Penni, I am totally unfamiliar with the situation of Asian children who come to Dallas. Are you saying they are not in bilingual programs? All I know about is Asian students in San Francisco. The wealthier ones who came here from Hong Kong do speak English already. Their parents are educated and affluent, and they have a strong motivation to succeed. The Asian "boat people" and the other poor refugees we have taken in do not come here speaking English, and they enter bilingual programs. California school students in some districts speak as many as thirty languages when they enter our schools.
My daughter's high school is 62% Asian, and would be 100% Asian except that there are district rules that every school has to be very mixed in its racial breakdown. But all of the children are really good English speakers, and entered school speaking English. A lot of their parents are doctors, professors, attorneys. I think there is a pattern where the first generation which comes to America really sacrifices itself for the next ones. The older people who come here without English skills may have been prominent people in their country of origin, but can hardly survive here because they do not speak, and cannot master, English, and depend on their children and grandchildren to support them.
Since a quarter of California's school children do not speak English, what would happen to them if we don't teach it to them? Welfare is now limited to two years. It is in the interest of a prosperous and stable society that people have the skills to support themselves and contribute to the tax base. But to clarify, I was saying that in the U.S., discrimination by race or national origin is prohibited. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be discriminatory to teach children in a language they do not understand, and this is the issue of the suit in California against the bilingual education prohibition.
Maybe it is really our immigration policies that should be reexamined. Starting in the 1960's Europeans had a hard time getting in, as the focus turned to Asians. Many, many Irish people who already spoke English were not allowed in because of the small quotas for them.
Imagine going to a class, any class, and trying to learn a new computer program, or how to write poetry better, in Chinese or Spanish! You would fail, and that is what happens to children who are taught in a language they don't understand, as well. Of course, we agree that bilingual education should be short and effective, only until the children are proficient in English.
I'm not sure what to say about the child with a catheter, in a regular classroom. If the child is normal intellectually, it seems that it might be okay for him to be there if an aide handled his medical needs. I think mainstreaming disabled children may teach empathy and compassion among the "normal" children. It doesn't seem fair to make them feel any more disabled than they already do. How a society treats its weakest members IS a reflection of the society in general. But I definitely understand your underlying point--that children who are not disabled deserve most of the teacher's attention. I don't know how to solve the problem of what is exactly fair here.
But I am not really much of a liberal, Penni. I don't even think Viagra should be offered by state Medicaid programs. I think sexual expression is not a medical necessity at all. Our Republican governor, Pete Wilson, disagrees with me, however, and it will be paid for by California taxpayers for the very poor here. I think with limited resources, we need to concentrate on children, and let adults take care of themselves to a larger extent. |
