Your question is essentially this: Why shouldn't the majority be allowed to vote away the rights of the minority if the majority believes there is no harm in doing so? Although the AIR/WestEd study found no significant differences in achievement in English based on the language of instruction (not the same as methods of instruction), it did not examine data regarding students' academic achievement in Spanish in bilingual programs. Data from standardized tests of Spanish reading from the years following passage of Prop 227 indicate that students who are being taught to read in Spanish are reading at or above grade level in Spanish. A student who can read at grade level in his or her native language has full access to the school curriculum and can be learning literature, science, social studies and other core subjects in that language. They are not left out of learning. This is a huge advantage academically, as well as socially and culturally. Let us not forget that Spanish is the third most widely spoken language in the world. Students who attain biliteracy in Spanish and English are light years ahead of those who are struggling with learning to read only in their second language English. As adults, they will have many advantages because they are more competitive in the global marketplace with their bilingual and biliteracy skills, as well as the cross-cultural communication skills and knowledge that biliteracy provides. So why should the minority not protest when the majority denies them a resource when the majority suffers no harm or loss by their having it?
Posted as a reply to:
A more appropriate question by Jeff Sanders
|
|
