Language acquisition takes time. Anyone who has some reasonable degree of language fluency in a language other than one's primary language knows this. Measure 58 would limit English acquisition time to 2 years. Generally, speaking, adult second language acquisition theory suggests it takes adults 2-7 years to go from survival to academic fluency. These are people with a well-developed first langauge foundation in place. Many factors contribute to this: age, motivation, contact with the target language, attitude toward the language, use of the langauge in real communicative contexts, home language use, formal study, formal study in one's country of origin, etc. Similar measures have been suggested, and some tried, in Oregon's neighbor to the south. Of course the two differ tremendously; however, one consideration is this: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 12.1% of Oregon's population age 5 and above speak a language other than English at home. On the contrary, this same number skyrockets to just under 40% in California. Think about elementary, middle school, and high school learners trying to learn content at the same time as they attempt to learn a second language - while not having achieved the standard in the first! This is why time limits simply do not work. Immersion is good, so why not try dual-immersion where our English-only sons and daughters can develop second and third language fluency in order that we cease falling behind counterparts in other nations, lagging in the ability to react to global realities and a larger world view. Two years? It will work for some, but many will undoubtedly fall between the proverbial cracks that ever widen. Perhaps politicians should leave teaching to professionals.

My family immigrated to the US from Ukraine in the summer of 1994. I just finished high school and literally knew only a couple of phrases in English (mostly from the MC Hammer and Madonna songs). I was in college two months later. I did take three ESL classes in 1994/1995 year. I wish I didn't. I did not learn much from the ESL classes; I also think that the formal learning is not a way to assimilate a different culture and language. I don't think that anyone can transition into English by spending an hour or two a day in a formal environment.

I found people, work, and regular classes much more helpful in absorbing new language and culture. I believe that I would benefit much more by receiving a more informal help instead of a lecture or assignment based education. I think that more real life situations are much more effective in accelerating the transition to English and to the American culture.

I have employees in my company from OSU, UO, WSU, and UW. I consistently notice the feedback "I have learned more working with you than during the last four years in school". I believe that more realistic interactions are more effective primarily due to the importance of reality vs artificial environment and the very interactive nature of the practice. My point is that doing it is much different from studying it.

I think that foreign immigrants and visitors are definitely in a fix trying to jump the culture gap. In my opinion the formal learning environment is not the best tool to assist such people. After all many of the people here did not learn their basics in a formal setting - think of kindergarten, preschool, family interactions, and friends.

I appreciate your comments, particularly considering your language experience and acculturation to this country. I think they apply very well to adult language learners. My comments about formal study relate to the many who don't take classes and don't connect with English in their jobs and day-to-day relationships as is true for thousands, if not tens of thousands, in California. Of course the issue here as related to Measure 58 concerns much younger students and the time it takes for them to proceed to English language fluency and academic success. IN states with large second language student populations, gaps exist and these populations consistently lag behind their native English speaking counterparts. 2 years could work if support mechanisms are in place to help these learners bridge the gaps in their langauge and their content studies.

I was 16, when I took the ESL courses. If that was the only option available to me, I would have a very hard time making across the language and the culture barrier. The idea in those courses was to sit in a class room and learn how to read a newspaper in America, how to write a letter in America, how to communicate in America. My point is that we and they and you are in America, go and read a newspaper, write a letter, or communicate.

I have more observations. In 1994 my sister went to high school, and I enrolled in college. She had much harder time crossing the language and the culture barrier, than I did. I believe that the source of her difficulties were based on the artificial and academic approach, when I had many more real opportunities. She is two years younger than me, and she always did better with language and school in general.

ESL classes are good. I think that there are better and faster methods for foreigners to come on board. How can you grasp the culture and the language through a book or a lecture? Active involvement may just be a better approach than a passive learning environment.

I think classes and "real" language contact serve different, but symbiotic, purposes. Your comment about "passive" or "artificial" learning is at the core of students' varying experiences. One of the best things that ever happened in one of my classes was when 5 ladies from the class met outside class, developed social connections, made lunch for each other once a week, and practices their Englsih in the process. They were from Mexico, El Salvador, Peru, Korea, and Japan. It was a learning experience that would be difficult, if not impossible, to recreate in the classroom and did wonders for their English language fluency.. Still, ESL classes that are well-done give students the exposure to the standard English and the typically lesser-developed skills of reading and writing that can open doors to employment opportunities. I just hope the state of Oregon, and proponents of Measure 58, understand that there is a lot of student support necessary for learners to develop fluency in a 2 year period. It's no surprise that one of the big supporters of this measure is also stronglu connected to the immigration reform movement. Look southward to many mistakes that have already been made and sincere good luck to all.

It's great to see Think out Loud contributing the public conversation on ballot Measure 58. Healthy Democracy Oregon hosted Oregon's first Citizens' Initiative Review on Measure 58 two weeks ago.

Readers and listeners will want to read the Citizens' Statement (attached) which came from the randomly selected voters who participated in the Review. Good work!

When my family lived in Peru, we decided to send our children to one of the many schools which were bi-lingual, that is, their goal was to develop Peruvian students who were capable users of both English and Spanish. Some classes were taught in English, some in Spanish. There was no formal instruction in Spanish as a second language, as for most of the students English was the second language.

My children were in grades 1, 4, and 5. My first grade daughter had learned to read in English, and was able to transfer her first grade level of English reading to first grade reading in Spanish. We were able to encourage and support her learning of Spanish at home, and I think that made some difference.

It was a different story for the 4th and 5th graders. They both had a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish when they started at the school. They could go into a panaderia and buy rolls, or talk their way into a private swimming pool by identifying the tia who was a member. It was quite a different matter to attempt to study science, geography, and history at their grade level in Spanish. The school, naturally, taught the least academically demanding classes in English, but stuck to Spanish for the subjects which required more extensive and specialized vocabularies. There was no way they could acquire enough Spanish to hold their own in those classes.

We valued our children's opportunity to become part of the culture of Peru. Reluctantly we moved them to the Collegio Roosevelt, the school for English and American students, where all classes were in English. Their closest friends were among the Peruvians enrolled in this school. Peruvians who had capability in English as a result of several years of formal instruction in their second language.

Since then two of these children have become ESL teachers. Both are aware of the studies which have shown that students who learn to read in their most familiar language learn to read in the second language more readily than without this introduction to reading. Their experiences as teachers have borne this out. They also know that it takes at least 4 years for students to develop real facility in their second language, so they can comprehend hard subject matter taught exclusively in English.



Students

I'm neither teacher nor immigrant, but an American who has studied several languages. My second language (though the fifth I started learning) is German. Stationed in Frankfurt am Main, I lived off-post and was immersed in the language whenever I wasn't on duty or hanging with other GIs.

I took "hoch Deutsch" and other college classes, and dealt with the neighbors in the local Hessisch dialect. Within a couple of years, I realized I was becoming fluent when I woke one morning from a dream in German. I was still glad that in night classes I could ask questions (and often get answers) in English if necessary.

How would Anglo-Oregonians feel if their kids, after taking Spanish for two years and not becoming fluent, were then required to take all of their courses in that language -- including textbooks, tests, and teachers who spoke no English? That would be unfair, of course, but so is the flip side of that coin -- Measure 58.

Immersion is an effective way to learn a language quickly, but it is also very challenging and not suitable for everyone. Different approaches may work better for different students.

In a conversational Russian class, when my teacher asked whether she should include some grammar I told her I'd find that helpful for constructing unrehearsed sentences. She asked me, "Why? Then you have to think before saying anything." I answered, "Well, I try to do that even in English."

People have different learning styles, and no one approach is best for all.

As an English Learner, and education professor, I agree we need to teach Oregon
students English. However, Measure 58 is yet another bad idea by Sizemore.
Under his plan, most students would only have one year before being placed in
English “immersion” (sink or swim) programs. Is Sizemore not aware that
English-only classrooms are already the norm for the vast majority of Oregon’s
English learners? Some student may be able to learn enough English to “get by”
on the playground or in the early grades in one or two years, but countless
studies have shown that the type of English required for more challenging
schoolwork such as chemistry takes on average 4-7 years to acquire. Parents and
teachers know that every child is different and some may need extra support such as strong ESL methods in order to catch up to their native English peers. Mr. Sizemore is probably also not aware that Oregon already has a set of rigorous English Language Proficiency Standards and numerous assessment measures which hold schools accountable for the progress of their English Learners. The Oregon Department of Education and the US
Department of Education monitor these students closely and requires schools to
make “adequate yearly progress” in meeting their needs. Of course there is room
for improvement, but Measure 58 will only make things worse. Sizemore’s arbitrary one
or two year rule has nothing to do with research, and will only hurt students
and take away control from the teachers and districts who know their students
best.

I am not an immigrant or a teacher but i think this measure steps over the line. This country was founded on liberty, and to bring the government into the lives of young people trying to earn an education is plain wrong. What happens if the student fails to learn English in the said amount of time, that kind of pressure can interfere with education in general.

I think this measure has the correct idea, we do need to effectively teach young people to understand the language our society is built around, but this is the incorrect approach. The measure should mandate ESL course improvement and allocate funds to do so. Look at the opportunity cost of passing this bill, we could improve the efficiency of ESL courses dramatically with less than 200 million. The government should not mandate time tables, but instead turn over the management of such things to the people directly involved with the students.

This is a reckless measure, please vote NO on this inconsiderate, non-cost effective measure.

I grew up in Sweden, so English is my second language (I now live in Portland, Oregon). When it comes to languages, for me the best way to learn a new one is total submersion. Like all other Swedes, I had english in school grades 4 - 12 as well as parents that spoke english at home (mother from Detroit) without really learning the language. I learned to speak english without an accent while spending one year of highschool in the US - total submersion. When I learned German, I made sure to take the language classes in Munich, Germany. The German did not work out too well because I had Swedish family there and could, thus, break away from the German language nightly.
I am an extreme case because I tend to not speak a language until I can do so without any major accent. This was a hindrance to me when I spent 4th grade in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I felt out of place because I could not speak the language as well as all my friends. The easiest words to pick up on were swearwords and taunts, since they are short bursts of words that do not necessarily need to be pronounced correctly. This made me somewhat secluded (even though the kids I went to school with were very friendly) and I think that if I would have had the option of being taught all or some of the classes in Swedish, I would have been worse off!

I enjoyed reading your story. For students like you, who alreay knew how to read and write in your home language, I agree that it makes sense to push them toward immersion. My concern is for the students who are trying to learn to read, write, AND speak in a 2nd or 3rd language without any academic background. Imagine trying to learn English--how to speak it, read it, AND write it--if you hadn't built those skills originally in Swedish.

Most people writing in are laboring under misinformation. My understanding is that this measure won't limit ELL education to two years. It will limit the amount of teaching ELL students receive in their HOME LANGUAGE. That being said, I am a Portland-area teacher with a high percentage of ELL students. The kids coming in who already know how to read and write in their home languages are at an incomparable advantage to those who do not. Reading and writing is extremely difficult business; I teach some students for whom Standard English is their home language, and in 8th grade they are still far from mastering it. We can give elementary students reading and writing skills in Spanish or Vietnamese and then they can transfer those developed skills to English literacy. This is all WHILE they are learning to speak English. Please don't take this tool out of a teacher's tool-box!

Okay, it's me again. I just went and actually read the measure, and I was wrong. This measure is farther-reaching than I thought, and it really does limit ELL classes, not just home-language-acquisition. This is a bad measure!

Why do we, as a state and as a nation, refuse to accept the fact that this country is bilingual? To put the question another way, why do we continue to speak of Spanish as a "foreign" language? I fail to see what is "foreign" about it, and I fail to see why every student should not be expected to learn both of the languages spoken in this country. I'm all in favor of teaching foreign languages to every student, too. But it flies in the face of the facts to include Spanish in the category of "foreign languages."

Needless to say, I think Measure 58 is nothing more than nativist hokum. My point is that Measure 58, and this discussion of it, is predicated on the assumption that English is and should be the sole national language of this country. Unless we challenge that assumption, then Bill Sizemore and the know-nothings will have won the debate, even if Measure 58 fails.

We can all agree that it is a good thing that every student should learn to read and write English well. But we should also recognize that English is not the only national language in the U.S., and that every student should also learn the "other" one -- Spanish -- if they don't know it already. I say: SSL for all who don't have Spanish as their "home language." AND a "foreign language" for everyone. If the Swiss can do it -- and they have FOUR national languages -- so can we.

I don't advocate for any language they are simply the tool of communication. We can't rush to the other side of things, by saying something more about language in general, then is inherently there. There is absolutely no need to learn another language then the one you speak. This view is so traditional. If you desire to do so, then great. But many intelligent people can get along just fine with one language. It is equally possibly to suggest that the time spent learning a language could be better spent studying physics, if we want to know how the world works. You can't advocate foreign (to you) language instruction. It is a fine thing for some, but don't turn it into something it isn't.

Bill Sizemore should be prevented from getting any more initiatives on the ballot until he serves hard time and pays his debt to society for racketeering and vote fraud. Can you explain to the listening audience why he is not behind bars? I honestly don't understand.

Be tough on crime! Jail people who engage in election fraud!

My wife is a ESL teacher for Middle Schoolers. The class size quadrupled this year because NCLB has added kids who speak english, but cna't read or write it. Their much more problamatic than new emmigrants. Please,OPB, look into this story while the subjects so close to fall elections. Many ballots will include an initiave to declare English the primary language. If you go a looking at the adult junior college ESL classes, you'll find class size so large that teaching is seriousley hindered. No teacher assistants, and more people clamoring to get in. It's scandalous and underscores the problamatic ESL loop. Parents struggling with the language send kids to schools with No NCLB mandates, that have the same overcrowding. Schools mandated to raise test scores, focus on the lower end, ignoring high enders. Though the bottom struggles to come up, the top is coming down.
At an ESL convention in Canada a few years ago we were surprised to see that Canada viewed immagrants as a resource. Imagine that. That it was to their benifit to mainline them into the their economy quickly with enhanced investment in ESL.

I work in an office where several young women are bilingual. They slip easily from English to Spanish in their personal conversation, which is amusing and reminiscent of a feature I heard last friday, on NPR's The World, about the Puerto Rican comic who talks about "Spanglish." Professionally, these successful English learners are a tremendous asset, as they can communicate clearly with clients who speak only English or Spanish, and give them useful information they can understand about important medical, financial and even personal questions vital to those clients.

My daughter is in a Spanish-English dual immersion program in Canby. We love it, she is learning so much; is on track with her English reading, math, and other subjects, and is developing a strong foundation in Spanish. The Spanish as first language children seem to excel as well, and my understanding is that a lot of research supports that MASTERING the first language (reading and speaking) makes it easier to learn a second.

My question - how will measure 58 effect these types of programs?

I'm currently enrolled in an ESOL endorsement program at a local University. I have seen many studies that show it takes two years to reach a fluency in a language where students are comfortable in a social setting (BICS-Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) and then between 5-7 years to be comfortable in an academic setting (CALP-Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency.) With the numerous studies that support the idea that it takes a long time to become proficient in a second language, it makes sense to continue content teaching in a bi-lingual setting. It seems almost counter-intuitive that students learn English better by teaching them in their home language, but if we look closer at it, it does make sense. When one is familiar with grammar and syntax in their own language, they are able to understand rules in a second language. Studies point to "late-exit" bilingual programs as contributing to the highest academic scores across the board. I wish people could be aware of these facts because we really need to help all who come to America to not just survive, but thrive.

I can not disagree more with this measure. As a chemistry and physics teacher, many of my ESL students have serious difficulty with the terminology of science. How many hard science terms did anyone learn when taking a foriegn language? Not many I'll wager.
I recently served in the Peace Corps in the Republic of Georgia (pre Russian invasion). Georgia has a non Latin alphabet, 7 verb tenses, and a word order that boggles the mind. Were it not for my language teachers teaching in BOTH Georgian and English, I would not have been able to get around or communicate.
Nothing is more frustrating that not being able to communicate and I always remember when I am teaching today, all the times I just nodded when I really didn't understand what was being said to me in Georgian.
Forcing kids to sink or swim will cause many of them to withdrawl to their native language and give up on English, thus regulating them to second class citizens.

Why don't we just ban all minorites from public schools outright? Wouldn't that simplify things?

How long has this region been speaking Engilsh? I'd say less than 150 years. The Native Americans spoke thier languages for thousands of years, yet the Sizemore's of the world think they can ipose thier will on a changing social environment.