The Unz-Tuchman Proposal: A Bad Idea

Stephen Krashen

"English Language Education for Children in Public Schools" is a proposal submitted to California voters by Ron Unz and Gloria Matta Tuchman. Several aspects of the Unz Tuchman proposal are not in question at all: We all agree that "Immigrant parents are eager to have their children acquire a good knowledge of English," that English is an important language, and we certainly have an obligation and duty to provide children with English literacy. The rest of the proposal extremely problematic. Its claims and proposed changes are completely unsupported.

A Poor Job?

The proposal asserts that " the public schools of California currently do a poor job of educating immigrant children..."

This attack on public education is unjustified. Jeff McQuillan has argued that in the last decade, the burden on California's school system has increased incredibly, and schools have done as well as could be expected with the resources they have:

1. California has the worst school libraries in the country. California is next to last in terms of books per student and are dead last with respect to the number of librarians per student.

2. The number of limited English proficient children in California has increased from about 600,000 in 1987 to about 1,300,000 today.

3. California's public libraries have declined in access and quality. Book budgets in public libraries in California have been cut by 25% since 1989, and the number of hours public libraries are open has declined 30% since 1987. Children's services have been hit the hardest by these cuts.

4. The absolute number and percentage of school age children in poverty has increased dramatically in California. California ranks 41st out of 50 in terms of the percentage of children living in poverty, and there was a 25% increase from 1989 to 1993 in the number of children in poverty in California. The NAEP reported that California ranks near the bottom of the country in the percentage of homes with more than 25 books.

Despite these problems, reading scores in California have held steady, and dropout rates among Hispanic students decreased from 1988 to 1992.

Failed Programs?

" ... wasting financial resources on costly experimental language programs whose failure over the last two decades is demonstrated by the high dropout rates and low English literacy levels of many immigrant children"

The "experimental" language program referred to is bilingual education. Empirical studies of bilingual education show that children in these programs, when they are set up correctly, do well, acquiring English literacy better than children in all-day English programs.

One cannot blame bilingual education for the high dropout rate of Latino students. First, not all Hispanic youngsters are limited English proficient. In California, less than half of Hispanic students are classified as limited English proficient. Second, as noted above, of those who are limited in English, not all are in bilingual education: In California, about 30% are in bilingual education programs, another 20% are in programs with "informal" first language help, and 21% receive no special instructional services at all

Third, well-designed bilingual programs produce better academic English, which suggests that bilingual education is part of the cure, not the disease.

Finally, research has shown that when one takes "background" factors into consideration, i.e. socioeconomic status, print in the home, family factors (e.g. single parent vs. two parent families) and recency of immigration, differences between Hispanics and majority children in dropout rate disappear.

It should also be noted that 40% of all Chicano children live in poverty in the US, compared to 15% of non-Hispanic whites. Poor children have far fewer books in the home, in their school libraries, and in the public libraries in their neighborhoods, and go to schools that are often poorly funded, among other problems. Also, 45% have parents who have completed high school, compared to 81% of parents on non-Hispanic white students. When one asks male Hispanic dropouts why they dropped out, only 4% claim it was due to poor performance in school (compared to 8% of non-Hispanic whites), while 38% give economic reasons (compared to 22% of non-Hispanic white students).

Sheltered English Immersion

"Children who are English language learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not to exceed one year."

The initiative defines sheltered English immersion as "an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language." It defines bilingual education as "a language acquisition process for students in which much or all instruction, textbooks, and teaching materials are in the child's native language."

There are many problems with this plan:

1. "Sheltered English immersion" is not a term in current use in the language education profession but is a confusing combination of terms. "Sheltered subject matter teaching" is a method in which second language acquirers are taught subject matter in comprehensible way. It is used with INTERMEDIATE, not beginning, second language students. It is a valuable part of programs for LEP children and is used as a transition between the first language component and the mainstream.

2. "Structured English immersion," as defined above, allows some first language use, contrasted with bilingual education, in which "much or all" of instruction is in the first language. Since NO bilingual education program is ALL in the first language, these two programs differ only in how much first language use is allowed. Just how much is too much? Who decides? Will there be language police to determine when a teacher is using too much of the child's first language?

The bilingual program used in much of California uses BOTH sheltered subject matter teaching and instruction in the first language, with varying amounts depending on the level of the child. Its status under the Unz-Tuchman proposal is not clear.

3. The proposal sets ONE YEAR as the standard for special English instruction. After one year, it is expected that students will participate in mainstream classes. This criteria is wildly optimistic, one Unz has noted is based on "common sense" and not research. Even those who are opposed to or are highly critical of bilingual education note that it takes more than one year to acquire academic language, the kind of English language competence children need to succeed in school (e.g. the heavily anti-bilingual education Little Hoover Commission report noted that "some experts believe that English can be academically comprehensible for children in as little as two years (emphasis mine), while others believe that six or more years of assistance is necessary").

The evidence we have suggests that one year of intensive English is not enough to bring children to the level where they can do grade level work. A study of an all-English program in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania shows this. In kindergarten, there was no instruction at all in the primary language, and no ESL, but children "receive a language rich curriculum (in English) based on thematic units." While 90% of the students showed some growth in English during the year, most still scored in the "beginner" range on the PreLAS in English, clearly nowhere near ready for a full academic program in English. Consider also the results of a program for limited English proficient first graders in Quebec who were given a great deal of help in English literacy: Small group work (three to four students per group) for two hours daily devoted exclusively to literacy development. Nineteen of the 23 went on to grade 2, but the students were still well behind native speakers of English, scoring at the middle of grade 1 in reading at the end of the year, "still well below the class average." These students, in addition, had already had a full year of kindergarten entirely in English, in a semi-sheltered situation: 75% of the class consisted of second language acquirers. Finally, in a recent evaluation of LEP children in the Santa Ana children, students with relatively more English on entering were placed in an "immersion" program, similar to what Unz and Tuchman recommend. After one year, they showed some growth in English but nowhere near what was required to do academic work in the mainstream: They moved from 2.18 to 2.84 in English, on a five point scale, where 4.0 is considered good enough to do demanding academic work in English. Even after a second year of immersion, their mean English rating was only 3.24.

Thus, focusing only on English in very young children has been tried. Focusing on the primary language works better. When the Carpenteria preschool program drastically reduced the amount of English and increased Spanish, focusing on language and cognitive development, dramatic gains were seen in school readiness measures as well as in English! As the designers noted, English improved because the children were better able to understand the English they were exposed to outside of school, thanks to their improved cognitive development.

4. The proposal encourages grouping by English language proficiency alone. If "sheltered English immersion" is in fact sheltered subject matter teaching, this means one class with a group of beginners in English, studying subject matter that can be at very different levels - even if the program is limited to children younger than age ten (as the Unz-Tuchman plan proposes). This is a nightmare for the teacher and will result in a great deal of dead time for children exposed to lessons that are completely inappropriate for them.

Children who "know English" are excused from sheltered English immersion. To demonstrate that they know English, they must score at or above the state average for his grade level or above the 5th grade average, whichever is lower ..." on standardized tests of reading comprehension. This is statistical nonsense: 49% of the native speakers of English score below the state average, by definition.

Why Bilingual Education?

Bilingual education is sensible: A limited English proficient child who knows the subject matter will understand more in a class taught in English than one who does not. The more math the child knows, the easier it will be to understand a math class taught in English. The more the child understands, the faster he or she will acquire English. Bilingual education gives children subject matter knowledge and thus speeds their English language development. Also, children who develop literacy in their primary language have a much easier time developing literacy in English: It is easier to learn to read in a language you already know, and once you can read, this ability transfers to English. Thus, in addition to making sure children do not fall behind in subject matter, bilingual education makes a powerful contribution to their language and literacy development.

Published research supports bilingual education: Children in well-designed programs, programs that give them solid subject matter instruction in the primary language, literacy in the primary language, and ESL, acquire academic English as well and usually better than children in all-English programs.

In addition, it is a shame not to promote primary or heritage language development. Children who develop their primary language, in addition to English (not instead of), show superior cognitive development in some areas, typically do better academically than their monolingual peers from the same group, and do better in the work world. Our country and economy benefit from bilinguals.

The best solution for our limited English proficient children is a solid academic foundation in the first language, with ESL beginning immediately, and with subjects being taught in English as soon as they can be made comprehensible for the child.

Stephen Krashen is an internationally recognized linguist and Professor of Education in the University of Southern California's Graduate School of Education.