Trying to Understand Bilingual Education

Re “The Bilingual Schooling Battle Flares Anew,” Feb. 20: To summarize, state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) has introduced legislation that states: “The instruction shall be understandable to the pupil and shall be integrated into the regular school day.” The article continues: “That, critics say, constitutes a return to bilingual education.”

What can possibly be wrong with a bill that provides for instruction that the pupil understands? When are we going to get it? If the pupil is not understanding the instruction, it is not instruction, it is noise. All pupils, even those who are not yet proficient in English, deserve to be able to understand their teachers and their lessons. Otherwise, what are we teaching, who are we teaching and who are we systematically leaving behind?

Marilyn Kessler

Encino

*

There is one piece of consistent, verified data that I seldom see mentioned in articles regarding bilingual education: It may take a child but a year or two to speak a second language, but it takes four to seven years for that same child to develop what’s known as academic proficiency--the ability to understand demanding grade-level content.

Throughout California, thousands of students are sitting in classrooms receiving instruction in a language they don’t understand, with texts they’re unable to read, and are given work that makes no sense to them. While their English-proficient classmates are moving forward in math, reading, writing and critical thinking skills, students in the process of acquiring English are falling behind at a horrific rate. The only person helped by “the law that Ron Unz bought” (Proposition 227) was Unz.

Morghean McPhail

Sixth-Grade Teacher

Los Angeles