[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 17970-17971]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          BILINGUAL EDUCATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 12, 2000

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for my colleagues this editorial 
from the August 23, 2000, Omaha World-Herald regarding the 
effectiveness of bilingual education.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Aug. 23, 2000]

                        Bilingual Ed Takes a Hit

       Ken Noonan, a California public school principal, has an 
     interesting story to tell. It begins: I was wrong.
       Noonan, whose story was related in The New York Times on 
     Sunday, spent many years as a leading proponent of bilingual 
     education. That's a way of educating students who enter 
     school not knowing the English language. The theory is that 
     these students can learn best by taking their math, science, 
     history and other subjects in their native tongue. Over time, 
     they make a gradual transition into English, partly as a 
     result of studying it on the side as a second language.
       Or so the theory goes.
       So enamored of bilingual education was Noonan that, 30 
     years ago, he founded the California Association of Bilingual 
     Educators. In the 1990s, when opponents of bilingual 
     education proposed a ballot initiative to discontinue its 
     use, he was one of the leaders in the fight to preserve the 
     status quo.
       ``I thought it would hurt kids,'' he said of the ballot 
     initiative.
       But the initiative passed. In effect, students who don't 
     speak English are required to plunge in and do their best. In 
     the two years since the initiative took effect, test scores 
     in the target group have risen sharply. Kids are learning 
     English. And Noonan, who predicted that children would be 
     hurt, now says: ``The exact reverse occurred, totally 
     unexpected.'' He said children are learning formal and 
     written English ``far more quickly than I ever thought they 
     would.''
       Research, he said, says it takes seven years for students 
     to learn English. In practice, they showed considerable 
     progress in 9 to 12 months.
       The Times, in its story about the higher test scores, noted 
     that some educators are still reserving judgment. For one 
     thing, it's uncertain how many schools made a complete break 
     from bilingualism. Other improvements, including a reduction 
     in class sizes, may account for some of the progress. And the 
     overall scores, even though they rose, are still 
     embarrassingly low.
       From the experience of Noonan and others in California, 
     however, it's possible to draw a few conclusions about the 
     way society educates its children:
       Too often the educational establishment trusts in theories, 
     such as the theory Noonan thought justified giving students 
     seven years to learn English, when common sense cries

[[Page 17971]]

     out for more documentation. No one knows how much damage has 
     been done by the various new maths and watered-down histories 
     that have come along over the years in the name of making 
     education more ``progressive.''
       One of the worst ways to harm children is to expect too 
     little of them. That bores them and teaches that school is of 
     little consequence. These feelings are compounded by 
     artificial esteem-boosting, such as the praise of 
     accomplishments that aren't really accomplishments. This 
     makes them feel sheepish. Challenging them with real work 
     makes them feel the pride that can come only from growing, 
     stretching, maturing and mastering a difficult task.
       Immigrants, for the most part, want to learn English. 
     Critics who accuse them of the contrary are generally basing 
     their opinions on assumed or incomplete information.
       Bilingual education, The Times said, took root because of 
     strong support in Congress. Extra money was provided for 
     bilingual programs, following the idea that government knows 
     best.
       Of course, government doesn't always know best. Just ask 
     the founder of the California Association of Bilingual 
     Educators. He has a story that's worth listening to in any 
     other place where bilingual education is producing less-than-
     satisfactory results.

     

                          ____________________