- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Measure 58 is Bad for Oregon Schools
The Oregon chapter of the American Federation of Teachers believes in high quality, universal public education for every child because that is the ticket to a better future for Oregon students.
We have studied Measure 58 and are disappointed because it would be a failure for our children.
We know that children do not all learn in the same way. Yet Measure 58 would impose a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching our kids. We know that not all Oregon communities are the same. Yet Measure 58 would take away local control from the parents, teachers and school districts that know our schools best.
The best education policy is created in collaboration with parents, teachers and experts in the education community. Measure 58 was not. Instead, it is just another bad idea by Bill Sizemore, who has no experience in education. It shows.
Measure 58 is vague and full of unintended consequences. The measure does not define key terms and does not outline the program it seeks to implement. Measure 58 would put
unrealistic deadlines on students to learn English, and doesn’t include an exception for children with learning disabilities. This puts far too much pressure on teachers and students.
The measure will cost Oregon’s education fund over a half billion dollars to implement it its first two years if passed. These funds would be taken directly out of the classroom. This money could be used to hire more teachers, buy new textbooks and reduce class sizes.
Measure 58 is bad for Oregon teachers and critical support staff. Measure 58 is bad for Oregon students and bad for Oregon schools.
Vote No on Measure 58.
- Mark Schwebke,
President, AFT-Oregon
Comments
Losing a valuable opportunity
Advocates of English-only classrooms seem to forget the interests of the child and instead have a misguided concern for retaining cultural purity. What value is this to a child?
Instead, opportunities to introduce other languages and cultures into the classroom should be seized upon. At a young age, children are like sponges and easily soak up languages, which becomes incredibly difficult later on. Besides being good for its own sake, learning other languages and cultures will help the child later on in life, as being bilingual is a wonderful resume padder, especially if the language is Spanish. It also fosters knowledge and tolerance of other cultures, allowing the child to connect with what is becoming an increasingly diverse America.
Oregonians--Vote No on Ballot Measure 58
There’s really no need to put ESL and ELL education "on the clock," as this measure will do.. Not every child who must learn English comes from an English-speaking household. It is one thing to be the child comes from a family where English is the daily-life language outside the home, but quite another to be under the same roof with non-English speaking parents.
I do agree that every American citizen or foreign citizen working in America should know how to read and write in English. It’s a necessity for daily life. But every child does not have the same ability to learn a new language, especially at a very young age. We do not even attempt to educate American children in another language until they reach middle school.
In addition, we are a nation concerned with language arts proficiency—it is one of the cornerstones of No Child Left Behind—-and native-born Americans, who have been raised in English-speaking households have not proven themselves to be proficient in our mother tongue. Yet our schools don’t put them on the clock to become proficient in the same manner as Measure 58 would do to immigrants.
Proponents and opponents of this measure could also make use of studies on pre-school intervention programs that have been tried in low income communities since the 1960’s. These programs, which began with pre-schools in Ypsilanti, Michigan in 1962, were started on the premise that youngsters who grow up in low income families were exposed to 30 million fewer words by age 3, than children in working class and high income families. The federal Head Start program started from this research, as have many state-supported pre-school initiatives across the country. And the best of these programs also involved reading instruction for parents as well.
The studies on pre-school effectiveness included only children raised in English speaking homes! I cannot imagine how large the word gap is for a child raised in a household where no English has been spoken!
I can understand why such a measure would come before voters. It is a proposal for immigration reform, as well as an attempt to find an area to reduce education spending. But it is unfair to place a demand on young immigrant children to learn English faster than they might be capable of learning, especially the youngest. And if we are serious about having a nation of native-language speakers, then we should also educate their parents, as necessary.
Immersion is Effective
I am the son of a German immigrant. My fiancee immigrated to this country from China.
Both now are now U.S. citizens, and both speak English fluently. In fairness, my dad left Germany for Canada when he was two years old; still, neither he nor my grandmother spoke much (if any) English when they arrived. For that reason my grandfather only permitted them to speak German in the house on Sundays. Since the rest of the people in Calgary weren't going to learn German on their account, my dad and my grandmother had to learn English quickly to be functional in society. Immersing them in the language was the fastest way to get them there.
The same is true of my fiancee, who came to the United States just eight years ago. She spent most of her first year here in the Chinese community, speaking the language of her homeland. When her first marriage fell apart, she was forced to go out and deal with the English-speaking community -- especially after she started attending an American university (San Jose State) to get her master's degree. To my knowledge, most classes at San Jose State are not taught in Chinese or any other language besides English. Baoling now speaks English perfectly.
I'm also reminded of a story I read in Sports Illustrated about Geno Auriemma, the University of Connecticut's women's basketball coach. An Italian immigrant, he attended a Catholic school in Pennsylvania in the second grade. One of the nuns there told him, "We speak English here, and we're not going to slow down for you." By the end of the year, he understood it well enough to keep up in his classes.
While I agree wholeheartedly that different students learn differently, teaching them in their native language encourages them to use their language as a crutch. Such students are not forced out of their comfort zone to use the language on a daily basis. When it comes time to pursue jobs or fill out college applications, their opportunities are going to be extremely limited.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different languages spoken by immigrants in this country. Regardless of how it got that way, English is the one most widely spoken. Those who come to live here need to embrace that, if only for the sake of dealing with English-speaking customers at their places of employment.
Nobody's asking immigrants to turn their back on their cultures by learning the English language. Think about it: If I moved to China, I'd have to learn Mandarin pretty darn fast to be functional over there.
If anything, proponents of immersion are trying to widen the scope of opportunities for immigrants by helping them learn the language much faster.
Measure 58 is unnecessary and harmful
Measure 58 is unnecessary. According to the Oregonian newspaper, most non-English speaking children (85%) are already educated solely in English.
Measure 58 would also reduce the number of children who grow up bilingual. Why is it OK for English-speaking parents to choose to send their children to an immersion program so they're children will grow up bilingual, but not for children of immigrants to have the same privilege?
People in countries all over the world are bilingual. Do we really want our enemies to do the translating for us because we don't have any bilingual people who can translate for us?
LinearMom Misses the point
Allowing non-English children to lag behind for years without gaining efficiency in English HURTS them. The bottom line is that if a person cannot speak English fluently as an adult in America they will not attain higher paying jobs.
I have close family friends who arrived in this country as pre-teens from Argentina not being able to speak any English. They said school was difficult at first, but back then they did not have ESL classes. You either learned English or you failed in school. All the children in the family learned English within their first year here. They are each successful adults in American society now; one is self employed, one is an attorney and another works in digital animation for Disney.
I married a man from India and have many Indian friends with children in the American school system. They do not expect American schools to teach their children in their native languages, so why do Spanish speaking people expect this? Indians prefer their children to learn in the English language bacause they know the opportunities it opens up to them. Even in India middle class families pay significant sums of money to send their children to English immersion schools because it gives them an advantage in the world economy.
Maybe you prefer to see Mexican children grow up to become migrant farm workers, or to wash your cars or serve your food? If they do not become proficient in English that is about all they can do.
Measure 58 will not help English language learners learn English
Yes, not learning English hurts children. If you ask immigrant parents what is most important for their children, they'll say "learning English".
BUT measure 58 won't help children learn English. It will
1. Place them in "English immersion" (which even Sizemore says he doesn't know what that means) for ONE year. Probably this means pulling them OUT of the mainstream English classes where they already are and forcing them into segregated classes.
2. It will remove ALL supports from them after one year (in elementary) or two years in high school. No support classes, no extra help if they don't understand. If you missed learning long-division because you didn't have the English vocabulary when it was introduced, too bad.
3. It will reduce the amount of money schools get to help English language learners drastically. That's probably Sizemore's real agenda.
As for kids who are able to learn English and do well in school without extra help: How much schooling did your Argentinian friends have before they started school in English? There's a big difference between kids who either have school before the start English or kids who come from homes where parents are able to help them learn. If your Argentinian friends could read in Spanish, it's not so hard to learn to read in English.
Much of the Indian middle class is bilingual. Thus, those parents are able to help their children with school work. They know the academic vocabulary. They have the academic concepts.
Who's going to help a child understand if the parents are already migrant farm workers?
Measure 58 will hurt Mexican immigrant children and Somali immigrants and any other immigrant because children who might need help won't be able to get it.. Unless they get help, either in their first language or in English, to understand the CONTENT of the classroom, they will be doomed to lives as low wage, low skilled workers. Right now they don't get enough help. Measure 58 will "fix" that by REDUCING the amount of help they get. That makes no sense.
Educate yourself about English Immersion
Oh I forgot, most of what you state about what English immersion means is incorrect. The link below is for an English immersion model developed by Arizona.
http://www.ade.az.gov/ELLTaskForce/2008/SEIModels05-14-08.pdf
AND the information about the financial impact of Oregon's Measure 58 provided in the voters pamphet is also incorrect. It refers to an ESTIMATE given by the Arizona School Administrators Association BEFORE the Arizona English immersion measure passed. That organization opposed the measure in their state. Of course they would make high cost estimates to try to disuade voters.
English Immersion is the BEST policy for teaching English
The mother in the Argentinian family I mentioned in my earlier post could NOT speak English when I first met the family. Yet her children all learned it in school.
I was friends with her elder son who was in the military and stationed near where I lived in upstate NY. Her husband was abusive. They lived in California where she never had to learn English which prevented her from getting help or a job. Her son had been trying to convince her to leave his father. After an attack where her husband broke her nose she took her youngest son and came to NY on a bus. Her elder son was sharing a tiny apartment and asked if they could stay with me. While she was living with me she learned English. It turned her life around.
I've lived overseas. I have helped immigrants from Thailand and China learn English as a second language. Immersion in any language helps people learn that language better whether they are children or adults.
I'd like you to show me a quote where Bill Sizemore says he doesn't know what English immersion means. I do not believe it. I am sick of all the deceptive advertising focusing on Bill Sizemore's character. I've met him and he is a decent caring father and human being.
I am a democrat, so I don't agree with all is views, but I am intelligent and I can think for myself. I don't let deceptive advertising on either side of the political fence sway me. Most of the measures Bill Sizemore puts on the Oregon ballot benefit hard working middle class Oregonians. I have voted for most of his measures.
I do not understand why the teachers unions and the media in Oregon love to trash Bill Sizemore. Their public hatred of him is irrational. I've never seen a public figure attacked like it this anywhere else I have ever lived.
Maybe you should read about the success with English immersion in California and Arizona, where voters approved similar measures for English immersion:
http://www.onenation.org/0008/pr081400.html
http://www.heartland.org/publications/school %20reform/article.html?articleid=10241
Interestingly enough, the Association of School Administrators opposed these measures when they where on the ballot too. Makes you wonder if they really care about the children or about finding ways to ask taxpayers for more money by dragging out a self-induced need for costly special education.