How public debate becomes innacurate conventional wisdom

Excerpt from The Economist, by John Micklethwait from 11-17 March:

"New York is the next target for Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire who was the guiding force behind California's Proposition 227. This measure replaced bilingual education, which around half the students with poor English were receiving, with crash courses in English. Bilingual education, originally invented as a way to steer funds to poor people in the southwest, has always produced disappointing results. It is now merely a sop to the teachers' unions. Since bilingual education was banned in California about a year ago, test scores have risen. Even more tellingly, the students who were put on the English crash course or into mainstream classes are well ahead of those still stuck in bilingual ones (which a few students have waivers to continue). (2000:15)2"

Micklethwait's report of bilingual education would receive an 'F' grade in any assessment of journalistic competence or responsibility.

There are six sentences in this passage: one true; five blatantly false.

• Prior to Proposition 227, only 30% of English language learners in California were in any form of bilingual program and less than 20% were in classes taught by a credentialed bilingual teacher.

• Bilingual education was not originally 'invented' in the United States-these programs have been operating since Greek and Roman times. Furthermore, the spread of these programs in countries around the world, including the spread of dual language programs in the United States, is hardly consistent with the claim that they have 'always produced disappointing results' (see Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).

• Contrary to the claim that bilingual education is a 'sop' to teachers' unions, teachers unions in California and elsewhere have tended to be very ambivalent about bilingual education for the simple reason that only a small fraction of their members are in fact bilingual teachers.

• The implication that test scores rose in California as a result of the banning of bilingual education is without foundation. Changes in scores occurred in districts in ways that appeared to be completely unrelated to what kind of program a district implemented (Hakuta, 1999).

• There is absolutely no data to support the claim that students put into all-English classes made better progress than those who were 'still stuck in bilingual ones' (Hakuta, 1999).

adapted from Cummins, J. (2000), Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters