Headline News

About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home


Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.


Mark Andrew Dwyer
Submitted by Gary Reil
June 5, 2005

In a June 1, 2005, article ("Tests unfair to non-English speaking students, lawsuit claims", San Francisco Chronicle, see [1]), Jennifer Coleman, an Associated Press writer, quoted ten school districts, joined by two bilingual-education advocacy groups, saying that "1.6 million students and their schools are penalized because tests given in English do not accurately measure how well English-learners understand academic subjects."

Don't blink. You got it right. There is 1.6 million of non-English speaking students that are being educated in their native languages, free of charge, in California public schools despite that, according to California's Constitution, English is the official language of the State of California, and some education pros are claiming that testing these student in English ... penalizes them.

Now, don't blink again when I tell you how much does it cost the taxpayers to teach these students: at least 14 billion dollars a year and, perhaps, as much as 28 billion dollars a year. That is the result of spending about 9,000 dollars a year per average student in California public school system (which yields the figure of 14 billion dollars a year), a figure that needs to be adjusted for above twice the average cost of education of a non-English speaking student (which yields the figure of 28 billion dollars a year), never mind the skyrocketing margin cost of educating those who can't learn no matter what the language of instruction is.

Whoa! That's even more than the entire budget deficit of the State of California at its worse moment about two years ago when it was estimated at about 12 billion dollars a year. (I doubt if the exact figure will ever be known due to accounting gimmicks used by state's political establishment trying to hide from public how much they actually overspent.)

If you thought that 14 to 28 billion dollars a year spent on free education of non-English speaking students in California was too much then think again. Obviously, the advocates of "bilingual" (a euphemism for "Spanish-centered") education, which category includes the plaintiffs of the lawsuit reported in the mentioned above article, don't think so. According to that article, the school districts and the bilingual-education advocacy groups claim that "students who are learning to speak English should be tested in their native language" which, allegedly, is "mandated" by the federal "No Child Left Behind" Act, signed by President Bush in 2002. Obviously, in addition to other negative effects, administrating the standardized tests required by the "No Child Left Behind" Act in foreign languages would further add to the cost of educating the non-English speaking students for free.

But the push for spending more in that venue doesn't end there. In another article published by the San Francisco Chronicle ("Education tax hike proposed", June 1, 2005, see [2]), Lynda Gledhill reports desperate attempts by California Assembly Democrats who "proposed raising income taxes for the state's wealthiest residents as a way of increasing education funding by $3.1 billion." Needless to say, most of the proposed increase will be spent on educating kids that have a tendency to falling behind, a group that Hispanic students, most notably, the non-English speaking ones, are notorious for taking a lion share of. Because, as an Associated Press article ("Hispanics struggle with state testing scores", see [3]) reports, Hispanics' disappointing academic performance and their low passing rates are typically blamed on the schools that "failed to teach their Hispanic students up to federal standards in reading and math". (No, you are not hallucinating, that is the actual quotation from [3].) It's well known that out of the largest foreign born populations in California, these are not the Asians (who tend to academically outperform whites) but Latinos, more precisely: Mexicans, that are having difficulties with learning in California's public schools. According to estimates (adjusted for gross underestimate of the number of illegal aliens - most of them Mexicans - in the U.S. by official statistics), it's a conservative assumption that Mexicans constitute almost two-thirds or about 60% of foreign-born population in the U.S.. Moreover, Mexicans have a much higher share among the illegal "immigrants" that are notorious for sticking to their native languages (which for most of them is Spanish). Also, Mexican women's almost twice the average fertility rates shifts the proportions among non-English speaking students further towards those of Mexican "migrant" ancestry, particularly in border states, like California, that receive above average portion of Mexican "migrants".

It's fair to say, then, that at least three out of four students in California public schools that don't speak English well enough are of illegal Mexican descent. So, some 75% of 14 to 28 billion dollars a year plus 3.1 billion dollar a year of proposed hike, or, in other words, 13 to 23 billion dollars a year, will be spent on educating children of Mexican illegal "immigrants" - an unnecessary cost that could have been saved should the American-Mexican border and immigration laws be duly enforced.

Which brings the issue of the purpose of this costly enterprise.

Firstly, if one realizes that a vast majority of Mexican "migrants" (a euphemism for "illegal border crossers") don't come to America in order to assimilate but to prevail (or to carry on the "reconquista" of the American Southwest, as they say), and, as a matter of fact, the entire mass "migration" has all the attributes and ramifications of an invasion, taxing "rich" Americans for the benefit of children of Mexican "migrants" is one of the surest ways for the invaders, most of them unarmed, to get a hold of the wallets of Americans whose country they invade. Unlike other expenditures in California, education expenses are subject to a percent minimum that quickly grows as inflation and skyrocketing home prices boost the revenues of state and local governments. And taking into account how generously Liberal-dominated school authorities provide extra handouts to economically disadvantaged students and their parents, a "social justice" type of policy that has a growing tendency in California. It's worth of remembering that the total taxes paid by the Mexican "migrants" in the entire U.S. add to about 10 billion dollars a year (a high estimate by a high-profile advocate of Mexican invasion Jorge Ramos which I would argue was overblown), a figure substantially lower than 13 to 23 billion dollars a year spent on education of their children just in one state, never mind other benefits and free services that illegal "immigrants" and their families draw from their illegal presence in the U.S.

Secondly, the idea of bringing average Latino students, often against their will and in spite their attachment to their native language and culture, in par with American students by heavy overspending on their free education in American public schools seems like a failure by design. Just by saying that "All people are equal", the Liberal-dominated educational establishment cannot change the reality, and the reality is that some students have higher IQ (intelligence quotient) while others have lower. (The ones with low IQ are much more costly to educate; it had been estimated that in 1993 about 92% of 8.6 billion dollar federal education funds authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have been spent on programs for the disadvantaged.)

For instance, in the U.S. the national average IQ is about 98 (and dropping, partially due to mass "migration" from Mexico) while in Mexico the national average IQ is about 87, and we don't even get average Mexicans with the current wave of "migrants" because ones with relatively higher IQ are not worse off enough to make them quit everything there and "migrate" here. So it's fair to assume that average IQ of a Mexican "migrant" is less than 87, as, most likely, are his/her children's IQs. One can see the difficulties with teaching them reading and math and the substandard scores that they tend to earn on the standardized tests as required by the "No Child Left Behind" Act, as well as relatively high cost of educating them, as a simple consequence of their below average IQ.

An interesting insight into this phenomenon has been recently reported by Bryanna Bevens in a brilliant article "How Do You Say "The Cat Sat On The Mat" In Spanish?" (VDare, June 02, 2005, see [4] a highly recommended reading). In that article, Ms. Bevens describes an irreparable damage that is being done to American students by focusing virtually 100% effort and attention on the pupils that fall behind (most of them, not surprisingly, Spanish and not English speakers). Here is a quote that sums it up: "The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval's attempts to spell out "A CAT SAT ON A MAT." And this is the kind of "education" that California legislature wants to throw in 3 billion tax dollars more.

Another illustration comes from my own observation of a recent (last Thursday) session of California Senate that passed SB 60, the now infamous illegal alien driver's license bill that cost Gray Davis his governorship, re-introduced again by a legislator of Mexican descent, Gil Cedillo. Although an elected state senator, Cedillo demonstrated embarrassing intellectual deficiency while presenting the rationale for his bill. "If convicted sex offender", he argued (I quote from my memory), "doesn't have his driver's license revoked and can even use it to legally drive a vehicle to his next victim, then undocumented worker who committed a lesser crime that sex offenders did, should not be denied a driver's license, either." So, according to Cedillo's "logic", if an American citizen convicted of a felony can still maintain certain privileges (that come with citizenship) then every Mexican "migrant" by committing the same or lesser offense should be automatically entitled to the same privileges. I am so glad that I was not the one who had to teach them how to spell "a cat sat on a mat."


[1] Tests unfair to non-English speaking students, lawsuit claims

[2] Education tax hike proposed

[3] Hispanics struggle with state testing scores

[4] How Do You Say "The Cat Sat On The Mat" In Spanish?

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

World News Alaska News

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright 2006. All Rights Reserved