-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/1a70440ed393d62e8828ec78e40c4df7.pdf
a13676e5bc4ca3a3217f3575ac82b892
PDF Text
Text
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PUBUC AFFAIRS
. Statement of
Richard W. Riley
U.S. Secretary of Education
. Helping All Children Learn English .
April 27, 1998
As we look to the future of American education, one of the most important new developments is
the growing number ofimmigrant children that we must educate. 'According to the latest census
data,:nearly 20 percent of all children in our nation's schools-on'e out of five-are immigrants or
. the American-born children ofimmigrants.
.
A new study of immigrant children 1 state$ that l3.7 million children under 18 are either
.immigrants or the American-born offspring of immigrants, and that they are the fastest
.growing part of our student population. These children come from over 150 nations with the
. largest number coming from Mexico, the Phillippines, Cuba, and Vietnam.
Some Americans say that these children are a liability, but I welcome these children, just as
the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge has welcomed them for years. They are a
great source of strength and hope for the future of America, and .we want them to be full·
participants in the American experience as children and as adults.
These young people, just like generations of immigrants who have come before them, can
grow up to be patriotic Americans who will add their voices to our democracy if we educate
them to the best of our ability and treat them as we would like to be treated. Indeed, the
largest survey ever conducted of immigrant children found that these young people had higher
grades and' a !ower school drop-out rate than other children and overwhelmingly preferred to
speak English by· the time they were teenagers. 2
.
These young people represent the hopes of immigrant parents who have come to America
because they believe in the American dream. They have stood in long visa Hnes, uprooted
their families, left relatives behind,changed car~rs, often accepted menial jobs and in many .
cases now work two jobs for one great purpose-to give their children a better life in America.
Surely we can meet these people half-way by giving their children the best education possible
. so that they can make their contribution to the American mainstream.
Teaching these young people English is one of the great tasks of nation-building and it fall's, to
. our public schools to accomplish. This is .not the first time that the task of educating millions
of new immigrants to become good citizens has been given to oiJr nation's public schools. At
the tum of the century our nation's public schools successfully taught millions of new
immigrants English and educated them about our democracy.
)
600 INDEPENDENCE AVE .. S,W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202-0131
(202)40)-1576
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.
�2
Today, we face the same challenge. There are school districts in almost every part of our
country-from Boston to Seattle to Miami-...where children speak more than 40 languages., I '
, believe that our nation's public schools can successfully educate these young people 'if we give
them the same opportunities that other students need in order to succeed: higher standards, safe
,schools, smaller classes, well-prepared teachers, technology in the classroom, after-school
'
, activities, and schools that are accountable for results.
, rresident Clinton, has made education his number one domestic priority to achieve one end-:-to
prepare all of America's children-native-born and immigrant-for the 21st century. President
Clinton has also increased funding for those programs-Title I, immigrant and bilingual
education, migrant education, adult education-that directly serVe a disproportionate number of
immigrant children and their families.
,
'
Today, however, there are growing questions about the best way to teach these young people
English. In California, these concerns about how to teach English center around Proposition
, 227, the Unz Initiative, which would effectiveiy eliminate bilingual education and require that
, all children learn English in one year.
'
I recogriize that the de,cision to vote for or against the VOl Initiative this coming June is ultimately
a decision for the voters of California. I know that there are many well-intentioned and concerned
citizens on both sides of this issue and that the people of California are taking this issue seriously.
New immigrants 'have a passion to learn English and they want the best for their children. We
, must focus on what is best for the children and in this increasingly diverse society we must make
sure that a11 of America's children ,are given the best education possible. Our common goal in
teaching children English should be to support those approaches that ensure that Limited-English
Proficient (LEP) children are both speaking English and making academic progress..
Proposition 227, however, is not the way to go. In my opinion, adoption of the VOl Amendment
will lead to fewer children learning English and many children falling further behind in their
studies. There are five significant reasons why I believe that the VOl Amendment is counter
productive to a quality education for all of our children.
'
First, the one year time limit and one-size-fits-atl approach to learning English flies in the face of
, years ofresearch that tells us that children Jearn in different ways and at different speeds. A
recent National Research Council report3 released last month states that, "hurrying young
non-English speaking children into reading in English witho'ut ensuring adequate preparation is
counter-productive." The report recommends that children with no English proficiency are best
taught to read English by first being, taught reading in their native language, if teachers and, '
instructional materials in their native Janguage' are available.
�Thus, while an EngJish-only approach may be effective for some limited-English-proficient
childn~n. it is likely to be"ineffective for others. I do not oppose special English instructional
programs. In fact, ab"out25 percent of our current federal bilingual funds support this type of
instructional approach. What I question is the arbitrary one-year time limit and the demand that
. only this approach is the righ~ approach to help young people learn English.
.
The approach taken by Proposition 227 simply ignores the individual needs of each child and
certainly is an educational. straitjacket for teachers and parents. Good teaching starts with a
child's needs and moves the child along in a timely and responsible manner.
By an31ogy,.if we adopted the approach suggested by the Unz Initiative to help children learn
to read, it would be a disaster. Some children are already good readers when they come to
kindergarten and others learn by the end of the first or second grades. Other children need
extra help even in third grade and beyond.
Second, the Unz Amendment limits the discretion of teachers to choose the approach that is
best suited for the children they teach. Some children may learn best in an English-only class,
others may learn faster in a bilingual class or through some other proven approach, but with
the Unz approach, teachers are ·given no option to use their professional judg~ment.
Third, Propo;ition 227 would subject teachers, school board members, and educational
administrators to personal liability in litigation by parents if they fail to comply with its
requirements: I find this aspect of Proposition 227 both punitive and threatening. This is not
the way to build parent-teacher cooperation-a key to student success.
Fourth, the Unz Initiative h a direct attack on local control of education. I am surprised that so
. many outspoken advocates of local control have chosen not to take issue with this fundamental .
flaw in the Unz Initiative. The Unz Initiative would not be a helping hand for language
.instruction, but rather the heavy hand of overregulation. Local flexibil~ty to choose the
approaches that work bestfor their students should not be constrained by a mandate for one
approach over the other. I believe that every school district should choose the approach that
works best for them based on sound research.
Fifth, the Unz Initiative will in all likelihood result in problems under federal civil rights laws.
In the seminal case of Lauv. Nichols, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VI of the Civil
Riglits Act to require school districts to take steps to ensure that national origin minority
students with limited English proficiency can effectively participate in the regular educational
program.
�4
.SimiJarly, the Equal Educational Opportunity Act requites public educational agencies to
overcome language barriers that impede student participation in their instructional programs. .
Limiting special language development instruction to one year and preventing a school from .
providing bilingual instruction to students, despite the judgment of teachers and the school
.principal that children in that school need bilingual instruction to progress, are likely to result .
in violations under theSe laws.
I join all Californians who are unhappy with the status-quo and I understand the frustration that
is encouraging many voters to think about voting for the Unz Initiative. But the approach of
the Unz Initiative is just plain wrong. Proposition 227 may Satisfy people's sense of
frustration but ultimately it is counter-productive to our common goal of making sure children
. learn English while making academic progress in other subjects as well.
I believe that there is a reasonable and positive alternative to the current status-quo and the
proposed Unz alternative.
I propose setting a three-year goal to make sure that a child is learning English; Individual
differences and circumstances may cause some children to take longer, but a goal of learning
English within three years is reasonable. This goal is similar to our goal of making sure that.
every child learns to read independently by the end of third grade or earlier. We
.
know that goals and standards improve academic performance: when we set goals, we find, to
a greater degree than we thought possible, that students can meet them.
A goal is not a mandate or a command. And a goal is certainly not a one year educational
straitjacket that limits the ability of teachers to do what is best for each child. Some children
may learn English in one year or two and others may need three years or even more. The
focus should be on the individual needs of each child and not on some artificial and arbitrary
time frame.
Goals should be combined with flexibility and accountability. I believe in giving local school
districts latitude to design their own programs contingent on their being accountable for the
results. Parents have a right to expect progress. Children should be tested periodically for
English proficiency and when a child is falling behind, extra efforts including after-school
classes as well as summer ,school should certainly be considered.
If a school district chooses an approach to teaching English that simply does riot achieve
positive results for a large number of children, then the school district must have the good
sense to fix the problem or use another approach that research shows will work. The .focus of
every program--be it English-as-a-Second Language, dual language immersion,bilingual
. education, or English immersion-must be on strengthening quality, regardless of the
approach.
.
�5
I believe that the key to strengthening quaJity is well-trained teachers and we must do a much
better job of meeting the demand for more well-prepared teachers. The demand for bilingual
teachers, for example, currently exceeds the supply and that is particularly true in California
where the number ofLEP children.has nearly doubled to 1.3 million in less than a decade. The
.California State Board of Education estimates that there isa sho~ge of 21,000 bilingual
teachers in that state.
This, I suspect, is one of the root causes,and real reasons why some parents have become
frustrated. The Administration ha.s asked for a doubling of federal funds, from $25 million to
$50 million, to meet the increasing demand for fully certified bilingual teachers and English:
as-second-Ianguage teachers.'
.
I have no doubt that this nation has the capacity to include our many new immigrants and their
, , children in the American experience. We must do everything possible to make sure that all of
these children learn English as quickly as possible and get the quaJity education that they
deserve.
'
Finally, I think American educators need to redouble their efforts to make sure that all of our
children are fluent in two languages. I just returned from Chile where I joined President
Clinton at the second Summit of the Americas. Improving education was a centraJ part of the
diaJogue at this summit. I was struck by the fact that several nations begin teaching their
children two languages starting in the first grade.
Anyone who,has traveled to Europe knows that young people allover Europe are fluent in two
and often three languages. I see no reason why our children should not be their equals. Some
children already come to school with the ability to speak two languages. We should build on
this linguistic base and reCognize that our nation will be the better for it in the new global
environment.
Think of the many advantages-economic, cultural and political-that a·fluency in two
languages can give to the American people. America's message of democracy, human rights
and economic freedom would surely reach a wider audience. This is why I encourage and
supp()rt any school district that sets the goal of making sure that every one of their high school
graduates will speak two languages fluently by the time they graduate.
.
, We can do no less for today's immigrants than we did for earlier generations of immigrants
who turned to our nation's public schools to teach them English and the basics of our
democracy. In conclusion, I urge all Americans to welcome America's new citizens and to
help them to become part of the American dream.
�.
).
,I
6
•
Endnotes'
1 Rumbaut, Ruben G;, Visiting Scholar: The Russell Sage Foundation' and Professor of Socioiogy,
Michigan State University,: Transjormations:·ThePost-lmmigrant Generation an Age of "
Diversity, p. 1. '
.
.
'
' .
rn
llbid.,pp. '17, 18, and)9.
" 3 National
Research Council,PfeventingR~ading Difjicu!ties,ihYoung Children, p. 3~4.
"
r
i
'
.
...
..
,
I'
,
..
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Cohen - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36062">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Cohen held the position of Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy within the Domestic Policy Council from 1996 to 1999. Prior to being detailed to the White House, he served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education.</p>
<p>This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to education reform, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), America Reads initiative, bi-lingual education and the ballot initiative in California which proposed to eliminate bi-lingual instruction and limit the amount of time for bi-lingual students to transition to English only, test standards, teachers, tribal schools, school safety and school violence. The records include correspondence, reports, faxes, emails, handwritten notes, schedules, publications, and memoranda.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
318 folders in 24 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
California [Ron K.] Unz Initiative - Bilingual Education: Unz Announcement
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 4
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0160-S-Cohen.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/12/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0160-S-california-ron-k-unz-initiative-bilingual-education-unz-announcement
7763316