Natalie Kuhlman

NATALIE KUHLMAN

I’m Natalie Kuhlman from San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Uh, what makes teachers of a second language effective is a very broad question uh and it’s a global one. I think that to be—I think it’s uh—there are a lot of things that make a teacher effective, a bi—uh ESL teacher effective or bilingual teacher effective. Uh, one is uh an understanding compassion for students and the high expectations for students, and to value first languages, and to value the cultures from which the children come. And uh—and in addition to that, good teachers are good teachers and that’s a common impression that you don’t have to do anything special to be an ESL teacher. But to be an effective ESL teacher, you need to know a lot about uh language, about language acquisition, about effective methodologies and as I said at the beginning, respect and uh high expectations for children.

Well, they have a lot to learn. Uh, typically mainstream teachers are not as knowledgeable about the diversity of the students in the United States today uh in different parts of the country. Uh, mainstream teachers uh may or may not come with the kinds of language foundations and to add to what mainstream teachers who are good teachers know that you need to build or scaffold uh information about uh diversity language, methodology and things like that. Um, being mainstream teachers doesn’t mean that they uh would or would not be good ESL teachers.

Bilingual te—what I’ve learned from bilingual teachers uh that—to me they are the most committed, uh passionate um supporters of children because many of them come from bilingual homes or from homes where they didn’t have the opportunity to learn in the language—their home language and build on that. Uh, they understand where the students of today uh in California alone, for example 1.4 million children who are English learners, where they come from. And the bilingual teachers I work with—which I primarily work with in my department um come in with—with a knowledge base and a world view that not all mainstream teachers unfortunately are—are able to have.

OK, the whole issue—uh the debate between home language and the basic skills approach or the phonics approach as it affects English learners uh in the United States today is obviously a major one. Um, the term whole language is—is uh almost a—a term that’s not even acceptable to use uh whereas basic skills appear to be. Uh, the—what we found with second language learners is the basic skills approach doesn’t lend itself to high expectations for students for one thing. In the California language arts—English language arts framework, one of the first things they talk about are—are sounds that you need to decode. But the sound they use is ah. Cat. Ah happens to be—only exists in English. So for English learners to—to uh begin learning English uh focusing on sounds they’ve never heard before makes it more of a challenge. But actually, I mean phonics has a lot also to contribute to learning literacy, obviously the whole area of decoding. And whole language or constructivist approach or critical pedagogy approach, which is the one I advocate uh, you need a balance. You need to bring in—every child is different. Some children need a lot of phonics; some need virtually none regardless of their language background. And so you really need to look at the child and what’s best for the child rather than looking at the politics of whether or not um, uh one method is better than another. As I said, I happen to advocate a critical pedagogy approach, uh one that—that advocates social justice. And that reading should be meaningful, which comes from whole language. Uh, it should be student centered. And students who need it should also have decoding skills, direct instruction in decoding skills. You need a balance and to be collective at the same time.

Well, it—it depends a lot on the age of the child too. But um I’m a strong believer that children should be raised bilingually/biliterate regardless of whether they are monolingual in any language, including English. But in terms of what ESL teachers can contribute to literacy specifically, uh ESL—actually let me start that over again. Um, ESL teachers have a lot to contribute to the area of literacy. Uh, each child is—I—is—many people say, comes in with different background. If the child’s five-years-old and has had no exposure to literacy, then the ESL teacher is going to focus on oral language development first and then add literacy to it. If the child comes in at age 12 and is fully literate in their first language, then adding literacy is going to be a transfer of the concepts that you already have. You need to learn the new language vocabulary and structures, but you don’t need to learn how to decode again. So it—an ESL teacher should come in with those kinds—that kind of knowledge base. And uh the popular myth is actually true that transfer of reading, in particular, is probably the easiest of the four skills listing speaking, reading, and writing. Writing is probably the most challenging because you’re suppose to be correct uh when you right, although that’s obviously not necessarily true. Um, but that’s the one that—that may take the most work. But uh ESL teachers would understand uh differentiated learning of children and—and the skills that they come in with already that they can build upon.

In that—in that uh division, uh the difference between a critical literacy approach or a—versus a phonic approach per say, one focuses on skills, one focuses on meaning and on challenging meaning and becoming critical thinkers. It’s fine to be able to decode and I—I’ve heard of places in the—in the US where the focus is primarily just on decoding but the children don’t understand the meaning of what they’re doing. Nor do they see the relevance of it within their society or within their democracy. And in a critical—uh critical pedagogy approach, a critical approach, they’re going to learn to challenge it. Um, I’m reminded of—of Patrick Shannon’s uh wonderful example of second—I think—I believe it was 2nd graders somewhere in Pennsylvania who in the process of acquiring their own literacy started examining what was going on—I think it was with a K-Mart store. And these 2nd graders who supposedly are only suppose to be able to decode words at that point, just barely being able to read and write, manage to get K-Mart through letters, through research, to move their building to a different part of the community because of water issues. That’s a critical pedagogy and you don’t get that from just decoding. You need a lot more.

Emergent literacy—I—I did a study uh about two—emergent literacy and a two-way bilingual program. Uh, I—I followed children from the 1st grade to the 5th grade with our two-way bilingual program or Quasi two-way bilingual program. And we wanted to find out uh through journal writing, actually, how the children would access their primary language, English or Spanish and their second language, English or Spanish. And we started finding—uh we could actually identify through the journal writing the day that they learned how to use exclamation points. Uh, we found the children in the 3rd grade who were first language Spanish speakers starting to write in English without being instructed to do so. We didn’t find the 3rd grade English speakers starting to write in Spanish. Uh, when we encouraged them to do that—and—and when we talk about emergent literacy, you have to talk about whether or not it’s naturally emerging or whether it’s emerging through instruction. And so the emphasis was clearly on English even in—in this particular two-way program and so the emergence—the natural emergence of English came through for the Spanish speakers. However, for the English speakers, it wasn’t until we asked the teacher, the classroom teacher, to have them write in their other language one day a week that we discovered that even though Spanish was not the emphasis in this program, these students had acquired a lot of Spanish and didn’t know it. But what they came out with when they started writing in Spanish in journals was a—was inventive spelling. And we had these wonderful examples of uh words that they spelled—they spelled them like they were in English. And it was really delightful. And the children then realized—they were in the 5th grade by this time—they realized that they knew a lot more Spanish and uh one of the other results of this was that a—one of the English—native English speaking boys came to school with a Spanish-English dictionary and he started teaching the Spanish—L1 Spanish children how to use the dictionary. We found a lot of other examples in the 3rd grade with emergent literacy. Uh, and just because it was a two-way program, we had a uh first-language Spanish speaker decide to teach one of the first language English speakers how to read in Spanish. And she was going to teach her to read “Cinderella” in Spanish. And those kinds of things that happened so that—the emergent literacy we saw in their primary languages, because they weren’t pushed to use one or the other, but uh it developed over the years so that even though it wasn’t strictly a two-way program um both children—both sets of children developed literacy.

That’s a—the issue of initial literacy—uh, or literacy in the primary language, initial literacy, the research uh—and you can side all kinds of research that—that talks about the need for the strength of literacy in the primary language uh is there. And we’ve long believed that you need to have a strong first language and then you can acquire a second language uh literacy included uh as a transfer of learning once you have the foundation. And this is uh—I think most of the research has found this to be true. One that’s the minority language is the first language. Depending upon the amount of literacy in the home and—and things like that uh will impact how much the children already come to school with a sense of literacy. In the two-way programs, majority English speakers are able to be immersed in the second language because there’s no threat to their first language or culture. The minority language speakers, particularly if they do not come from a rich environment at home, need to be immersed in their first language. So it’s not a—it’s not a—again, it’s not a question of one or the other. Many of the children who say go into a two-way bilingual program often come in already very much aware of print at age five. They may even already read. So you’re adding to what they know. And it’s additive whereas frequently in a—the minority language it’s subtractive. The goal is to get them English literate, not to begun—make them bilingual/biliterate. And so the argument about what language to begin literacy in uh I think you have to take into perspective the whole child and their experiences. In California right now, we just uh in July of 1999, we had the English language development standards approved. I was the coordinator of that project, not the project director. And uh at first we thought we would be looking at ESL on one side, English Language Development we call ELD in California, uh and looking at literacy as being adding later based on the idea of the primary literacy. We were required to write the standards uh tied to the California English language arts standards, which meant that we were going to begin pre-literacy in any case in English immediately. And I had um, uh—I thought about that quite a bit about whether I could do that. And we actually had challenges about why listening and speaking weren’t huge sections of our standards. But instead what we did was embed listing and speaking throughout all the standards. And there’s seven categories in California. Uh, systematic vocabulary, word analysis, reading comprehension, as well as, listening, and speaking, and writing areas. And liter—yeah, literary uh analysis I think I said and uh we found that children are—that are learning. My concern is that they also learn literacy in their first language.

A story I know about uh students who have benefited from literacy in their first language, I had a—a teacher come into see me a few weeks ago—I—I’m the coordinator for—or the graduate adviser for our Master’s program in our department and she’s a bilingual teacher. And she did have the benefit of bilingual education. She’s one of the first that we’ve had who have had that benefit. Uh, most of our students come in without having had bilingual education and their academic development in Spanish isn’t has high. Uh, and she had just wonderful stories about having been able to grow up bilingual and biliterate and the academic benefits of that. We also uh—I—I can tell many stories about those who didn’t have the benefit of being able to go through a bilingual program and the way they felt about school, about how they were disenfranchised from school, how they felt that uh in some cases school wasn’t for them or they watched their peers leaving school, physically or mentally um, because they never learned literacy in any—any language because they weren’t aloud the benefits of—of—of being bilingual/biliterate. But also at the same time, in terms of—of being—having respect for who they were and their own identity. Being told that who they were wasn’t good, that they had to be English literate, but they couldn’t be English and Spanish or Vietnamese literate.

That’s—the issue of assessment and children that are perceived to be uh not fluent in any language is perhaps a misnomer. You have to look at the way in which they’ve been assessed. You always have to use multiple measures uh in terms of assessing individuals. And there was a—a case in Santa Ana, California, I think, or Fullerton—somewhere around in—in southern California in Orange County 15 years ago, uh all the 1st graders were assessed with the last instrument and they were all assessed at a level 1, which meant they couldn’t speak anything. And we knew they could because all you had to do was go out to the playground. They weren’t silent. Uh, there was also a study in about 1980 uh of children who scored at an intermediate level in—also I was on the bilingual syntax measure I think at a level 3 and the decision was to teach them mostly in English because they couldn’t speak either one. But again, you have to go back and look at multiple measures. Was the assessment instrument itself effective? Were the students interesting in taking the test? Did they understand what they were doing? Um, there’s so many factors in language development. You’re unlikely to find any five-year-old or eight-year-old unless they have developmental issues who doesn’t talk. So the question may be they don’t have academic language because they haven’t had the benefit of bilingual inst—good bilingual instruction. We think there’s maybe 15 percent of the eligible children get good bilingual instruction uh even if they are in bilingual programs. And uh, uh you have to go back and look at—at other situations. I don’t think you have chil—you have children who have—vocabulary isn’t developed. If that’s the issue then you go and develop it, but you don’t do it in just one language.

There was—uh, the issue of dominance in—and assessing dominance in—in the early uh assessment programs, say back in the late 70’s after Law versus Nichols and the Federal government required that—that all children be assessed for language use, different terms were thrown around. Uh, one of them was dominance; one was uh preference—language preference. Uh, what you really need to look at was language proficiency. The dominant language is—it’s hard to define. Uh, is it dominant if they’re more proficient? Is that what you mean by dominance? Uh, is it the language they prefer? Often children introduced to a new language might prefer to use the new language but it’s not the one that they have the strength in, you know, the greater knowledge in. So if dominance is—and it’s relative, is it dominance relative to another language? For example, uh most of the uh language proficiencies test like the LAS, the BSM, the Banal, are done on a five-point scale. Uh, the IPT’s done on, I think, a six-point scale, the Idea Proficiency Test. And uh if you uh look at the relative levels in two languages so that in Spanish they might be uh four and in English they might be a two, then I suppose you would say—the—the relative proficiency or their dominance would be in Spanish rather than in English. So it give you a sense of—or where their language development overall is. But those tests are all given in 15 or 20 minutes and again you have to look at multiple measure. You have to look at what else they can do.

It’s—making a decision on what language to start a child in uh should never be made on one—is—on one measure. Uh, however they use replacement right now all over the country. Um, California’s changing now. We’re going to a new test called the SELT, which is going to be a much more uh complete test, I guess. Um, the oral part will be about 15 minutes and then there’s a written part for 2nd grade and above. The uh—most teachers will say that those quick assessment place the kids all right. But then I’m a believer that all kids should be bilingual so I wouldn’t place them in all English program period.

OK. Again, you—you have to look at what their previous experiences—uh in terms of second language writers uh you need to look at the previous experience of the learner. Uh, characteristics, for example with adolescents, you need to look at the different writing systems. You don’t need to be knowledgeable about how—you don’t have to be able to write in Punjabi or to write in um, uh Vietnamese or whatever, but you need to be generally aware of—that they’re different writing systems. They’re writing systems where in—in the U.S. we use an Aristotelian model, which is very linear. You say thesis, you make your points, you support them, you conclude. Uh, a lot of other countries, a lot of other cultures uh use a circular model where you never specifically state the thesis. Um, you have to intuit the thesis of it or the point or whatever. So those are some general areas that—that ESL teachers need to know about. They also should know in general uh about the structure of different languages. Again, you can’t expect teacher who has 18 different languages in her classroom to know the structure of all 18 languages, but they need to know some of the general kinds of areas uh from the con—writing convention side, not just from the writing uh strategy side uh or organizational models. Um, you need to know some of the most common kinds of issues that you might have with—with uh writing. Uh, I get concerned when people equate writing with uh grammar, punctuation, and spelling as opposed to conceptual development and having something to say. I think meaning is—is the place start and you can add it later.

To know—as far as assessing the writing of second language learners, it’s important to know uh if it’s possible how well they write in the first language, what experiences they’ve had with writing, what they know about writing. Um, you also need to know about their background knowledge so that they have things to—and this goes also uh in terms of what ESL teachers need to know about writing, is you need to know about background knowledge and how that plays in terms of your thought development and what you have to say. And asking English learners to uh write about what they did on their summer vacations may be totally absurd when they don’t have summer vacations. I mean, you just—you need to know something about culture, you need to know something about language structure, you need to know something about how languages are organized and—and how different cultures organize, you know, their thought systems as well as having a really good sense of writing. I—a lot of people think that you teach writing—or that children can learn to write by just reading. Uh, that gives them something to write about. And if they happen to be very analytic and critical about the way they read instead of just taking the banking system of information, they may observe the ways in which different janras are—are—are put together or different uh writing styles, formal, informal, etc. Um, but chances they’re going to need some direct instruction in that area.

Uh, the—the three areas of language preference, language proficiency, and language dominance uh I—are different ways of—of looking at uh—uh the level of language. It’s—those aren’t terms, I think, that are used very much today in terms of language assessment and language preference being the language that the child would choose to use. But the language of the child would choose to use uh may just be because it’s new, not because they’re particularly good at it yet. You know, they’re developing it. Uh, languages proficiency I always look at it that it needs to be relative. Uh, you need to—you are proficient in English or more proficient in English then you are in Swahili. Uh, but you need to demonstrate that in some way. And to—to me language proficiency is—sit he one piece that you need to look for. But you can’t just look at language proficiency for oral language, which is—which is what we use to do. You need to look at it in all of its different dimensions.

You have to understand that a language test uh is never going to be perfect. To me what’s much more—again, you need multiple measures. Uh, you—you—if you’re looking at—one of the—the key things in assessment is that if you’re looking at uh trying to get a broad range of language, uh you need to have multiple measures. You can’t sit down for 15 minutes with an oral dialog and expect to know anything about the reading and writing of the child or whether or not they can use language that’s—in the—on the playground versus language in the classroom. Uh, most of the language tests that are available look at a very small section of language. They don’t look at being able to use English for math, science, and social studies. They only look at it for using it for English, probably literature. Um, we don’t look at it from a broader perspective. Uh, five-year-olds uh have five-year-old language. Fifteen-year-olds have a broad range of experiences that they come in with. You need to find out—if you’re going to place them in an all-English classroom whether they have the language of chemistry, of history, um and uh most of the tests that are available, I don’t know of any that do that. So you need to look at other measures. If the child’s new to the school, it’s different then if they’ve been in the school. If they’ve been in the school then you need to get information from previous teachers. Uh, there should be a systematic way of gaining that information. I don’t know of any state right now that has that.

Vocabulary is very important. I mean, with—without vocab—as a matter of fact, I’ve traveled quite a bit around the world and with some key vocabulary and some key verbs whether I can conjugate them or not, I can communicate. Uh, I mean there’s key words that you always want to know like “Where’s the bathroom?” Uh, but the stronger the vocabulary, the more they’re going to be able to understand reading. The broader range of—of ability they’re going to have—I use myself as an example. Uh, I’m—I call myself functionally fluent in Spanish, but I have pretty much one set of vocabulary for a lot of things. I don’t have the variety I have in English for a variety of things so that you’re limited by the vocabulary that you do have. Uh, formal and informal vocabulary, different registers in what’s appropriate in different situations, things like that.

The language assessment skills specifically have vocabulary sections on it. Uh, the others embed vocabulary. The IPT uh may have a few definitions on it. The bilingual syntax measure is all question answer; there is no specific area. The—the language assessment skills (yawn)—excuse me—the way in which its—its constructed has significant sections in different areas and one of them is vocabulary. Also—and they also include action words, opposites and things like that as well as identifying concrete vocabulary. Most of—I don’t know of any that get it abstract—any kind of abstract words which is a big problem because language isn’t concrete all the time, as a matter—most of the time its probably not. So no, I don’t know of any vocabulary tests that would be other than that for—actually that’s not true. Within reading—within the area of reading, there are vocabulary tests and there are lists of—of the most commonly used vocabularies of the old um—who was it that did it? Um, (interruption) No, it wasn’t Nations. (interruption) Uh, no. It’s—it’s one of the most common dictionaries. Uh, he had a reading list. It’s not the thesaurus. I can’t think of the name of it, but there was a—Thorndike, I think, the Thorndike list of words, the most commonly used words. You can’t use a Hirsh-like thing and say, “This is the most commonly list of words” and then memorize all these words and you’re going to be functional. If you don’t have—if you don’t have a contextualized knowledge of vocabulary, a decontexualized use of the vocabulary is useless.

A global perspective on cross-cultural literacy—Freddie Doobin and I did a book on cross-cultural literacy uh it came out about seven or eight years ago, and what we tried to do in that book was to look at uh different perspectives on literacy and then how literacy was used in different parts of the world. Uh, one of the articles uh that was—that’s in the book uh was about a Mung refugee camp in Thailand, I believe. Uh, it was by Ellen Long. It was her dissertation. And she talked about how literacy—the function of literacy changed as the Mung lived in the refugee camp. She uh—in the Mung culture, the men could become literate and not in Mung because Mung periodically was a—was a print language, but not—and we talk about literacy as print though there’s oral literacy too. But, in terms of uh what happened was, was there was a whole social change that occurred because of literacy. In the refugee camp in order to get a job, you needed to be literate in English, print literate in English. And so the women as well as the men needed to do that so that they could support themselves. And that changed the culture because now with the women becoming print literate and in English, their role in the family changed and that’s an example of—of how um cross-cultural literacy globally. There—there are many other examples of that how uh cultural affects literacy and literacy affects culture in—in different parts of the world and we tried to exemplify that in our book.

Probably the—in terms of cross-cultural interaction with parents, teachers, and practice, probably the—the experience I had is slightly different from that in terms of uh the parent institut—tutes that we do in California. And they are literacy institutes, family literacy institutes. And the whole concept of moving from a non-print to a print life and these institutes focus on how parents can help children by becoming literate themselves, but also how there are many ways in which children who are learning how to read can actually read out loud to their parents as a way of sharing literacy when their parents aren’t print literate. And the cultural value systems that are affected by that are interesting in that sometimes children become the cultural brokers. And so you have children who actually have to act like adults. And that becomes very sensitive and very difficult uh when the teacher, for example, does not speak the language of the home and the child has to translate between the home, the teacher and—and you have cases, for example, where tea—where children may be in need of sp—have special needs um, it—not language based but they may be—need—there maybe—have challenges in terms of learning. Who’s going to explain to the parents? And you put the child in that situation and that’s a difficulty. Another situation that comes to mind in terms of stories are when there’s a mismatch between the home and the school. Um, the home cu—the home culture says that the teacher is the authority and we don’t challenge that and then something comes up such as parents can sign waivers for uh having their children take standardized tests in English. But the parent won’t do it because they perceive it’s the teacher’s decision. And so there’s a mismatch. The parents don’t understand that they do have that right and they can do it. And it’s only if the teacher comes and tells them to do it, that they’ll do it. But the teachers may have been told not to do that. And so there’s again—there’s a cultural issues because the parent can’t read about it if they’re not literate.

Uh, we have a credential program in California where we send students from uh—in terms of indigenous students and—and literacy, uh we have credential program in California where we send uh California students to Calettro, Mexico. Uh, they’re down there for 10 months. They do student teaching in public and private schools. And the last three weeks of student teaching that they do as a—in an indigen—in an indigenous, an internaudo it’s called, and these are children who’s first language is Nowata, Zapatec, a variety of other uh indigenous Mexican languages and they’re learning Spanish as a second language. Most often uh those languages are not print languages as are Native American languages in the U.S. and so the challenge for these student teachers is to bring print to these children and to do it in a relevant way to the children so that uh—and perhaps learning some of the indigenous language at the same time. Uh, so—and this is the third step away from English. So uh my dissertation work many years ago was with the Tono Odom, um, English work is Papago for that. And I was working with them—I was working with community college students who wanted to go on to the university. The challenge for me was that they used—what at that time we called Papago English or Tono Odom English, or Indian English uh which is just a variety—it’s a—it’s a variety influenced by their native language even though many didn’t speak the native language um of English. And then so it became a situation much like Ebonics in that whether you wanted to argue (telephone rings) that—that Ebonics is a language or var—a language variety, makes no difference in that you need to talk about the differences that uh the children use between one language and the other. Uh, and you can do it in a very positive way and say, “This is a very appropriate way of—of writing or speaking for that matter in this situation and here’s a different situation and here’s a different way of saying it. And it’s your choice if you want to make use of that.” But it really uh—and the same thing with the indigenous children that our—our credential students work with in Mexico. It’s your choice, if you want to have more access to the larger society, if you want to go to the university and be successful or whatever, um then this may be helpful to you. Uh, what you can’t do is say, “We’re going to subtract what you have and replace it with this.” And that goes whether it’s a language or a dialect.

Um, I have several soapbox issues, but the one that predominates today is—is really focused on the—the trend in the United States to blame bilingual education—to blame good bilingual education for all the bad bilingual education in the country and to equate that what we call anything from five minutes a day of primary language instruction to all English instruction, call that bilingual ed as opposed to call—calling a fully articulated, well-supported, well-prepared teachers bilingual program. Um, I strongly feel that every child in this country should be bilingual and biliterate. There’s an unfortunate joke that we have where if you ask someone uh “What does it mean to be tetra lingual,” you speak four languages. If you’re trilingual you speak three languages. If you’re bilingual you speak two languages. And you notice the work speak, not literate. If you speak one language, you’re American. And uh that’s a really sad commentary in our country. (clears throat) Excuse me. We have many people who say, “Well, we don’t need to be.” If we were in Europe we would learn another language. It would be important. Uh, everybody speaks English. “We don’t need to learn another language.” That’s a very ethnocentric viewpoint. Learning another language and being supported for good bilingual, bicultural, biliterate education broadens us in so many different ways. It broadens us in terms of the way we look at the world, it gives us a—a much more tolerant view of differences, it opens doors for us, it allows us to be more critical in our thinking. Um, there’s some research that shows that you have higher analytic skills if you develop a second language and it—on another level, it makes you more marketable too. And it’s just a very good thing to do. Uh, it—it changes through your outlook on the world. And that’s one of my soapbox issues. Uh, the other part of that, of course, is that we shouldn’t be blaming good bilingual education for what bad—non-bilingual education does. Five minutes a day is not bilingual education. English immersion is subtractive. It’s taking away from who children are rather than adding to who they are—they—whom they are. They have the opportunity to add to who we are and we’re taking that—you know, by the trend of the United States right now we’re taking that away. But very few people look at quality bilingual programs. Uh, in California when uh Proposition 227 “English For The Children” uh a group of us looked in detail at that proposition and then we started looking at our—our estate data in terms of the numbers of children in different programs. And at that time, about three years ago, one-third of the children of the 1.4 million children were in bilingual programs with credential bilingual teachers. We estimated half of those were quality bilingual programs because even though they had a credential paper—teachers, there could be a two-year exit program, which is not sufficient to develop language. A third of them had uh ELD or English Language Development and uh, sheltered English or SADI as we call it in California where language was—was modified and unfortunately often curriculum was watered down. And they might have uh a teacher’s aide, not a qualified teacher doing primary language for a short period of time. The other third got nothing. When people say that bilingual education doesn’t work, most frequently it’s that 85 percent who didn’t get quality bilingual ed. If you look at quality programs and do a language or two-way bilingual or do a language immersion, programs have been shown to be successful. Um, children by the 4th grade—uh, by the 6th grade uh score equal to or better than monolingual English-speaking peers on standardized tests. Even though I don’t believe in standardized tests as a measure of what children know, it’s still significant. That’s my soapbox for today.