Republicans still courting Hispanic voteFollow

I've never seen much evidence that bilingual education has been any impediment to being an active participant in society. For the most part, children of immigrants who are educated in the public school system by in large gain a command of a second language within a few years of being in our education system. The people who generally have little command of English are generally parents who don't have the same access to public education.

Given the natural advantages of knowing English, it seems ridiculous to legislate it. Furthermore, if a parent, like some I see in my community that mostly speaks Haitian, Spanish or Portuguese, works to supports their family and pays their taxes, I don't know why we need a government program to legislate what language they use. It becomes a privacy issue. I am not sure why that becomes the government's issues. Well, other than the xenophobic fears of people who mistakenly think that American culture is static, unchanging and simplistic.



I work with alot of schools and have friends who work in educational policy and have never heard that. Actually, studies indicate that people who are bilingual, by the nature of knowing more than one code, actually reap some intellectual benefits in terms of being able to read social situations, problem solve and process abstract concepts. I'd be curious to know what you are citing. I hope to read a citation that is not from Newsmax, the Washington Times or some of the wretched outpost of the rightwing media.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2007 10:50am by Annabella

I'd like to have people pass a test proving that they understand A) the stance of their registered party on basic issues; and B) the implications of the ballot measures on which they're about to vote. It ain't going to happen, though.

As long as a person understands an issue, I don't care in what language he/she understands it. Let that person vote, for fuCk's sake. They're rare enough, and we need them.

So you have a problem with how these programs are funded and implemeted.

Which, in a way, was precisely what Newt was talking about in the OP.

Right?

Strange that you incoherent rambling has finally started to bleed into your sentence structure? Not at all. It was a matter of time, in my opinion. I expect you to fling poo at the wall within the year.

I'm not angry at any system. I'm angry at individuals, like yourself, that can't even grasp the basic tenets of an idea well enough to form an educated opinion on the subject, yet go on at length as if they-you-had a doctorate in education.

This reasoning didn't work for Joph with the Catholic thing, so nice try, but no dice.

Jesus, you're simple. You don't get it. I wasn't put into bilingual education--in which I would have excelled because I am, let's face it, a linguistic rock star--I was put into REMEDIAL education. As if I wasn't intelligent or capable due to my language, and that's what would happen to these kids. Semester upon semester of practicing things they learned years ago only in another language, which would lead to apathy and bad grades, like it did for me. I learned Algebra in the third grade in Peru, and I was brought here to diagram goddamn The Call of the Wild. These children aren't hobbled, they are MORE THAN YOU CAN DEAL WITH, because you are crippled by monolingualism. Deal with it.

Simu-post with Flea! And we both made the same point about her vs. bilingual education!

Joph said I didn't know anything about the public school system. I think personally knowing 5 public school teachers and two public school administrators (one in a senior district position, so I've heard all the top level political/funding issues as well) makes me qualified to discuss this topic.

Perhaps a bit more qualified then someone who simply attended public school once... Maybe?



No. You're not getting it. If there had been no such program, you would have simply been placed into a regular class, in English, and tested in based on your abilities. Because of programs like the bilingual education program(s), your brown skin puts you into the "this kid might fit our program!" catagory. That's why you were tossed into the remidial classes. That's why they looked at your skin and your mom, put a label on you, and placed you based on that.

I have an understanding of how the placement processes work. Again. It may be different whereever you where that this happened, but here's my guess at what happened to you. Based purely on your backround, they placed you into a file that is for the "special needs" kids. Then they attempted, from that file, to place you where you needed to go. Undoubtably, they first attempted to place you into any spanish instruction classes they had. If they didn't have any, or if they realized that you did speak sufficient english, they then place you into the bottom level coursework. Why? Because your in the "special needs" file. Even if you don't actually need anything, once you've been catagorized that way, it colors (excuse the pun) everything about how you are treated within the administrative process.

This is all done without once seeing the student. It's done all the time. And it's largely because of the programs designed to "help those poor immigrants". If they didnt' exist, you'd have simply had a test put in front of you, and based on the results of the test, placed into classes.



Look. We can argue this all day long. But the simple fact is that if we'd had a straight immersion program what happened to you would not have happened. Period. It's only because they treated you differently then any random white kid that this happened. And they did that *because* they have special programs and processes and proceedures that they follow when brown skinned kids from other countries show up at their doorstep. That's the result of the bilingual education system.


I just find it amazing that you were a victim of this and yet *still* defend it. Or, more correctly, attack anyone who opposes the very thing that victimized you. Again. Strange...

Edited, Apr 3rd 2007 6:56pm by gbaji

Sure. If the system was a true bilingual education system (classes taught to all students in multiple languages). But that's not what we have. What we have is a process that attempts to identify students who the administration believes "needs" to recieve instruction in a different language. Those students are then placed into those alternative language classes instead of the regular ones. That process (as Flea discovered) is far from perfect.

That's the problem. It's not bad in concept. It's bad in application. I've already gone to lengths to explain how the funding process for education programs in our public schools makes this so.

You keep trying to argue an idealized vision of what "bilingual education" is, when I'm arguing about the reality of what it actually is. It simply does not work the way you think it does. It's primarly a huge bloated process that results in brown skinned kids getting pidgeon-holed into substandard education because they're assumed to be less capable due to some language deficiency.

Exactly as Flea was.



We also don't know based on the article what the full extent of the immersion plan is. If you teach everything in English, and simultaneously teach English to students who don't speak it well, the immersion process happens pretty darn quickly. Nothing in that article says that Gingrich is *not* in favor of classes to teach English to these students. That's the missing component to this whole thing. Because the big problem with our bilingual education today is that the focus on teaching these students english ends up getting lost (due to budgeting processes as I've already detailed).

So yeah. That student will do poorly for a year. Maybe two. Just as any immigrant will do poorly when first exposed to a new language and culture. Then the student will "catch up" (hopefully). The point is that even if the student never catches up in terms of class level, at least he'll have learned English. That's a huge determinant of success down the line. He's better off with a high school diploma and a 1.5 GPA and knowing how to read/write/speak decent english, then graduating with a 3.0, but without having learned English (which is what's happening right now).

And hey! Get rid of those programs and you don't have students like Flea getting tossed into remedial classes based on assumptions about her based on her skin color. What a shocker!



Sure. But you'd need to change the way the entire public education system is funded Joph. As I said earlier, I don't think you understand the extent of this problem. It's not as simple as "fix the program". The very nature of the way we fund public education ensures that certain approaches to solving problems don't work properly. This is one of those things.



Yup. It's always painful to move from the current totally screwed up system to one that might actually work. See. We've had a bizaare method of calculating success in our schools for so long that NCLB does create these "odd" issues. But it's like tearing off the bandaid. Sometimes it's better to do it fast and do the "right thing", even though it's painful, then continue to do the wrong thing simply because doing something correctly will cause pain in the context of the rest of the screwed up system you're using.

NCLB has a number of problems, but the "direction" it's going is correct. Make the schools responsible for the quality of education their students recieve. Ultimately, the purpose of school is to educate the kids attending it in a way that is relevant. It makes sense to judge their success using the same criteria that will determine success for those students once they get out of school.

And guess what? Not being able to speak english is going to cause you lots of problems as an adult, right? Getting straight As but not being able to speak English is not going to help you get a job Joph. The purpose of our education system is to prepare these kids for adult life. That includes teaching them english. Giving them higher grades by allowing them to take the class in spanish isn't preparing them at all. Cause they're not going to get the equivalent of high grades out in the real world. No one's going to offer them a "spanish language" version of a job.

So yeah. Measuring their true potential within the US workforce seems like a far more correct way of doing it. Don't you think?



I really wish you (and a couple other people) would stop changing the quote around. He said spanish was the "language of living in a ghetto", not the "language of a ghetto". The "living in" part is significant. He's saying that if you can't speak english, and can only speak spanish, you'll likely end up living in a spanish speaking only ghetto (using the traditional meaning of ghetto).

And he's absolutely correct. And most Latino Republicans will agree that he's correct. Some folks may not like that degree of frankness on the issue, but he's speaking truth. If you can only speak spanish, you're only going to be able to manage well if you live in a predominantly spanish speaking neighborhood. Guess what? That is, by definition, a "ghetto".

I'd also like to point out that at least in the quote in the OP, Gingrich didn't actually label "Spanish" at all. That came from someone responding to his statement. He simply said that if you learn English you learn the "language of prosperity" and not the "language of living in the ghetto". Now perhaps in the full transcript he specifically mentioned Spanish, but it's not in the article linked. He's saying that not knowing English will result in you living in a ghetto. And that's not an inaccurate statement.



No. It's after getting here, listening to the marxist lefties that call themselves "hispanic leaders" many of them get sucked into that trap and end up living in those very ghettos (where I suppose they form strong voting blocks for those very leaders that put them there).

The Latinos who are joining the Republican party in greater and greater numbers are those who have recognized the trap that awaits most of their people at the hands of the predominantly liberal leaders in those communities. They've figured out that the actions of these leaders have not improved the lot of Latinos within the nation, but have instead locked them into those very ghettos and trapped them in a cycle of poverty. They're the ones who cheer statements made like those Gingrich made. Heck. They're much much more condemning of the standard Latino leadership out there. You should hear these guys talk. The venom they have for other latinos who squander their opportunities and sit around clumping into groups in poor neighborhoods with ever increasing crime rates while they're waiting for their vaunted marches and protests to cause money and success to rain down on them from the heavens and make their neighborhoods great places to live is about 50 degrees hotter then anything Gingrich said in that speach.

I live in San Diego Joph. I know these people. I know a heck of a lot of conservative Republican Latinos. They'll make comments about most latino social leaders that would make Flea blush. Those guys are most definately *not* put off by what Gingrich said. While the press would like to make it seem like all Latinos are cut from the same cloth and are offended by anything that does not match the assumed "pro-latino" position (odd that the left pidgeon-holes them politically too!), that's really not true. The rise of conservatives among Latinos is a rise in the numbers of Latinos, largely here in the Southwest, who have had it with being labeled. They've had it with the assumption that it's ok for them not to speak English. They've had it with being told by other Latinos that somehow they're not Latino enough if they do learn English and have the audacity to get good jobs and become productive citizens.

You seem to be laboring under the somewhat bizaare idea that conservative Latinos are really liberal latinos who for some reason happen to vote Republican, and that Republicans will lose them if they don't subscribe to liberal ideals. Um. No. They are conservatives because they don't agree with the liberal positions. They don't think that latinos should get special treatment. They don't think that there should be special bilingual classes for them. They do believe that they should work and earn their livelyhood. They expect in return that they be treated based on their successes and capabilities and not on the color of their skin. Because *that* is what being a conservative is about.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2007 7:59pm by gbaji

Once, way back when Thundra still posted, I had a thought that gbaji was one of Thundra's troll accounts, you know, kind of like a sleeper account. I imagined gbaji was his 'Wacko Conservative troll' and he was keeping it a secret until one of those times when he was in one of his depressive states and needed a little 'look at me I'm an attenion *****' pick me up, before he let us all in on the secret. I couldn't wait to see the look on Smash's face (figurativly speaking, of course) when he realised he was argueing with such a troll. And then I realised one day Thundra couldn't keep a secret long when it came to his troll accounts. That was a sad for me. I came to understand that there really are deluded fools such as gbaji out there and they run our country.

This thread is hilarious, but also sad, and makes me not want to bother clicking on this forum anymore, which makes me sad again.

You don't know what the **** you're talking about. It's hilarious.

Redundant. You'd already indicated you were quoting Gbaji.

Kudos to Tricky, Bodhi, and Flea for the laugh. Gbaji is still an cnut.

No one, except maybe you, ever claimed that students were taught simultanously in two languages. In fact, none of the bilingual programs I cited earlier have you teach in two languages simultanously. And, funny enough, that definition doesn't at all fit Flea's description of her educational experience that you swear is "bilingual" education.

Do you have any idea what you're arguing? At all?Except that he was talking about advocating immersion programs...
"We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English"
...and you're saying that immersion really means bilingual and bilingual really means some made-up definition you tried to apply to Flea's experience.sounds an awful lot likeSo, according to you, Gingrich's immersion plan is to provide bilingual education because bilingual education doesn't work? Fascinating!And I stand by it. Again, you've said nothing that sways me from that opinion.

Edited, Apr 4th 2007 7:48pm by Jophiel