The following “Letter to the Editor” appeared in the Salinas Californian on Saturday January 21, 2011. The title was given it by the paper.

Bilingual education coverage lacked balance by Susan Horcajo

The Californian adds insult to injury with its shallow article on bilingual education in the Alisal Union School District (November 27-28, 2010) and an even more dismal editorial (December 4-5, 2010). These blatantly lopsided pieces present outdated and uninformed positions regarding the role of language in education. Contrary to what these pieces imply, there is abundant research that supports bilingual education and NONE that profess monolingualism to be more beneficial.

Instead of implementing positive programs that build upon students’ knowledge and culture, the AUSD blames the students’ home language. The real issue in the District is the way English as a Second Language is taught, not the presence of Spanish. Our children frequently search for a sense of belonging in gangs because of the repercussions of educational programs that ignore well-established research and practices focused on the real critical thinking skills.

“Education” is not equivalent to English language instruction. Vilifying a whole population based on language, while furthering the false assumption that tests are the only sign of achievement, leads to poor quality education. The Program Improvement process is complex; moving children to other schools is equally complex.

These are only a few of the aspects of the issue which the Californian misrepresents. Distinguished researchers Bialystok and Hakuta demonstrate that there is no “critical period” of language learning, despite the Californian’s contradictory opinion. Simply serving as mouthpiece for the state-appointed trustee at the AUSD does an injustice to a community and a topic that merit quality reporting.

Indeed, the real issue is the scapegoating of Spanish and the substitution of teaching IN English for the teaching OF English as a subject. Bilingual education is not a recent phenomenon nor is it a simple “stop-gap” measure. It is a valid pedagogical strategy. Commentary that relegates Spanish to an inferior status smacks of discrimination.

Also absent from these pieces is a discussion of the legal background of bilingual education. Key court cases from the 1970s relate bilingual education to civil rights; this connection must be considered by all school districts. Equally important are bilingual methods used to teach math, science, and other subjects; research shows clear advantages to bilingualism. Pedagogy, psychology and linguistics are not even mentioned in these pieces, which “dumb down” the issue for the reader, who deserves a balanced presentation of the issue.

In these pieces, the biased view of the ill-informed state trustee and equally uninformed parents and teachers is presented as “gospel”. There are so many inaccuracies they shouldn’t be considered “journalism”. AUSD students shouldn’t be treated as Guinea pigs. Studies by well-respected, experienced researchers such as Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, and Krashen on the effectiveness of bilingual education are easily accessible on the Internet. Distinguished SDSU professor Kerper-Mora has a wealth of resources on the Internet. A 2006 report on six successful bilingual schools by the San Diego County Office of Education can be easily found on the Web. Legal requirements for all California schools are specific. There is no excuse for ignorance, especially in the digital age.

Instead of ignoring these, do your homework, Californian, and present informative reporting and consult sources before you weigh in so publicly on such a serious issue. The community deserves a well-informed press to guide worth-while discussion.