Posted: Thursday, July 3, 2008 12:00 am
A citizen initiative on the Oregon ballot this fall would prohibit public schools from teaching foreign-language speakers in their own language - usually Spanish - for more than one to two years, depending on grade level.
The proposal is unwise in this respect: We want people to learn English, so if they can't do it in one or two years, we're supposed to stop teaching them?
The first operative paragraph of the measure says: "If a non-English speaking student first enters the public school system at the kindergarten through fourth grade level, English immersion classes shall be limited to not more than one year, after which time the student shall be taught exclusively in English."
Isn't "English immersion" the same as being taught in English? The intent of the measure is clear, though. It wants to end special programs for children still learning English after one year in grade school, a year and a half in middle school, and two years in high school.
Schools want the same thing. But often it doesn't work out.
According to a report that came out in March from the Greater Albany Public Schools, 69 percent of its ELL students reached proficiency in English within five years and successfully left the program. Statewide, only 37 percent did so after five years.
Five years is a long time to learn English, especially if you're a child growing up in an English-speaking country. You should be able to do so much faster. But if you come to Oregon as a ninth-grader, becoming proficient in just two years - proficient enough to complete all the credit classes for graduation - well, for many that might take a little longer.
Voters will want to think about this. Yes, we want everybody in this state to learn English as quickly as possible. But it might not be such a good idea to specify by law how long it takes young people - with different degrees of language sense and adaptability - to learn a new tongue, especially one as tricky as the language most of us speak. (hh)