Thanks, Tom.

I was under the impression that the classes being taught were what we understand to be a bilingual classroom here: primarily English, with learning support in the form of tutors and extra instruction in the native language (principly interpreting directions and discovering what the child means when a concept is to difficult for him to express with a limited English vocabulary), supplemented by a second language for the entire class integrated into the lesson plans in various disciplines (poetry, music, history, conversation/roleplaying, etc.). Apparently I was wrong.

To isolate a child by preventing her from speaking the language spoken by the prevaling culture is just as appalling as to deracinate her by forbidding her to speak the language her family speaks at home. I see the former as a reaction to the past tendency in the US to do the latter. Both are extreme and restrictive, and neither helps the child.

When I was on the long-range planning committee for my school district, all of us (volunteers from the community -- some parents, some business people who weren't parents, some teachers) believed that one of the outcomes to be required of our students upon graduation from high school should be to be able to carry on brief polite conversations in a language that was not English. You know: "My name is..." "Where is the airport?" "The mountains are very beautiful." "Please show me the red necklace." "Thank you for your help. You are very kind." Like that. And, of course, to be able to understand the replies and ask follow-up questions if necessary.

The right-wingers on the board shot it down. It's unAmerican to have to learn a language that's not English. The Constitution is written in English. The Gettysburg Address is written in English. The Bible is written in English. :s So you see, when someone talks about eliminating a language program, my ears are precalibrated to this frequency.

Regards--
Mary Anne