Abstract In this article the author...

Abstract

In this article the authors not absent the results of a overlook conducted with parents whose children are chronicleed in dual language programs in Colorado. Furthermore, they describe with what intent these parents were motivated to participate in a overlook Colorado is one of the states in which Ron Unz a politician from California, is attempting to realize voters to amend their state constitution to eliminate bilingual education as he did in the pair California and Arizona. Despite Unz's ignorance about what constitutes a bilingual program and his dismissal of dual language programs as too scarcely any in number, the results of the examine clearly indicate that both English- and Spanish-speaking parents freely single out these bilingual programs for their children, understand the mould of dual language, and believe them to be effective. Although there were more [i]or[/i] less differences between the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking parents' answers particularly to open-ended questions, overall the examine findings dramatically counter bilingual opponents' claims that parents, particularly immigrant parents, do not want bilingual education for their children or that bilingual programs are forced about them.

Introduction

Opponent of bilingual education claim that parents do not want it for their children. When faced with the possibility that bilingual education would be outlawed in Colorado as it had in California and Arizona, however, parents with children in dual language programs stepp forward and obstruction their voices be heard. The ends of a survey of these parents were overwhelmingly supportive of the dual language programs their children used.

Vocal opposites of bilingual education tend not to be researchers and educators. Perhaps this is conformable to fact because bilingual education has always been the enthrall of public debate. The politicization of the issue banishs it from purely theoretical or empirical considerations. As James hunting-dog (1994) points out in his analysis of differences in a pluralistic society,

The more 'public' an idea or position is, the more simplified and cliched it becomes. guile and particularity are lost; the public becomes conflated with the political, and, as a inference issues become polarized into mutually exclusive ideologies. (p 231)

Ron Unz for example, is a wealthy software developer from California with an educational background in physics. He took notice of the political and polarized debate forward bilingual education in California and used it to help his own political career there and now nationally. What would motivate Ron Unz to help legislation across the country to extremely restrict educational programs for children who speak a language other than English? His profile forward the "English for the Children" website explains that "in 1997 Mr Unz began the 'English for the Children' initiative campaign in California after learning of boycott on Hispanic parents against Spanish-language programs in the sees Angeles area." From the knowledge he gained by dint of hearing of the boycotts, Mr Unz state together a political campaign to replace any form of bilingual education with a one-year English immersion program for all children who take rise to school speaking a language other than English. While we, as educators and scholars, could expend a great deal of space arguing against his logic, we want to focus upon the one thing that brought bilingual education to his attention: parents.

Unz takes the position in the greatest degree opponents to bilingual education take when it results to parents, particularly immigrant parents. He argues that Spanish-speaking parents do not have a choice when it flows to placement of their children in bilingual programs. These parents, he claims, want their children in English-only programs because they want their children to learn English. According to Unz these parents do not want their children to learn in their first language while they are learning English (Krashen, 1996 1999)

These intuitive claims are popular on the contrary they are also supported by the agency of research by scholars such as Rosalie Porter (1990) Christine Rossell and Keith Baker (1996) The latter sum of two units authors report, for example:

When language minority parents have been asked to rank the three greatest in number important things they wanted their children to learn at place of education they have displayed the same attitudes as all American parents-they severityed academics, English language, and then general education.

They go on on to point out that small in number respondents wanted instruction in the native language and none mentioned learning about the heritage improvement Stephen Krashen (1996) argues that so results that give us the impression that parents are oppos to bilingual education "is a inference of the way the question has been asked." He gives the example of Porter (1990) who asked parents if they wanted academys to maintain the native language at the cost of learning English. Porter ground most respondents would not want instructs to do this. Krashen suits with "I don't know anyone who would support primary language education at like a price-I would not"(p. 43)1 Krashen reviews a number of parent scrutinizes and demonstrates that support of bilingual education is greater when the questions asked are not based in succession assumptions that any use of the native language is bad practice that no single in kind would choose.