To: Grainne who wrote (23330 ) 7/8/1998 1:56:00 PM From: Rambi Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
My first reaction was to be impressed and wonder what had changed from earlier statistics, (the ones that quoted a success rate of 6% for bilingual students) but then later in the article they mentioned that the scores reflect the "graduates" and the success stories---which made me wonder about what percentage did NOT take the test, years in the program, etc. WHo choose the ones to take part in the test? For instance, some high schools encourage all their students to take the SATs while others only the college bound and higher achievers. Obviously the scores are going to be skewed much higher to the second school. I think most of what you and I have been reading is probably biased by the particular viewpoints of the writer or the interpreter of the results. Whenever you have large budgets involved and federal grants and assistance, you are going to have politics being played. It would be idealistic to think otherwise. You mention racism on the one hand, but the other side has a strong financial reason for having a program be successful. Too often, money concerns eclipse the altruism of people. I tend to distrust reports until all the factors have been considered. Statistics are just too easily manipulated and results biased. (The only thing I learned in Statistics class was how easily things could be twisted) I support results also, but would not accept this one article so quickly as the ultimate proof that bilingual ed. is more successful. (Anymore than I think immersion is, or English only, or complete isolationism!) You usually ask wonderfully penetrating questions about articles or opinions from sides that disagree with you. Ask the same of the ones who agree. penni who takes no stand-yet anyway