Thursday
February 28, 2008
From yesterday’s Chicago Tribune:
Amid controversy about the way bilingual students are taught and tested in Illinois, a tiny school district in the northern suburbs is waging a quiet campaign to allow schools to teach these students primarily in English.
Officials at Diamond Lake School District 76 in Mundelein say their decision to adopt an English-based program five years ago yielded higher test scores. But it could also mean the loss of $175,000 in state and federal funding this year—enough to force trims in summer school and other programs…
The State Board of Education initially lauded Diamond Lake for the academic gains made by its bilingual pupils, then discovered the change in how the district was teaching them and suspended funding, said Supt. Roger Prosise.
ISBE’s spokesman Matt Vanover says,
“When we monitor the bilingual program, we’re looking at the services they are supposed to legally provide. We’re not looking at how they are doing.”
Well, OK, that is certainly part of ISBE’s role. But I’m sure even Vanover can see how silly that statement sounds in the context of education. If the students aren’t doing well, what’s the point of the mandates? If other services are providing good results, could the law be, perhaps, too rigid?
On the other hand, this month’s Catalyst focuses on the opposite side of the debate over the ratio of English to native language instruction in bilingual classrooms, with a piece outlining the benefits of dual language instruction, which provides support for students to maintain their fluency in their native language in addition to teaching English.
I’ll confess I have very little background in bilingual education. I’d be very interested in hearing from TEN members who know more about this topic than I do.
Labels:
