Standing on Reason

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5 (awaiting moderation)

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10 (awaiting moderation)

Confession:  Upon mention of this blog assignment back in August/September, I seriously debated dropping this class and opting for a different section taught by a less tech-savy professor.

Realization:  Things are never as bad as they seem, and a little guidance goes a long way.

I don’t want to sound corny here, but I really enjoyed this assignment due to the fact that I learned the following: 1) How to use google reader, 2) How to insert a hyperlink (after multiple instruction), 3) How to explore the blog world, and 4) How to appeal to a real audience in an educational manner.

Of course I also enjoyed exploring the topic of bilingual education.  I didn’t have much knowledge about it beforehand, but I now feel that I could successfully carry on an intelligent conversation regarding bilingual education and its accompanying debate.  I’m proud to say that I have developed a strong belief in support of bilingual ed, and that I plan on making this one of the most important factors in my search for who I believe to be ”worthy” presidential candidates.  

I do find it a bit strange, however, that my true educational interests have made their way into my blog.  I have always planned on being a French teacher at the secondary level, but clearly my interests go beyond French content.  I’m driven by linguistics, language acquisition, and cultural preservation.  I’m now more interested in learning about ESL and how I could put my French to use within this area.

My greatest thanks for this assignment.     

I have discussed bilingual education thoughout this blog, and I would like to think that I have highlighted some very interesting articles as well brought to the forefront the major debates underlying bilingual education.  But I realized today that I have not made clear some of the divisions of bilingual ed, so I want to spend just a moment clarifying a few of its very different branches.

Transitional Bilingual Ed.  This type of education involves instruction in the student’s native language to ensure that the student does not fall behind in core content areas.  The ultimate goal here is to mainstream the student as quickly as possible.

Two-way Bilingual Ed.  This program aids both non-native and native English speakers to become biliterate and bilingual.  There are many students with the ability to speak a language who lack the ability to write it.  This program (sometimes referred to as dual-language education) aims to achieve both.

Developmental Bilingual Ed.  This is for students whose native language is not English, and who desire education in their native language for a prolonged period of time, accompanied by English education. 

I realize that this may have been more helpful had I mentioned this at the beginning of my blog, but better late than never!  And through my posts, I have mostly focused on Transitional Bilingual Education, since the ultimate goal of most schools with a population of non-native English students is to have these students speaking English as soon as possible.  I also wanted to make this distinction before moving into my following discussion on the article titled “Won’t Your Spanish Hurt Their English?” by Rey Rodriguez found in the LA Language World, in which the author takes a personal look at bilingual education programs.  To briefly resume his dilema, he was searching for a school/program in which his two sons could continue to use the Spanish that they had learned at home and that would allow his sons to preserve their culture.

A bilingual education program for the preservation of culture?  This had never dawned on me!  Up until this point, I had solely focused on the language acquistion aspect.  But it seems so simple - of course language is tied to culture, and of course bilingual education programs serve to do more than ease a student into English acquisition! 

I feel like I have overlooked such an important aspect of this debate.  If bilingual education programs were abolished (no matter the type), they would elimate classrooms that allow students to feel a part of their culture - students would lose the one place where they can connect with others who are “in the same boat.”  Students would risk losing contact with the teachers who truly care about their ability to successfully perform in multiple languages.  

As much as I was an advocate of bilingual education programs before this post, I am now an advocate x10, and I truly hope that I have swayed some of you in the same direction.

“Won’t Your Spanish Hurt Their English”

Rey Rodriguez

LA Language World; “A Global City Speaks” 

July 24, 2007

Link to complete article

I need to start this one out with something positive, so here it goes:

“People tell me, ‘I can’t learn a language.’  Learning to speak a foreign language is a messy thing. You’re going to have trouble with verb tenses.  My advice to people is to get in there and don’t worry about that.  Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t learn a foreign language.” -Larry Day, a retired Kansas University faculty member

The article, “Fluent in Success” highlights students who are taking the initiative to learn a foreign language in preparation for a global job market.  One student, Ellie Gibbs (a senior at Bishop Seabury Academy) wants to have a career in International Relations and she is not expecting that everyone she works with will know English.  Another student sharing this view is Bill Butler, also a senior at Bishop Seabury Academy.  Bill has taken four years of high school French but he plans on learning Chinese in college because he believes that “China is going to be where it’s at politically and economically in the future.”  

There is no doubt that knowing more than one language will be beneficial in the years to come, and I completely feel that we, as Americans, really need to step up the pace in our foreign language education.  The article reports that only 9 percent of Americans are bilingual, compared to half of all Europeans.  As a future French language educator, I hope to help increase this number.  But I am going to be honest.  This article bores me.  I completely agree with everything that author Terry Rombeck is shelling out to me - but I have heard this so many times before.  I’ve read multiple articles highlighting hopeful students with every intention of changing the world through positive global connections.  I’ve read articles with Ellie and Billy’s exact same quotes, but they were quotes by Saras, Matts, or Stevens.  It’s not that I’m against these optimistic views portrayed by the media - in fact, I love seeing determined students with thoughts on their future - but I want to instead read about how these students are going to fulfil such high expectations.  I want to read articles interviewing professors from university language departments outlining their teaching methods.  I want to know for sure that these students’ high hopes will be adequately filled.  It is easy to have hopes, but it is another thing to achieve them, especially when it comes to acquiring a foreign language. 

Sometimes I think that American students have been misinformed on the difficulties of learning another language.  Billy Butler seems so nonchalant about learning Chinese.  It’s almost as if he is planning on taking a Chinese course each semester and hoping to walk away fluent in four years.  I have heard numerous students straight out of high school say things like “yea, I’ve had four years of Spanish, and I’m pretty fluent.”  Upon hearing this, I’m always tempted to locate a native Spanish speaker and force this confident student to have an intelligent conversation strictly in Spanish. 

I suppose that sounds a little mean.  Please don’t take me the wrong way.  But from my own experience, it has taken a solid eight years of intense grammar studies paired with studies abroad to feel confident in my second language ability.  And sometimes I still don’t feel that I would fare well in a strictly French job market.  Now, I know that everyone learns differently, and perhaps I’m on the slower end of things, but I think we can look to our own education system for examples of the difficulties in acquiring a second language.  

The ongoing debate, on which I have written quite a bit, between immersion programs and bilingual education say something themselves about acquiring a foreign language - no one can agree one which way is correct!  And lets look at all of the students who have been in either immersion programs or bilingual programs - their grasp on the English language is far from perfect.  And what about the difficulties in learning a foreign language as we grow older?  It becomes more difficult! 

I feel that it’s important to know the details of our foreign language programs and I guess I’m just looking for proof of programs that will help these hopeful students obtain their extremely high goals of learning a second language to compete in a global job market. 

“Fluent in Success” - Forward-thinking students take foreign language to prepare for job search

Lawrence Journal

Terry Rombeck 

Link to complete article

My google reader is failing me. I am fairly confident that I have glanced over a few hundred articles in search of one that was 1) interesting enough to write about, 2) not something demanding the same responses that I have already given, and 3) short enough to understand (rather than the long ones that go on and on about the same gosh-darn thing and that incorporate statistics on bilingual education that are clearly only comprehensible to a statistician). But I bring good news - I found a brief article from the Sioux City Journal by Stephen Krashen that beautifully supports my view on the battle between bilingual education and language immersion programs.

The article, titled “Bilingual Education: A Success” is in response to a letter to the editor back in September that was titled “Bilingual ed failure.” The article states “scholars who have reviewed the scientific research have concluded that bilingual education is more effective than ‘immersion’ in helping children acquire the English they need for school.”

Apparently there have been four scientific papers published in the last two years regarding this topic and they have all arrived at this same conclusion. This is the extent of the article (I told you it was short), which makes me a little curious as to who these scholars are and where these articles are coming from, yet I’m filled with joy to hear such outstanding results. I would like to have a little sit-down with Mr. John Wallace (remember him? candidate for Congress in New York’s 20th Congressional district?) who believes that the United States should declare English as the official language, thereby eliminating bilingual education, to present to him this research (once I am able to locate the specifics myself). I would also like to question our very own potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney about his voiced opposition to bilingual education, particularly when the research points to the harm in eliminating such programs. I seriously cannot seem to come to terms with the fact that people are out there preaching against bilingual education. My mind does not comprehend the extreme insensitivity to the diverse learning styles of students who are trying to learn English - IMMERSION PROGRAMS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE! I can say that over and over, and the research supporting this can come from an array of sources, yet it seems that we will always have a group of stubborn knuckleheads (that’s the only appropriate term coming to mind right now) who cannot accept that they way things “used to be” are not always the best. In my quest for an appropriate article to write on, I came across one opinion piece where a man who grew up in the 1950’s said something along the lines of “when I was in school, the immigrants didn’t have special programs to teach them English, they learned it in the classrooms without teachers catering to their every need.” I can just see this man now, he probably resembles my grandpa and uses terms like “good old days” and “back when I was young.” He’s probably also one of those men who had to walk five miles to school in three feet of snow barefoot. He is the kind of man whose schooling emphasized math and science and left little room for the fine arts and foreign language.

Perhaps this opposition to bilingual education programs is truly one of a specific era. In that case, I, as a future educator and as someone growing up in a time more diverse than ever before, really do need to have a sit-down with John Wallace, Mitt Romney and “grandpa-man” to bring to them the real results of a real study concerning a real problem.

“Bilingual Education: A Success”

Stephen Krashen, School of Education, University of Southern California

Sioux City Journal

Link to complete article 

I feel as though I say the same things with each one of my posts regarding bilingual education. I have clearly established myself as an advocate of bilingual education, and in response to previous articles I’ve explored the detrimental effects of abolishing such programs. But I have come across a new article with a slightly different twist - an article that raises questions about state testing standards for non-native English speaking students, rather than addressing the ongoing debate of “yes” or “no” to bilingual education.

I have come across an article in the Chicago Tribune, thanks to my google reader, by Stephanie Banchero titled “Limited-English kids face a tougher test.” Before even having read the article, I knew it wasn’t going to be pretty - and boy was I right. Beginning next year, all limited-English Illinois state students will have to take regular state achievement exams (brought to us by the decision of none other than our very own brilliant federal officials). In the past these students were allowed to take the IMAGE (Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English) tests in reading and math. The IMAGE tests were written in English, but had fewer and less complicated questions. But apparently IMAGE “was not an appropriate way to determine if non-English speaking students were mastering basic math and reading skills.”

Spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Education, Matt Vanover, does not appear to be happy with this decision. He is quoted in the article saying, “We worked with federal officials to try and make adjustments to the test. However, they would not accept our changes.” He also said that state officials will spend the next two years developing a replacement for the IMAGE test.

Well in two years then, I will be happy. But for now, I cannot help but feel bad for the students stuck in this unlucky two year period. In all honesty, was it seriously the most brilliant decision to completely abolish the test? I’ll be a bit generous and assume the position that perhaps the IMAGE test really was either too easy, or an ineffective way of measuring progress - but that still does not mean that abolishing the test was a good idea! Why haven’t federal officials been working on developing a replacement for the IMAGE test over the past few years so that it never had to be abolished? What will the federal government say when they get ahold of the Illinois state standardized tests results for the next two years and notice that more students are failing? (I’m not assuming that all of the limited-English students will fail, but if their English skills really are that limited then how is it even possible to assume they can do well on a test catered to native English speakers?)

Why didn’t the federal officials gather together and brainstorm more effective ways of dealing with this issue? Now, I’m no federal official, but I can certainly come up with a few ideas to better this situation; 1) If the regular test is to be administered to the limited-English students, perhaps they should be allowed to use a dictionary while taking the test, 2) Maybe more time could be alloted to them, 3) If more time is not alloted, then maybe the complete test could be translated into the students native language for the next two years (and don’t tell me that it would be that hard to pay someone to translate a document from English…heck, I’d offer my time to translate a test into French if needed!), 4) Let’s allow the students to take the test with a teacher in the room who is able to help them on vocabulary issues, 5) Let’s make government officials take reading and math tests in Spanish/French/German/Chinese/Arabic etc. to perhaps entice them to take this situation more to heart and to possibly come up with a real solution.

Until then, however, I hope that the limited-English students don’t become too frustrated with what lies ahead of them.

“Limited-English kids face a tougher test” - US orders Illinois to use regular exam

Stephanie Banchero

Chicago Tribune

Link to complete article 

I went to see Shakespeare’s Cymbeline on opening night.  I wasn’t able to go to the Cymbeline stage talk, but I was able to go to Dr. James Shapiro’s presentation on Shakespeare. I also made my way to the presentation by Jonathon Kozol on inner city education and the No Child Left Behind Act.  Now I sit here trying to figure out which presentations I can relate together.  I already posted a “review” of sorts on the GVSU rendition of Cymbeline, and I’m feeling a bit “over” the Shakespeare topic.  So I’m going to attempt to make some connections with the presentations of Dan Modderman and Jon Kozol.

I’m not really sure how I feel about Dan Modderman.  I have no doubt that he is a great teacher who is doing great things in Rockford High School.  I truly believe that he is passionate about his work as an English educator, and that he is passionate about his students,  but I have to be a little cynical here.  I’m pretty sure that I would be passionate about my work as an English educator if I had been teaching in the safe and sound little district of Rockford.  I feel like Dan Modderman got lucky.  He landed a job straight out of college in an ideal location and he has had ten years to perfect his teaching strategies - no wonder he sounded so great during his presentation!  Dan Modderman doesn’t have to concern himself with the safety of his students in their homes.  He doesn’t leave his teaching job every night wondering whether or not his students will have food to eat for dinner, or if they’ll make it home from the bus stop safely.  This isn’t to say that no Rockford students come from “rough homes” or “rough neighborhoods,” but the majority of them don’t.  Even Dan Modderman said something along the lines of how Rockford is a “conservative school district” leading me to believe that traditional parental roles dominate his students’ home settings and that a strong emphasis on education is placed upon them from an early age.  So congratulations Mr. Modderman, for making the most of an ideal job that most other educators can only long for.

This brings me to Jonathan Kozol’s presentation.  I’d first of all like to say that while he had brilliant things to say, his delivery was a little lackluster.  I was distracted by his oversized button-up shirt, and his stance behind the podium that made him retreat inwards.  But his is the kind of presentation that deserves some merit.  Kozol has spent many years concerning himself with informing others on the injustices that take place in the inner city school districts of America.  Kozol gave beautiful examples of an outstanding teacher when he spoke of Francesca.  Francesca was the kind of teacher who rose above the pressures of state standards and made the most of a situation that most educators surely dread.  Francesca pushed her inner city classroom children to enjoy learning and to enjoy school when they were surrounded by home forces telling them the opposite.  Francesca had to worry about her students’ safety and well-being while maintaining a positive attitude in the classroom.  I commend Jon Kozol for telling us her story because these are the kinds of educators that I want to hear about.

I truly don’t mean to sound like a sour apple, but next time an educator comes to speak at Grand Valley - I would prefer it to be a “Francesca” instead of a “Dan Modderman.”  I felt more ready to tackle the job market and the rules and regulations of state standards on educators after hearing Kozol speak. While it is important to hear the stories of the “lucky” teachers, I see more credibility and hope in those who didn’t fare so well in the job market.

“The last few years have seen an explosion in the number of school-age children enrolled in formal Mandarin classes, according to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages,” writes Stephanie Veale, author of the article “Connecting Cultures: Schools Teaching Chinese Language.” With more than 1 billion Mandarin Chinese speakers throughout our world, this refreshing article makes me scream “It’s about time!” It’s about time that the Chinese language makes its entrance into our school systems. America’s high schoolers - the next generation of brilliant minds - should be given the option of taking language courses that reach beyond the typical “romance” category. This article comes from the Utica Observer Dispatch, a paper located in Utica, New York (NOT Utica, Michigan…as I originally thought). Utica area public schools boast over 110 students who are becoming part of that increasing number of students learning Chinese.

Before these students can call themselves Chinese speakers, they must first learn to master “pinyin” - “the way Chinese words are depicted using the Roman alphabet.” They then practice their pronunciation and tones. The students seem to enjoy their class as one student, 16 year old Amy Sleeper, said (in regards to hearing her teacher speak Chinese) “It sounds awesome…hopefully one day I can talk like her.” These students are aware of the advantages that speaking another language will give them, and this article clearly highlights those advantages while informing the general public, but after reading it over multiple times, I found a tragic flaw in the reasoning behind this Chinese language movement in our school systems.

I have always been - and always will be - an advocate for learning at least a second language. I wasn’t fortunate enough to grow up speaking two languages, but I have spent the last eight years of my life learning to master a second. I didn’t start taking French courses because someone told me to, nor did I start taking French courses because I was worried about my future in a job market that would eventually favor bilingualism. I took French courses because, at the age of 12, I thought French was “cool.” I was excited to have a somewhat exotic course stuck in between my Algebra and American History courses. My interest in the French course was an interest that stemmed from my own desire to cultivate a cultural and linguistic understanding, and it was a freedom - so I gladly ran with it. But, as I mentioned before, there is something very disturbing about Ms. Veale’s article from the Utica Observer-Dispatch that leads me to believe that today’s students are learning Chinese for all the WRONG reasons. The article says, and I quote directly, “These districts are part of a nationwide trend toward cultivating more speakers of so-called critical languages, or languages spoken in countries where the United States has an important stake…kids must embrace a global economy and develop deep understandings of foreign cultures and languages if they want to stay competitive.” At first read, this doesn’t sound so bad. Read it again.

What stands out to me in this quote, is that fact that our school boards want our children to learn languages spoken in countries where “the United States has an important stake.” Perhaps this phrase could be better written as the following: “We want our children to learn only the world’s most important languages. Forget that exotic little language called Chamorro spoken on the island of Guam - it’s not as sophisticated as Chinese or English. And lets definitely turn our backs on that language called Ubykh that is famously noted for its 81 consonants and only 3 vowels. Our students will surely never benefit from knowledge of these languages.”

And what about the next part of that sentence? “Kids must embrace a global economy and develop deep understandings of foreign cultures and languages if they want to stay competitive.” Perhaps this would be better written as: “Let’s just let that language called Sonsorolese, spoken by only 300 people on the island of Sonsoral, die off - its speakers will never live a successful life because they have no competitive edge in today’s global economy.”

It ’s shocking to me that discrimination exists even within our world’s languages. We seem to have taken pride in the fact that “our language is better than yours.” Think about it, have you ever corrected someone’s grammar because it wasn’t up to par with “Standard English?” Have you ever found yourself disgusted by the fact that some inner city schools are trying to teach Ebonics? If so, you have taken part in this discrimination. By putting one language above the other - particularly in the case of Ebonics - you are perpetuating the cycle of discrimination that some people work so hard to overcome. And in the case of Ebonics, many people fail to recognize that it is a rule governed and systematic language - it’s not “lazy English!” So maybe I’ve gone off-track with my original topic taking it from Chinese to Ebonics. But it’s hard for me to advocate the learning of a second language when it stems from reasons that I believe to be all wrong. We are doing a disservice to our students by telling them that the languages we offer in our schools are the only important ones. We are putting extra stress on them and taking away some of their freedoms when we indirectly allude to the fact that they will not be successful in the work place if they cannot speak more than one “critical language.”

I realize that this contradicts almost everything that I’ve traditionally thought to be true about foreign language education. I’ve always thought that students should start learning a second language at an earlier age and that four years of a foreign language in high school should be recommended. So where does this leave me now? I’m not really sure. But wherever I stand, I think the “mission” of a foreign language classroom should be to create a cultural understanding and to enhance the knowledge of one’s own maternal language. We should make sure our foreign language classes are fun to retain our students’ interest in the subject - since this is what correlates with learning. We should not be teaching our students topics that have an underlying message of discrimination. What exactly do you call something that’s beneficial to someone, yet lacks the correct reasoning behind its teachings? Corrupt?

I don’t want this blog to be taken in the wrong way. I’m not at all advocating for the abolishment of the Chinese programs in our education systems - I said before that it’s refreshing to see such changes. I guess I’m just rooting for the little guy and in a world of over 6,700 languages. I don’t want to see more languages become extinct (as has already happened with languages such as Manx and Wappo) at the expense of what the white man has chosen to designate as the “critical languages.” With the extinction of a language comes the extinction of a way of thinking - and learning these different ways of thinking is surely more important in a global economy than the production of the same products by speakers of the same language with the same ways of looking at the world. Languages come in all forms, and the amount of speakers or the location of the language does not lessen its merit.

Now let’s give our school boards THIS to think about for a bit…

The Utica Observer Dispatch

“Connecting Cultures: Schools Teaching Chinese Language.”

Stephanie Veale

Link to complete article

The Grand Valley State University rendition of Shakespeare’s plays Cymbeline was extraordinarily well cast.  Aaron Alpern as Cymbeline lived up to his status as a professional actor as he immersed himself in character.  The argument in which Alpern criticizes the marriage of his daughter Imogen exhibited his skillful acting ability.  From my seat near the stage, I could see the spit spraying violently from Alpern’s mouth as he demonstrated his disapproval by yelling at sweet Imogen.  However, at the end of the play, Cymbeline’s character takes a dramatic turn as he lightens up and warm heartedly accepts his daughter’s marriage to Posthumous.  Alpern as Cymbeline “came around” with enthusiasm, and I found it easier to accept this change when seen in person as apposed to reading it in the play. 

Josh King as Cloten also deserves recognition, as his acting ability shone like that of Alpern’s.  King delivered much comical relief in more ways than one.  The choice to cast King as Cloten was impeccable as his tall and gangly frame paired with long hair and a plaid suit that would make any 70’s fashionista jealous emphasized the ridiculousness of the character.  The manner in which King presented himself onstage – with a bit of arrogance yet seemingly aloof – was perhaps the best part of the production.  King’s comical relief was taken to pleasant extremes when he paired with the violin player, Mark Martin, on center stage in attempts to coax Imogen out of her bedroom with song.  Not only did his voice leave something to be desired, but so did his yellow blazer and plaid pants.

Hanna Gaff as Imogen deserves praise for her composure during the scene where she was huddled over the beheaded body of the man whom she believed to be Posthumous.  There were frequent giggles from the audience as she stroked and touched the dummy’s body.  Not once did Gaff appear uneasy with the fact that she was kissing a plastic hand and lying on a stuffed headless dummy. 

The costume choices were fitting, and Gaff’s wardrobe continued to surprise me.  She donned a navy blue and white silky dress during her “a father cruel and a step-dame false” speech, a gorgeous lacey white gown a bit later, and finally an adorable brown jacket and hat when disguised as Fidèle – which made her look a bit like an 1890’s newsboy. 

The adaptation of this play to the Civil War period was a bit more modern than Shakespeare’s time and it proved to be a source of excitement, particularly during the battle scene when smoke was pouring from every corner of the stage and gunshots were ringing throughout the auditorium, but I question the reasoning behind this decision.  Other than this battle scene, a few name changes and some southern accents it was not dramatically different from the original.  I would have preferred that the play stayed in its original context as it failed to manifest itself into a contemporary piece on the social injustices that one normally thinks of when presented with the topic of the Civil War.

Finally. A breath of fresh air and optimism can be found in the article “Spanish bilingual schools no longer just for remedial education” by Tyche Hendricks, a writer for the San Fransisco Chronicle. After reading the previous article on which I previously posted, I was beginning to feel frustrated with the possibility of abolished bilingual education. However, Tyche Hendricks’s article has given me hope. The article highlights a particular school, the “Escuela Bilingüe” which is “believed to be the state’s first and only Spanish bilingual private school, where 110 children, about equally divided between English and Spanish speakers, are starting with a full immersion in Spanish. They are expected to graduate speaking, reading and writing fluently in both English and Spanish and with a mastery of all the usual academic subjects” (Hendricks). This is the exact goal of bilingual education - to teach fluency in a student’s non-native language, as well as concepts in all other school subjects. This particular school is obviously focused on Spanish, however, the article also points out the many other institutions in which a student can go on to learn a language other than Spanish.

“Private bilingual schools for students of French and German are well established - there are at least five French bilingual schools in the Bay Area alone - and they’ve long been popular among well-heeled parents with European connections wanting to raise cultured children who can skillfully navigate the global economy” (Hendricks).

Cultured children. What a beautiful phrase (and one that John Wallace could definitely benefit from hearing). This is another goal of bilingual education - to integrate children into a culture unlike their own, while preserving their own culture, and creating a harmonious liaison between the two. Anne-Marie Pierce, nine year head of Berkeley’s French Ecole Bilingue, was interviewed for the article and said that bilingual education is “all enrichment, it is all positive.” She went on to say that parents often choose to send their children to bilingual schools “to give their children that extra cognitive edge. … Students who learn in two languages have better integrated hemispheres of the brain, they are more creative and do better problem solving.” Now I would really like to have a word with John Wallace! Clearly the benefits of good bilingual education and ESL programs prove that they are needed in today’s society. Along with the growing number of minority populations in the United States comes an even higher need for these programs, something that Hendricks has also pointed out in his article. There are now private schools in the state of California that are offering immersion programs in Chinese languages, Hebrew, and Russian.

The article is full of hopeful quotes that firmly stand behind bilingual education. The benefits of learning more than one language are beyond words, and the article ends beautifully with one of the benefits of bilingual education being that students “understand they’re living in one part of a bigger world.”

San Fransisco Chronicle

“Spanish Bilingual Schools No Longer Just For Remedial Education”

Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Staff  Writer

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Link to complete article