Plan B Forum

Your ex was taking English at night school when she was 8 years old?

No

Teaching English at the earliest school-age possible is much more cost effective for the schools who then have students in later grades who have an easier time and cost less to educate and for the state who gets citizens who are better educated and higher-functioning citizens.

Or you can just find someone to blame and turn your brain off.

yrs,
rubato

If your ex went to night school and didn't get the instruction she was supposed to, I would hope the schools would be taken to task as well. That's what the ACLU is alleging here, the schools didn't do their job and deliver the educational opportunities they are required to provide. We'll see if the courts agree.

Dale, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the ACLU on this one...(painful to me as that is)

Getting young kids up to speed in English is a very cost effective investment for a whole host of reasons. It's not going to do us much good to have tens of thousands of kids being held back and repeating grades, then ultimately getting frustrated and dropping out, and then hitting the streets with little-to-no marketable skills and a sense of isolation from the dominant society. (Neither one is good by itself, but they're a really bad combination) The cost to us for that is much higher.

It also beats the holy hell out of the policy where they were teaching them in their native language for years on end. The sooner they can get the kids proficient in English the better.

I don't know how old your ex was when she got here, but it seems a little unreasonable to me to expect 8,9, and 10 year olds to go to night school....Nor would I consider them "leeches" for needing language instruction help...

There are lots of things we can cut, but it seems to me that to cut off funding to help bring young kids into mainstream society by getting them proficient in English is penny wise and pound foolish.

If they don't know English they should go back where they came from and learn it....!!!

There have been many generations of immigrants who came to this country speaking no English, who somehow managed to master the language sufficiently without formal language instruction. The formal language instruction demanded here is nothing more than a demand for more goverment employees (English teachers) to fuck the California taxpayers.

This is the state, as I recall, that used to have a law that if a school had more than a certain number of students who spoke a foreign language natively, they had to provide instruction IN THAT LANGUAGE at state expense. Am I right about that?

The problem is that too many foreigners come here and rather than wanting to assimilate, they want to live in an enclave of their foreign homeland, completely isolated from American language and culture, thus their children are not sufficiently exposed at home to learn English.

Kids pick up languages very quickly and most can be conversant within a year.

As always, the ACLU is on the opposite side of logic and reality.

[quoteThere have been many generations of immigrants who came to this country speaking no English, who somehow managed to master the language sufficiently without formal language instruction][/quote]

Since first grade through the end of high school I have always had formal instruction in English; did you attend a school that didn't provide it? How sad.

The problem is that too many foreigners come here and rather than wanting to assimilate, they want to live in an enclave of their foreign homeland, completely isolated from American language and culture, thus their children are not sufficiently exposed at home to learn English.

since the post is dealing with a school system that failed to provide appropriate English instruction, your point makes little sense. If it had been a suit to prevent the students from being forced to learn English, I could understand it, but here even the ACLU agrees that the children should receive instruction to learn English.

As always, the ACLU is on the opposite side of logic and reality.

Somehow I thought you'd agree with them about teaching immigrants English, if only to promote assimilation. But I guess you see ACLU and decide they are wrong without reading what they are complaining of. But then, if you had no instruction in English ...

I wonder the reason for the 20,000 not getting English language classes. They say they are already covering 98% of their students, what's "special" about this 2%? Same district/area? Sorry if it's covered in the article, it's blocked by our net admin

This is the state, as I recall, that used to have a law that if a school had more than a certain number of students who spoke a foreign language natively, they had to provide instruction IN THAT LANGUAGE at state expense. Am I right about that?

Yes Dave, (I referenced that in my post) and that was outrageous; this approach is vastly superior.

There have been many generations of immigrants who came to this country speaking no English, who somehow managed to master the language sufficiently without formal language instruction.

Yes, I know; there were folks on my mother's side of the family who came here from Italy shortly after 1900, who went through that.

But in those days, there was a much higher demand for low skilled labor that didn't require much in the way of education or English language skills; taking that approach in contemporary times is foolhardy; we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.

The cost to society of not providing intense instruction to young kids to get them proficient in English will be much higher than the cost of providing that instruction. That seems obvious to me.

If it turns out that the payroll for teachers providing this instruction is somehow being padded by keeping kids in these classes who no longer need it, (I certainly would not put it past the CTA to pull something like that) or if ineffective instructors are being kept on the payroll to teach these classes (they should be replaced) then those situations can easily be determined through student testing.

But the basic concept represents a very sound investment.

I don't think this is seeking "English" classes as they are taught. They are seeking, basically, to have "English as a Foreign Language," taught to those with minimal English familiarity, which is an entirely different matter.

OBVIOUSLY, it is in everyone's best interest for foreigners to learn English as quickly as possible when they come here. The question is whether school children require segregated, taxpayer funded, classes to learn English. My answer is, if that were the case then how do you explain how immigrants have survived here for the past three hundred years? If school kids are not learning English now, with the entire American culture bombarding them with English in 10 different media, it's because they don't want to learn (for one reason or another).

Putting them in segregated "English" classes will generate as many problems as it does benefits, thus it is not worth a huge investment of taxpayer funding. Every new teacher comes with a price tag on her back - at least a couple million dollars - because the taxpayers will be supporting her until she dies.

dgs49 wrote: OBVIOUSLY, it is in everyone's best interest for foreigners to learn English as quickly as possible when they come here. The question is whether school children require segregated, taxpayer funded, classes to learn English. My answer is, if that were the case then how do you explain how immigrants have survived here for the past three hundred years?

Then your answer is another question.

And the answer to your question was already addressed by Lord Jim - "... in those days, there was a much higher demand for low skilled labor that didn't require much in the way of education or English language skills..."

It is the law in California for our schools to teach non-English speaking children how to speak English.

So the real question is, why are over 20,000 students not being taught English at school?

What is worse in your opinion?

"Segregated 'English' classes"?

Or not helping children who don't speak English and making it likely they will not only learn more slowly but are more likely to keep themselves segregated from the majority?

I'm going back and redacting my topic.

I misunderstood myself.

What Joe said. And FWIW, the way it is being taught does not seem to work, so why not do something else (especially when the taxpayers are paying for schools which are, by law, required to teach English to non-native speakers) ---10 different media or not?

I went to a meeting a couple of years back where a "Flower Hat"* was vociferously arguing that immigrants to Aus should not be required to learn English, and that government services should provide interpreters to help them access the system. her own father had liven in Aus for over 50 years and did not speak anything other than Greek.

I asked her if she though every government department should have an interpreter for each of the 2000 plus languages in the world, she replied; "Yes."



*I miss Pexxa.

[quote="Gob"]her own father had liven in Aus for over 50 years and did not speak anything other than Greek.

[\quote]

I'm not entirely sure you should be criticizing anyone's English skills ...

LOL!! fair comment!