Submitted by John D. Williams (not verified) on February 18, 2007 - 18:10.
This posting serves as an essay on the above comments for an inservice class about Spanish communication. I am a high school Earth Science teacher on Long Island NY, and have classes combining Latino, Euro, and Afro descended students, and, increasingly each year, students that are blendings of these and other ethnicities.
Fewer each year speak the "Queen's English" as they meet me, yet this is the language of our Regents test as it is now. I am on the Regents writing committee and advocate simplifying the language, without compromising the science. I find myself spending time showing students how to be efficient readers, to get to the real question and information, then to begin their attempt at answering. Tellingly for the Latino population, much of the language for Earth science has real overlap-- for example, condensation and condensacion, precipitation and precipitacion, rocks and rocas, etc. Others are explainable
with reference to Latin roots-- earthquake as "terra morto" means "ground death."
Curiously, I find all my students listening closely when I explain language in this way. There are many overlaps, and I know that science has an advantage in this regard. And for those who speak different forms of English, the key words are the same.
I do not believe in any kind of segregation. Reading the above comments, I find that, even though I've been through teacher education, it is not now clear to me what exactly everone is referring to with special bilingual, partial inclusion, semi-immersion, and the other names of programs. I agree that students in Latino communities have little incentive to learn English, so why continue that segregation more than it is now? Immersion science classrooms, to be most successful, would have to operate more and more with just the basic vocabulary of science, which would make tests more like matching systems at first, then to further develop concepts so that the student could show mastery. I have tried some of these techniques with some success.
I agree with the comment that students in need, of any academic kind, should be made to spend more hours on instruction, and that this should become policy, either as Saturday school or after school. This could be in the form of an entrance examination for English proficiency. From the student's view, it might be an incentive to improve rapidly, to lessen work hours. I use a form of this in my classroom, where homework is not for everyone, but can be graduated out of with increasing proficiency-- in other words, the 80s and 90s students can have less homework. It is popular and talked about.
I know that, at any level-- state, local administration, teacher-- we try our best. Controversial topics usually have the most variables. To summarize what I have stated above, so that the reader can decide on this essay's benefit:
1. Immersion and mixed ability classes are better, if only to lessen feelings of segregation.
2. Teachers should show students how to be better test takers, simplifying the reading of questions and emphasizing key and language-overlap words.
3. Immigrating students should be given entrance exams in English and, if necessary, assigned EXTRA classes and time in addition to their regular classes. This EXTRA time is also for other failing students.
4. There is nothing equal to "raising the bar."
This posting serves as an
Submitted by John D. Williams (not verified) on February 18, 2007 - 18:10.
This posting serves as an essay on the above comments for an inservice class about Spanish communication. I am a high school Earth Science teacher on Long Island NY, and have classes combining Latino, Euro, and Afro descended students, and, increasingly each year, students that are blendings of these and other ethnicities.
Fewer each year speak the "Queen's English" as they meet me, yet this is the language of our Regents test as it is now. I am on the Regents writing committee and advocate simplifying the language, without compromising the science. I find myself spending time showing students how to be efficient readers, to get to the real question and information, then to begin their attempt at answering. Tellingly for the Latino population, much of the language for Earth science has real overlap-- for example, condensation and condensacion, precipitation and precipitacion, rocks and rocas, etc. Others are explainable
with reference to Latin roots-- earthquake as "terra morto" means "ground death."
Curiously, I find all my students listening closely when I explain language in this way. There are many overlaps, and I know that science has an advantage in this regard. And for those who speak different forms of English, the key words are the same.
I do not believe in any kind of segregation. Reading the above comments, I find that, even though I've been through teacher education, it is not now clear to me what exactly everone is referring to with special bilingual, partial inclusion, semi-immersion, and the other names of programs. I agree that students in Latino communities have little incentive to learn English, so why continue that segregation more than it is now? Immersion science classrooms, to be most successful, would have to operate more and more with just the basic vocabulary of science, which would make tests more like matching systems at first, then to further develop concepts so that the student could show mastery. I have tried some of these techniques with some success.
I agree with the comment that students in need, of any academic kind, should be made to spend more hours on instruction, and that this should become policy, either as Saturday school or after school. This could be in the form of an entrance examination for English proficiency. From the student's view, it might be an incentive to improve rapidly, to lessen work hours. I use a form of this in my classroom, where homework is not for everyone, but can be graduated out of with increasing proficiency-- in other words, the 80s and 90s students can have less homework. It is popular and talked about.
I know that, at any level-- state, local administration, teacher-- we try our best. Controversial topics usually have the most variables. To summarize what I have stated above, so that the reader can decide on this essay's benefit:
1. Immersion and mixed ability classes are better, if only to lessen feelings of segregation.
2. Teachers should show students how to be better test takers, simplifying the reading of questions and emphasizing key and language-overlap words.
3. Immigrating students should be given entrance exams in English and, if necessary, assigned EXTRA classes and time in addition to their regular classes. This EXTRA time is also for other failing students.
4. There is nothing equal to "raising the bar."
John D. Williams
February 2007
motiheal@yahoo.com