Fierce debate on English immersion in MA public schools

The second question on tomorrow's Massachusetts state election ballot, a controversial proposal to end bilingual education in favor of English immersion in Massachusetts public schools, was the topic of a heated discussion at a campus panel last Wednesday. The hour-long debate featured a panel of two students and three education experts who argued for and against the initiative.

"[The debate] is really choice versus no choice," said Tim Duncan, a panelist representing the Committee for Fairness to Children and Teachers, who argued against question two. "It's going to be a nasty political process for a problem with a not-so-easy answer.

"It's not a 'one size fits all' solution," he said.

Current Massachusetts law requires public schools to provide, if needed, a transitional bilingual education in which foreign students are taught first in their native language and gradually moved into classes that are taught solely in English. In theory, this process allows students to learn both the English language and other subject material without falling behind in school.

The ballot initiative, spearheaded by Republican businessman Ron Unz of California, seeks to replace such "dual-immersion" education, taught half in the student's native tongue and half in English, with a one-year immersion program in the English language.

Proponents of the initiative cite bilingual education as a "failed experiment" that leaves many foreign students without adequate English language skills after prolonged and ineffective programs.

Tomorrow, Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to vote for or against this change.

Other speakers at the panel included Dr. Christine Rossell, a professor at Boston College and member of the English for the Children of Massachusetts program, and Nidia Mendez, Director of Bilingual Education for Boston Public Schools.

The debate began with talks by two undergraduates who were educated bilingually. These students advanced the idea that a fast-paced English immersion program could prove more difficult for immigrants than the present bilingual system.

Sophomore Catherine Caicedo was educated bilingually during the tenth grade in Queens, NY. "I really think it is a good system and it works," Caicedo said. "It is not meant to be against immigrants, but be beneficial to them. I think that without it, I would not be here at Tufts."

Senior Trung Lu also experienced bilingual education by learning English through Vietnamese in grade school. "There was a huge communication barrier for me when I came to America," Lu said. "The bilingual program offered a gateway for me to fit into America."

The case for bilingual education was also argued strongly by panelist Nidia Mendez, who experienced English immersion at a small college in Lancaster, Massachusetts.

"I went through six months of silence when I first came to college," Mendez said. "I had a dramatic experience that no child should go through. A decision for the best must be made soon."

As an educator in city public schools, she has realized the importance of bilingual education and supports the current program.

Mendez's statements struck a chord with the audience, which erupted in applause.

On the other side of the debate, Christine Rossell, who has conducted research in writing and scientific studies on bilingual education for the last 25 years, pointed out some flaws in the current bilingual education program.

Next year, she said, a new law will be passed regardless of the initiative's outcome, giving school districts the ability to choose between bilingual education and English immersion, leaving the state out of the question.

Rossell's comments sparked a heated question and answer session which followed the panelists' presentations.

But some students appreciated hearing the other side of the issue. "At first I thought the debate was very one-sided... until Dr. Rossell stood up for the other side," freshman Andrew Chapman said. "I was actually quite impressed by the amount of credible information that she presented to the audience. She seemed to be drowning in a sea of closed-minded people who were bent on supporting bilingual education and refused to acknowledge her standpoint," he said.

The forum was sponsored by the Experimental College Board and moderated by Professor Calvin Gidney of the Child Development Department. Gidney, who taught a bilingual curriculum in an Ecuadorian public school before coming to Tufts, explained the importance of discussing political agendas.

"I think [the question of bilingual versus English immersion] relates to all of us as a nation. At the root of all this is the question of diversity," Gidney said. "How should we deal with diversity as a culture and in the classroom? What role does language play in the conceptualizations of this?"

The debate was attended by over 150 students, faculty, and members of the community.