What do you think about Illegals getting instate tuition?

epiphany · June 9, 2007, 11:53am

“This is the real objection. It’s ideological and political. Why should “peasants” get best practices?”

That’s where you’re so wrong. On the part of those who object, it’s NOT “ideological and political.” It’s practical and realistic and real, as collegialmom just told you, as I have said here & on other related threads. You, however, are clearly ideological & political. For you, this is about social welfare on the backs of the taxpayers and (more importantly) native CHILDREN who are now educationally second class citizens. This is about a preference for foreign, impoverished anything over the native residents (including impoverished native residents). It’s a triple whammy on already ultra-impacted State budget: functional literacy in any language, fluency in the country’s first language, and special services not available to the State’s residents. (Advising, resources, materials, tutoring, etc. – all publicly paid for to benefit a now-majority population in the schools)

The research “proves” that designer anything works. I will tell you (not that you care deal with the everyday reality of the teaching world) that the students I teach who come from either educated ELL homes or educated bilingual homes (Latino or Latina who married an English speaker, for example) are not struggling, and we are not spending extra money & time on them. They are producing beautifully, with the advantage of 2 languages BOTH OF WHICH ARE SPOKEN FLUENTLY, and with a combined basic literacy base in the home, even where only one language is spoken fluently.

The research you refuse to acknowledge is the defining research that shows that limiting special intervention to students alone has limited impact. It is enormously expensive & labor-intensive. An example are some of the rural reading projects for impoverished African-American families. Just getting the first -graders to read with basic competency has been an enormous feat, for these E1 households. Extremely expensive and with baby steps accomplished. In one program in particular, eventually the director realized that without parallel parental education, the gains for the students would continue to have a ceiling. She has since shifted the focus of the program to be parental literacy.

conyat · June 9, 2007, 12:09pm

I believe that ALL children deserve access to best practices, not just “natives.”

I think you’re just making the reasons for your hostility to bilingual education more and more clear. It’s all about your beliefs as to who is more worthy of educational resources.

Test scores from California have shown that with English-only, ELL fall further and further behind their peers each year, and you’re OK with this.

I’m about pragmatism. Outcomes. I don’t let worthiness enter into my decision-making particularly not when society has a vested interest in the outcomes.

Decades of English only education has resulted in high dropout rates and low literacy rates for Hispanic students. I don’t consider this a desirable outcome, for the students or for society, so I’m against perpetuating it. Bilingual education has been shown to produce better outcomes than English-only. That’s the bottom line for me.

Well, duh. English is spoken in their homes; it’s not a foreign language to them in the same way that it is to a student with no one in the home who speaks English.

I see your point, that bilingualism wouldn’t work better than English-only if all the kids’ parents spoke English. But couldn’t you say the same thing about Math? Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to teach Math if all the kids’ parents were good mathematicians?

Sure, you can justify withholding L1 instruction to students on the grounds that if their parents just spoken English better they wouldn’t need it. But this doesn’t make withholding it a best practice. Or change the negative effects of doing so.

Allmusic · June 9, 2007, 12:49pm

Here’s where I part ways with my liberal comrades, because the US, states and cities/towns are not bottomless pits of money. Unfortunately, we have become a country that ineqitably funds education. The situation Epiphany describes is one with which I am very familiar, where massive amounts of money are spent, for minimal gain. This is the situation I described about 15 pages ago, where some of our poorest districts receive the most aid, have brand new infrastructure, staff, equipment, and the results? The kids are still failing. Similarly, there is massive money thrown at a minority percentage of children in special education or ELL, which bleeds funding from the majority of children. It is untenable.

Sure, in a world where money grew on trees, I would like to fund everything. Unfortunately, I live in the real world and see the repercussions of idealistic thinking that does not have a basis in reality. I am all for leveling the playing field, but there are limits, here in the real world.

berurah · June 9, 2007, 12:58pm

Extremely well said, AM.

epiphany · June 9, 2007, 1:11pm

“I think you’re just making the reasons for your hostility to bilingual education more and more clear. It’s all about your beliefs as to who is more worthy of educational resources.”

Substitute yourself for all the “you’s” in those sentences, & the word “preference” for hostility, and there you have a portrait of yourself. This is about your preference of non-natives for natives, whom you believe to be more worthy of gov’l resources than life-long residents. “Best practices” can occur when there are the resources for that. There are not. How dare you question my mission to public education, for which I have sacrificed much in my life, over more glamorous occupations which I chose to leave. You don’t know me, and it’s clear that you select what you want to from my posts because you’re angry that I don’t agree with your agenda. I wouldn’t even call it an ultra-liberal agenda, because it’s not. To some degree it hurts even the rich to admit without impunity millions of low-skilled, uneducated, undocumented families. But mostly it hurts those without money for non-public options. My so-called “hostility” is about the effects on those least able to finance alternatives.

You have a romanticized version of what is practicable, realizable, & affordable. It does not square with the limited financial resources (including mega-needs OUTSIDE of education for these same immigrants) that is actual and available. I “believe” the same thing that you “believe” about equal access, but beliefs don’t pay the bills. If I didn’t, I would have accepted some of the private teaching jobs that I’ve been offered. And the access is not equal, which is entirely my point. It is more unequal than at any time I have seen in my long teaching career.

epiphany · June 9, 2007, 3:14pm

…just clearing up a misconception or perhaps misleading communication on my part:

It’s not just the (obvious) relationship between more fluent households & positive educational outcomes for the children thereof. It is this:

The most expensive AND least permanent strategy to improve results for an educational underclass, is to educate only the children. That is equally true for native speakers as for non-native speakers.

The second least efficient/economical strategy is to rely only on the schools for support & reinforcement of the educational program (whether the parents are educated or not educated, fluent or nonfluent). John Ogbu discovered this in Cleveland, but other studies of other populations have been done similarly before & after that one.

Bringing massive numbers of Third World populations up to First World standards – without either proficiency or effective cooperation of those populations – is a pipe dream. And a costly pipe dream. And a pipe dream unfairly affecting powerless native children, & their parents without funds.

Some of the students I teach do not have even one fluent parent, but of those that do not, the only ones who are succeeding are the ones with parents committed nevertheless to the English fluency of their children & to education as Priority One. My role, which I do vigorously, is to expect continued fluency & accept no less. Not to my surprise, I am getting what I expect, and “my” parents are grateful.

higherlead · June 9, 2007, 4:22pm

I live on the edge of a heavily Latino community that is growing at an enormous rate. I go to the bank and it is the 12 year old translating for the parents. Same at the hospital. I go to the store and the clerk is not even minimally proficient in English. We conduct business is sign language. It is a monumental teaching task we face. We know from past examples that immersion is what works best.

collegialmom · June 9, 2007, 9:19pm

Actually, per immigrants from third world countries, the recent African immigrants whom I have known do very well, as do their children in school, with very little extra effort on the part of teachers, whatever their language backgrounds or status in their home countries. Same generally for Asian and many Middle Eastern. It really seems to be the Mexican immigrants who are having the hardest time, and taking enormous resources, even 2-3 generations removed from thier own countries. It does correlate with illegal immigration, which is one reason why our current open door approach for Mexican immigration in this country is very expensive.

I realize that business owners make short-term gains, but the more they exploit, the more $$ they make, so they can have their children and homes far away from the illegals that they employ. Not many owners of successful corporations live in East LA, or at least not in the parts I’ve gotten lost in.

collegialmom · June 10, 2007, 9:39am

How those pesky people (who won’t uproot themselves and pick fruit in Washington State) in places like Detroit helped to defeat the immigration bill. From the NYTimes:

"WASHINGTON, Mich., June 8 — The undoing of the immigration bill in the Senate this week had many players, but none more effective than angry voters like Monique Thibodeaux, who joined a nationwide campaign to derail it.

Mrs. Thibodeaux, an office manager at a towing company here in suburban Detroit, became politically active as she never had before. Guided by conservative Internet organizations, she made calls and sent e-mail messages to senators across the country and pushed her friends to do the same.

“These people came in the wrong way, so they don’t belong here, period,” Mrs. Thibodeaux, a Republican, said of some 12 million illegal immigrants who would have been granted a path to citizenship under the Senate bill.

“In my heart I knew it was wrong for our country,” she said of the measure"…

"Supporters of the legislation defended it as an imperfect but pragmatic solution to the difficult problem of illegal immigration. Public opinion polls, including a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted last month, showed broad support among Americans for the bill’s major provisions.

But the legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless. In a crucial vote Thursday night, the bill’s supporters, including President Bush, fell short by 15 votes. While there is a possibility the legislation could be revived later this year, there was a glow of victory among opponents on Friday.

“Technologically enhanced grass-roots activism is what turned this around, people empowered by the Internet and talk radio,” said Colin A. Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative group"…

"Here in Michigan, speaking at her neatly maintained home under hickory trees in Washington, a town north of Detroit that has been battered by auto company layoffs, Mrs. Thibodeaux said the immigration bill worried her like no other political issue. She believed it would reward undeserving immigrants who do not speak English and would soon become a burden on public services that Americans need in a time of economic uncertainty.

“A lot of our American people in Detroit are hurting,” Mrs. Thibodeaux said, noting that she has often done volunteer work in poor neighborhoods here. “It’s just not right.”

Her strong feelings about the immigration issue came gradually, she said. A nephew who works as a house painter had trouble finding high-paying work because of competition from illegal immigrants. Some Mexican teenagers hassled her on the street, seeming to mock her because she walks with a cane. She spotted immigrants shopping with food stamps at the grocery store.

Mrs. Thibodeaux said she favored orderly legal immigration, but did not think illegal immigrants should benefit from American generosity.

“I have a very hard time with illegal,” she said. She proposes that all illegal immigrants be given a 90-day period to leave voluntarily. After that, immigration agents, local police and the National Guard, if necessary, should be mobilized to deport them, she said.

Republican voters and organizers said they were ready for a long fight on the immigration issue, even if the debate is reopened in Congress.

“This bill represented something so big that people noticed,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a research group. He said the Senate debate was not “just stirring up the hornet’s nest, but is actually changing the dynamics of this issue for the future.”

Mrs. Thibodeaux agreed. If the immigration issue comes before Congress again, she said, “I’m going to get a microphone and start yelling.”

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washington/10oppose.html?hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washington/10oppose.html?hp</a>

patsfan · June 10, 2007, 11:44am

We need more peoplee like Mrs. Thibodeaux.

bluebayou · June 10, 2007, 12:57pm

a few stats from one of the nation’s most Hispanic cities – don’t miss the elem & HS gains in language arts w/o bilingual ed.

<a href=“http://www.sausd.k12.ca.us/departments/research_eval/docs/2006_star_final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.sausd.k12.ca.us/departments/research_eval/docs/2006_star_final.pdf</a>

berurah · June 10, 2007, 2:28pm

Many kudos to Mrs. Thibodeaux. I helped to lead a grassroots campaign on a much smaller level with a local issue, and it involves a TON of (sometimes thankless) work. I’m very glad that Mrs. Thibodeaux’s efforts were successful, and I have a great deal of admiration for her. It is especially challenging to lead efforts on behalf of an issue which is extremely controversial. For example, with the illegal immigration issue, it is very difficult to take the stance she did and NOT be labeled a racist or someone who is against “equality for the children.” The loaded-ness of issues like the one she tackled (and the one I did) often results in hateful attacks by those who cannot acknowledge that there ARE two sides to every issue. I am grateful for people like Mrs. Thibodeaux who are not so intimidated by the bullies that they are afraid to “tell it like it is.” And I vow to be more like her! :)

collegialmom · June 10, 2007, 3:39pm

“a few stats from one of the nation’s most Hispanic cities – don’t miss the elem & HS gains in language arts w/o bilingual ed.”

I don’t see how a 60-100% failure rate in testing in HS (and these are the students who did NOT drop out, as many did) is to be considered a success in testing and therefore assimilation, compared to other groups. So in elementary school some kids are literate, but in HS most are not?

That means that the majority of students never get above elementary level proficiency, which supports that this is not a group that moves up the educational ladder, as it was shown in the NYTimes article of Mexicans in NYC, the majority of whom drop out of HS.

This is not success. The same money could go elsewhere in education and get far more achievement.

"Academic failure. It would be useful for open-borders optimists to spend some time in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which is 73 percent Hispanic, and where just 40 percent of Hispanic students graduate. (Nationwide, 53 percent of Hispanics graduate from high school, according to the Manhattan Institute’s Jay Greene—the lowest rate among all ethnic groups.) Of those Hispanic students who do graduate, just 22 percent have completed the course work necessary for admission to a four-year state college—which means that of all Hispanic students who enter in ninth grade, fewer than 15 percent will graduate ready for college. Immigrant advocates have fiercely opposed in court a long-deferred California high school exit exam, which would require students to answer just over 50 percent of questions testing eighth-grade-level math and ninth-grade-level English. The California Research Bureau predicts that if the exam becomes a reality, Hispanic graduation rates would drop well below 30 percent.

A recent Los Angeles Times series on high school dropouts put some faces on the numbers. Eleven male Hispanic friends entered Birmingham High School in Van Nuys together in 2001; only three graduated. Because the boys spent so much time cutting classes—usually hanging out at fast-food restaurants—most failed to log any academic progress and saw no sense in staying enrolled. Drugs, turf rivalries, and fathering children also contributed to their failure to graduate. Birmingham’s teachers despair at their students’ lack of academic commitment and at their belief that seat time should entitle them to a passing grade. Reports Ronald Fryer in Education Next, hostility toward academic achievers is even higher among Hispanics than among blacks."

<a href=“http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigration_reform.html[/url]”>http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigration_reform.html</a>

epiphany · June 10, 2007, 3:41pm

Regarding berurah’s post:

…but the intimidating atmosphere is even worse than mere social disapproval. It spills over into the practical, the political, the “legal.” Take, for example, the many cities in the West that are “sanctuary cities.” (Did anyone read the full proposed immigration bill or the full series of proposed amendments? Yes, I know we all have such time for that. What I’m getting at is that surely one of the conditions of any (ahem) “comprehensive” I-bill should be 2 areas of major repercussions:

(1) politicians, city officials who even name themselves a sanctuary city, let alone enforce that. (This is nothing short of Mob Enforcement, legalized: you may not be ‘whacked,’ but your employment will be whacked if you report known illegal status of anyone in city gov., etc. You have been forbidden from cooperating with federal authorities by accepting a position in self-named ‘sanctuary’ cities.) 
Beyond that, the Feds should remove federal monies from such cities who flaunt these practices.

I expect that some poster will retort that noncooperation with supposed gov’t immorality (e.g., Nazi Germany) is moral behavior. But let me point out how very unparallel that is: unlike with Nazi Germany, there are legal ways for people to escape their plight. Because you want to come here, because your life is uncomfortable where you are, does not entitle you either legally or morally to exploit the generosity of the U.S. My house is less comfortable than some of my neighbors’ houses, but that does not entitle me, regardless of circumstances --and whether those circumstances were or were not of my own making – to invade their land or share their possessions without their permission.

(2) employers who wink at, let alone invite & recruit, the employment of the undocumented in their places of business. The only way to enforce this is to manufacture an i.d. card supported by bio-technology in a national registry. The employment of anyone would be cross-filed in that nat’l registry so that the Feds (& cooperating States) would have immediate access to the legitimacy of the employees in any private company or public agency. Social Security deductions, etc., would trigger the verification of that identity, allowing regular monitoring. An abuse of that would mean jail time for the employer & deportation for the offending party.

I think it’s a little difficult to round up & deport all of the current abusers, but I think a new bill could stipulate to the above, which would give employers plenty of notice to get their act together & begin hiring U.S. workers.

The fact that I have heard so little discussion about this in the recent immigration debates tells me that Congress & the Prez are not vaguely serious about “reform.” that all the “reform” talk is permission talk, designed to support the profits made by the business community, at the expense of the middle class. Readily available, under-priced labor: that’s what this is about. Follow the money, and follow the constituencies.

Atlmom · June 10, 2007, 3:43pm

I dont feel that simply because Mexico is located next to us and their citizens seek to IMPROVE their lives is justification for disobeying the rule of law. I would like to improve my life by moving into a larger house next door, but I respect the rule of law and would never do so.

If I did so I would not expect to get special rules for me because I straightened up the house while I lived there. Instead, I would expect the Owners of that house to decide who can come and go, who can stay and who would be permitted to stay on the property.

The home owner may feel like I don’t really need to improve my life relative to the person livng on the street with no food…and the homeowner might like to allow that person to bring their life up to a humane level of existence before letting me IMPROVE my situation.

I would not allow 22 million illegals to take the spots of more deserving law abiding immigrants who have waited…and I certainly would give preference to those truly in need of relocation for survival…ie the sudan…other african regions that are war torn, & famine stricken.

I just happened to not agree that just because you are a neighbor and you say you want to improve your life, doesnt’ make you deserving of this special favor. In truth, the ones who have done the process legally, shown they obey the law are of the character/integrity our country wants and needs. We do not need a group who already demonstrate entitlement mentality. Ridiculous.

epiphany · June 10, 2007, 3:51pm

I forgot a “number (3)”:

(3) Revision of the 14th amendment to read that heretofore [whatever date]persons born of LEGAL RESIDENTS are entitled to immediate citizenship.

(1), (2), and (3) include areas I would think are basic to the definition of “comprehensive.” They are not necessarily sufficient to the whole subject, but they are essential to serious and comprehensive reform.

collegialmom · June 10, 2007, 4:19pm

Today on TV I saw the Dept of Commerce secretary, Carlos M. Gutierrez, who totally discounted the concerns that citizens have about giving the illegals amnesty, as the Bush administration so much want to get the bill passed. The news program, on national TV, only interviewed either Senators or administration officials who are strongly supporting the current immigration bill.

It is amazing to me that the talk show hosts and the supporters of the bill (including the NYTimes and its editorials) try to belittle those who don’t support this bill. They imply that those who oppose it are only a vocal minority, and that the bill is necessary for the sake of national security, as if anyone who opposes illegal immigration is un-American.

I really hope that these officials in the long run have to answer to their constituents who disagree.

higherlead · June 10, 2007, 6:03pm

The NYTimes lecturing on national security is like Lindesy Lohan lecturing on sobriety or Michael Moore lecuring on the evils of gluttony. Some things are just too rich.

This bill was DOA as soon as the public found out what was in it. Harry Reid yanked this bill because it was political poison for Democrats in swing states and the Republics ran from the big business interests behind it as soon as the base got wind of what they were doing.

The numbers I saw showed the group most opposed to the bill, and by a long shot, were political independents and that even Democrats were opposed by a narrow margin. As soon as Harry saw those numbers this bill was yanked.

Now both parties are faced with a problem because this issue has finally surfaced among the electorate as a problem that needs to be fixed. Harry can either sit in his hands and do nothing and go to the next election and tell the American people his hands are tied as long as they are paying attention or he can do what is right and stop trying to import a political constituency.

Both our political parties are morally bankrupt today.

epiphany · June 10, 2007, 6:31pm

“Both our political parties are morally bankrupt today.”

Well certainly on this issue they are. Or at least they have no coherent moral viewpoint. I loved it when John McCain said, “These [illegal immigrants] are God’s children.” No, Really? Well knock me over with a feather. And what would the other several billion people on the planet be? Satan’s children? What an idiotic thing to say. A gratuitous attempt at a moral rationale if ever I saw one. When the law is not on your side, call on God, or use his name.

epiphany · June 10, 2007, 6:54pm

Until the incentives stop (minimum of 3 categories I mentioned most recently), the motivation to immigrate illegally will continue to outpace the consciousness of risk on the part of arrivals. We are letting immigration – both illegal & legal – control us, i.m.o., rather than our taking control. Once (if ever!) the illegal variety significantly declines, the country should take a look at our entire policy, in terms of those needing us for asylum & economic reasons, as well as our needing them – within the circumference of finite resources. And until we get serious about bridging economic (standard of living) gaps in other countries (via trade agreements, via investment, via direct development), the pressures to come here will continue to be greater than our capacity & patience to reduce them. Yet I didn’t hear anything in these congressional debates about our moral responsibility to export our acquired learning, our labor, our skills & expertise.

Perhaps it would have done more for our national security (in the broader sense) if we had taken up arms with Mexican citizens opposed to exploitation by their corrupt leaders.

I do not agree with the Silicon Valley execs, and others, who are resentful that trained high-skilled workers might return to their countries of origin. One of these execs was on the radio the other day, bemoaning how unfair it was that “the other country gets to keep them after we train them.” (As part of a proposed immigration policy.) I say, Great.

What do you think about Illegals getting instate tuition?

CONNECT WITH US