Allows Bilingual Education
Prop. 58 repeals most of Prop. 227, which passed by 61 percent in 1998. Prop. 227 required that students who had been in California schools for over a year be taught entirely in English in classrooms with other English speaking students. Students new to English would be taught, in English, in special “English immersion” classrooms. FORMING SUCH ENGLISH IMMERSION CLASSROOMS CONSISTED SIMPLY OF RELABELING INSTRUCTION NOT OTHERWISE DESIGNED TO HELP KIDS WHO NEED TO LEARN ENGLISH. Several studies over the years have shown little difference in test scores between students taught in bilingual classrooms prior to 1998 and in mainstream classrooms subsequently, but test scores do not tell the whole story. SEVERAL STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACHIEVES THAT KIDS GENERALLY READ ON GRADE LEVEL IN ENGLISH BY OR BEFORE THE END OF 12TH GRADE. One positive result of Prop. 227 was that English learners, through speaking English with friends both in and out of the classroom, improved their conversational skills, AKA LOWER-ORDER BASIC INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS, NOT THE ACADEMIC LANGUAGE THEY NEED TO SUCCEED AS CRITICAL THINKERS AND INFORMED CITIZENS as well as their social integration in the school setting. Another benefit was that schools could no longer hire “bilingual” teachers from other countries whose English was sometimes poor, and who as a result taught entirely in Spanish, with very limited English Language Development class time daily. I HAVE NOT SEEN FOREIGN TEACHERS HIRED IN HAYWARD USD. I HAVE SEEN FOREIGN TEACHERS HIRED IN WEST CONTRA COSTA USD WITH BOTH POOR AND EXCELLENT ENGLISH SKILLS. I HAVE SEEN NON-FOREIGN TEACHERS SOMETIMES EXHIBIT VERY POOR ENGLISH SKILLS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I HAVE SEEN USA-BORN NATIVE SPEAKER TEACHERS CALLOUSLY FAIL TO PROVIDE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOLOPMENT CLASS TIME UNTIL FORCED TO BY DISTRICT-WIDE SCHOOL BOARD ACTION. Prop. 227 required that parents who wanted their children in a bilingual classroom sign a waiver, and that any school with more than 20 students whose parents had signed such waivers would be required to provide a bilingual classroom for those students. PRESUMABLY, WITHOUT PARENTS BEING REQUIRED TO REQUEST BILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR THEIR KIDS PROP 58 MIGHT ALLOW SCHOOLS TO RETURN TO PLACING KIDS IN BILINGUAL CLASSES FOR THE SCHOOLS' CONVENIENCE, OR ON THE BASIS OF SURNAME AND SKINTONE. Due to the requirements of Prop. 227, some students were never offered services for which they qualified, while some schools with large Spanish speaking populations simply had parents sign waivers at the time of registration, with little understanding of what they were signing, in order to continue offering bilingual classes, especially in the lower grades. Prop. 58 eliminates the need for waivers. PROP 58 IS UNLIKELY TO ALLEVIATE IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PARENTS AS TO WHAT BILINGUAL ED ACTUALLY IS, NOR TO ALLEVIATE SUCH IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF SCHOOL OR DISTRICT ADMIN, NON-BILINGUAL TEACHERS, OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Proponents of Prop. 58, including the California Teachers Association [sic], make the case that Prop. 58 will expand opportunities for English speaking students to learn a second language in dual immersion programs, expand instructional methods teachers can use to teach English, as well as restore local control to schools to provide bilingual classrooms and curricula as they see fit. Prop. 58 also is seen by proponents as restoring the power of cultural minorities to have curriculum respectful of their cultural identities and providing language continuity to their children. OK. The Green Party supports local control of many services, THOUGH MANY LOCAL INSTITUTIONS MAY RETAIN AND ACT ON XENOPHBIC ATTITUDES TOWARD PEOPLE WHO SPEAK DIFFERENT LANGUAGES to give those most affected by programs most control of the programs that affect them. Prop. 227 took away local control to a degree the Green Party cannot condone. If done well, dual immersion programs, newcomer programs, and graduated bilingual programs have been found to be effective. However, we are concerned that Prop. 58 does not appear to have accountability provisions that would prevent the reemergence of the social isolation of bilingual classrooms and poor bilingual programs that existed prior to Prop. 227. Let’s hope the passage of Prop. 58 does not result in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. OK.
No comments:
Post a Comment