Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h859Iw718882; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 05:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 05:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <004701c3738e$5382fef0$18aab042@lop.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "ttweeton" <ttweeton@comcast.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9414] Re: Accept English Only donation? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2954 Lines: 64 Kevin , those who propose these laws are incredibly ignorant of research ,already quoted here, on the effects of forcing children to learn English without Bi-lingual programs.Their ignorance is so appalling, it is like walking out in public with only your underwear! Too bad they are not on line reading any of this information. But of course their objective is NOT to be informed, just remain ignorant. The proposals ARE really vicious. Tanya ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Rocap" <krocap@csulb.edu> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9397] Re: Accept English Only donation? > Dear Joe et al, > > English-Only laws are generally the outcome of English-Only political > organizing which seeks to ban bilingual programs for language minority > children funded by any funding source. Take as point of example > Proposition 227 in California (that seeks to ban bilingual programs in > public K-12 education regardless of the source of funding), and then the > more draconian Prop 203 in Arizona (crafted by the same folks, but with > efforts to get rid of the "loopholes" that were permitting children, > families and schools in California to use waivers if they really wanted > to maintain a bilingual program). When I say "regardless of the source" > of funding I am referring to the fact that the laws target the behaviors > of teachers (making teachers' jobs vulnerable, for instance, if they > choose to use a non-English language in their classroom, thus skipping > the funding question altogether). The one exception, of course, is that > programs considered "foreign language" in nature (i.e., those that > primarily benefit white, English speaking kids by teaching them another > language, while kids who come speaking a language other than English and > could easily become fluently bilingual in that language and English, > with appropriate programs, are denied those programs). The bias is > clear. It is alright to use tax dollars and other dollars to subsidize > the development of a second language for predominantly white, generally > privileged, English speaking kids, but we will not extend that > commitment to kids, generally of color, who come speaking language other > than English and already represent a tremendous language resource for > this country. > > In Peace, > K. > > Joe Little wrote: > > >> "English-Only Laws anywhere in this country are a threat to > >> Bilingual Education everywhere!" > >> > >> > >Ken & all, > >Sorry to do this in two emails. Do u mean English-Only laws anywhere in this country are a threat to the federal or state funding of bilingual education, right? I'm not terribly familiar with the English-Only campaign but my gestimate given our federal situation is that a U.S. law would not nix state funding and a state law could not prevent federal or other state.joe > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:23 EST