<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all"><h2 class="">Californians Favor English Plus Another Language</h2>
<div class="" id="post-125883">
<h3>by admin34 | August 25th, 2016</h3>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883#" title="Google+" target="_blank" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(220,78,65);line-height:16px;height:16px;width:16px" class=""></span></a>
<a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883#" title="Yahoo Mail" target="_blank" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(58,35,79);line-height:16px;height:16px;width:16px" class=""></span></a>
<a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883#" title="Email" target="_blank" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(132,132,132);line-height:16px;height:16px;width:16px" class=""></span></a>
<a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883#" title="Tumblr" target="_blank" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(55,69,92);line-height:16px;height:16px;width:16px" class=""></span></a>
<a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883#" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,101,80);line-height:16px;height:16px;width:16px" class=""></span></a>
<a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883#" title="View more services" target="_blank" class="">8</a>
</div><p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium"><img class="" src="http://languagemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Maroon_Tee-Shirt-150x150.jpg" alt="Maroon_Tee-Shirt" height="150" width="150">California
voters both prioritize the learning of English and recognize the value
of speaking more than one language, according to a new study of voter
attitudes about bilingual education by the Institute of Governmental
Studies (IGS) at the University of California, Berkeley.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
study used an online poll to ask a series of questions about language
policy and bilingual education, which which will once again be on the
California ballot this fall.</span></span><span id="more-125883"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
poll found that a plurality of California voters prefers an educational
program in which English learner students transition to English, while
another large portion of voters prefers immediate English immersion. Few
voters support allowing English learner students to take some classes
in their native languages all the way through high school.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">When
asked another question about whether the state should retain or repeal
its current requirement that most English learner students have a
maximum of one year of intensive English instruction before
transitioning into mainstream English-only classes, most respondents
favored retaining the current English immersion requirement, which was
implemented by Proposition 227 in 1998.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
poll used online English-language questionnaires to survey respondents
from June 29 to July 18. All respondents were registered California
voters, and the responses were then weighted to reflect the statewide
distribution of the California population by gender, race/ethnicity,
education and age.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">Issues
of language policy and bilingual education have a long electoral
history in California. In 1986, California voters passed an initiative
making English the state’s official language, an action that had
symbolic rather than practical meaning. Then in 1998, Californians voted
for Proposition 227, a measure that favored English immersion over
other modes of bilingual education. The core of Proposition 227 required
that most “English learner” students “be educated through sheltered
English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally
intended to exceed one year,” after which they would be transferred to
“English language mainstream classrooms.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
state’s demographic and political makeup have changed since 1998, and
in 2014 the legislature passed and Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill 1174,
which refers to the ballot a measure that would change bilingual
education law. That proposal will appear on the November ballot as
Proposition 58.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) analysis of Proposition 58 notes
that the measure “repeals key provisions of Proposition 227” and adds
new provisions of law generally broadening the ability of schools to
offer bilingual programs. If Proposition 58 were to pass, according to
the LAO analysis, “schools would no longer be required to teach English
learners in English-only programs” and could instead “teach their
English learners using a variety of programs, including bilingual
programs.”</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">Current study</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
IGS poll first asked a standard general question about bilingual
education which assessed support for three main approaches: English
immersion “right from the start,” transition to English “for a
transitional period of several years,” and dual-language classes “all
the way through high school in order to maintain their native language.”
The study terms these three options, respectively, “English only,”
“transition” and “maintenance.” This question showed that a plurality of
43.7% of respondents prefers a transitional program,37.2% prefer an
English only approach, and only14.2% support allowing dual-language
programs all the way through high school. Compared to other ethnic
groups, white respondents were clearly more supportive of English only.
Republicans were also far more supportive than Democrats of the English
only option, while Democrats were far more supportive of a maintenance
program that would potentially allow for dual-language programs
throughout high school.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
poll also found strong support for the idea that it is important for
California students to learn more than one language. Almost two out of
three respondents (66.1%) agreed that children should learn a second
language, while only 17.4% disagreed. Interestingly, partisan
differences were relatively muted, with strong majorities of both
parties and independents agreeing that students should learn a second
language. Majority support also crossed all ethnic groups in the survey.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
poll also asked whether voters supported the repeal or retention of the
state’s current requirement that most English learner students be
educated in a sheltered English immersion program for up to one year,
one of the key provisions of Proposition 227 that would be repealed by
Proposition 58.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">Instead
of using the ballot label and title and summary for Proposition 58,
which were not yet available when the questions were finalized, and
which make no reference to repealing provisions of Proposition 227, the
IGS study employed an experimental approach that examined whether
opinions about the repeal of the sheltered English immersion requirement
varied in response to opposing frames of the issue. The results,
therefore, do not speak directly to the distribution of opinion on
Proposition 58 as it will be presented to voters in the ballot label.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">This
question showed a strong preference among voters to retain the English
immersion requirement, which was phrased in the poll as “keep the law
(continue to require English-only education).” Almost two out of three
respondents (64.3%) favored retaining the voter-approved provision,
though Republicans (84.7%) were far stronger in their support of that
position than were Democrats (51.3%).</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">Among
18- to 24-year-olds, a minority of only 35.7% supported a retention of
the sheltered English immersion requirement, while a narrow majority of
50.5% favored overturning it. Support for retaining the Prop. 227
provision increased steadily with age, and was highest (79.4%) among
respondents who were at least 65 years old. A majority of all ethnic
groups supported the retention of the limit, although the levels of that
support varied from just 51.7% among Latinos to 70.5% among whites, and
generally reflected a lower level of support for the Prop. 227
provision among ethnic minorities than among whites.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">The
poll also included an experiment in which the precise wording of the
question was varied to test the effectiveness of various arguments on
both sides of the issue. Support for repeal of the sheltered English
immersion requirement was strongest when the question referenced the
economic benefits of speaking multiple languages in a globalized
economy, although this was offset to a large degree when the question
also referenced an anti-repeal argument emphasizing the economic value
of English fluency.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium">For full results of the poll, go to the IGS website at <a>igs.berkeley.edu</a>.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:medium"><a href="http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883">http://languagemagazine.com/?p=125883</a><br></span></span></p>
</div>
</div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br><br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************</div>
</div>