In about a month, Massachusetts voters will be asked to make a decision which will affect the future of the children of this state. The voters will have to decide what they think should prevail: An ideologically based English-only, neo-conservative perspective or a practical progressivism that has been shown to work. In November, the question of bilingual education will be put before Massachusetts voters.Bilingual education is the use of two languages as tools in classroom instruction. Non-English speaking students are taught in both their native language and English, with the goal of English eventually becoming the principal language of instruction. This method has been used in one form or another for over 200 years, and has been proven to be extremely effective.
English-only instruction, on the other hand, immerses students in an environment where there is no use of their native language, and they are forced to learn English in order to succeed. The rest of the curriculum is put on hold while the student is undergoing this process.

The law being proposed in Massachusetts would deem English-only instruction mandatory in all public schools. This, in essence, would mean that all non-English speaking children would be separated from mainstream classes to attend a costly English immersion program. And, even worse, under the proposed law, teachers could be personally held responsible, and consequently sued, if found speaking to students in their native language, regardless of the reason.

Objectively speaking, English-only instruction would be detrimental to the state of Massachusetts. While there have been studies that support both the pro and con side of the bilingual education issue, one of the most extensive and reputable studies done, using a meta-analysis method, showed a significant difference in the outcomes of the two methods of learning English. Professor Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, using test scores from close to 3,000 students enrolled in either a bilingual or English-immersion program, concluded, "I find that children with limited English proficiency who are taught using at least some of their native language perform significantly better on standardized tests than similar children who are taught only in English (March, 1998)."

In addition, an English-only initiative might be in violation of the law. Since students are forced to learn English in order to succeed, English-only instruction takes on a "sink or swim" approach. Therefore, regardless of whether foreign speakers are given equal materials, instruction, or opportunities, they are at a disadvantage by not being able to understand the very language, thereby violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With English-only instruction, students are put at an obvious disadvantage and therefore, not provided equality of opportunity based on national origin. With bilingual education, non-English speaking students are given an opportunity to succeed equal to that of their English speaking counterparts because they have the opportunity to learn all their required subjects while learning English, rather than the certainty of failure if they do not grasp the English language immediately.

Aside from the practical side to this debate, however, the ideological side exemplifies countless other issues in American society. The classic American myth of the "melting pot," in which all our differences get melted together into a rich soup, can no longer prevail. Although most conservatives think that forcing foreign students to immerse themselves in English is the best way to make them into Americans, it probably will create more frustration and contempt for American culture and education. Did you ever try to learn to speak another language fluently enough to use it in school? Most people are not that facile. Instead, we must look to the "salad-bowl" concept of embracing our mutual humanity while recognizing and celebrating our differences. Bilingual education recognizes that foreign students have their language differences, while teaching them our common American language -- English.

Many defenders of English-only education use California, where English immersion has been used since 1998, as an example of its success. Yet, it is important to note that while there was a slight rise in standardized test scores for English learners, there are many other factors, such as smaller classes, greater funds allocations per pupil, and a shift to phonics-based reading, that could just as readily have influenced this success. According to data collected in August 2002, there is a widening gap between English-only speaking students and English-immersed students in all subjects.

So, on Nov. 5, when Massachusetts voters have to make the choice between bilingual or English-only education, they ought to assess what values they feel should triumph in their state. The conservatives have pumped massive amounts of money into this ideologically based campaign for English immersion, hoping that they can confuse the voters into voting yes. But, if academic freedom, a basic tenet of our educational system, diversity, and, most importantly, the success of our children are what is most important to Massachusetts voters, then bilingual education will remain.

-- Samantha Slater '05 submits a column to the Justice.