Jaime Escalante
Yesterday, I posted on the State of Arizona and its both mistaken and, I believe, illegal criteria having to do with accents and teaching. Let me emphasize again that I am talking about non-TESL classes. But, let me give you an example of a teacher who could easily not be allowed to teach in Arizona if the rule applies to non-TESL classes. He is the hero of the movie Stand and Deliver which is based on his life up to that time. Sadly, he died less than two months ago. Rather than trying to retype much of his story, I am going to cut and paste parts of his story from an article about him. Please do read up on him, I can only offer a few bits and pieces.
Jaime Escalante was born in December 31, 1930 La Paz, Bolivia. In 1964 he decided to move to the United States. To prepare, he began studying science and mathematics. Upon moving from Puerto Rico to California, Escalante could not speak English. He studied at night at Pasadena City College to earn a degree in mathematics. He took a day job at a computer corporation (Burroughs Corporation), while continuing his schooling at night to earn a mathematics degree at California State University, Los Angeles where he studied calculus. In 1974 he began teaching at Garfield High School. Escalante was initially so disheartened by the lack of preparation of his students that he called his former employer and asked for his old job back. Escalante eventually changed his mind about returning to work when he found 12 students willing to take an algebra class. . . .
Shortly after Escalante came to Garfield High, its accreditation became threatened. Instead of gearing classes to poorly performing students, Escalante offered AP (advanced placement) calculus. He had already earned the criticism of an administrator who disapproved of his requiring the students to answer a homework question before being allowed into the classroom. “He told me to just get them inside,” Escalante reported, “but I said, there is no teaching, no learning going on”. . . .
The school administration opposed Escalante frequently during his first few years. He was threatened with dismissal by an assistant principal because he was coming in too early, leaving too late, and failing to get administrative permission to raise funds to pay for his students’ Advanced Placement tests. This opposition changed with arrival of a new principal, Henry Gradillas. Aside from allowing Escalante to stay as a math teacher, Gradillas overhauled the academic curriculum at Garfield, reducing the number of basic math classes and requiring those taking basic math to concurrently take algebra. He denied extracurricular activities to students who failed to maintain a C average and new students who failed basic skill tests. One of Escalante’s students remarked about him, “If he wants to teach us that bad, we can learn.” . . .
Escalante continued to teach at Garfield, but it was not until 1979 that Escalante would instruct his first calculus class. He hoped that it could provide the leverage to improve lower-level math courses. To this end, Escalante recruited fellow teacher Ben Jimenez and taught calculus to five students, two of whom passed the A.P. calculus test. The following year, the class size increased to nine students, seven of whom passed the A.P. calculus test. By 1981, the class had increased to 15 students, 14 of whom passed. Escalante placed a high priority on pressuring his students to pass their math classes, particularly advanced calculus. He rejected the common practice of ranking students from first to last and instead frequently told his students to press themselves as hard as possible in their assignments.
In 1982, Escalante came into the national spotlight when 18 of his students passed the stuff Advanced Placement calculus exam. The Educational Testing Service found these scores to be suspicious, because all of the students made the exact same math error on problem #6, and also used the same unusual variable names. Fourteen of those who passed were asked to take the exam again. Twelve of the 14 agreed to retake the test and did well enough to have their scores reinstated. In 1983, the number of students enrolling and passing the A.P. calculus test more than doubled. That year 33 students took the exam and 30 passed. That year Escalante also started teaching calculus at East Los Angeles College. By 1987, 73 students passed the A.P. calculus AB exam and another 12 passed the BC version of the test.
Sadly, Jaime Escalante would be a doubtful person to be a teacher in modern-day Arizona. But, there is another person who also probably could not qualify as a teacher in modern-day Arizona. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian immigrant, has such a known thick accent that it is probable that he would not be approved for teaching in modern-day Arizona. Well, except he has political clout, so who knows? And, should I mention the following? “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday night declared the new Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants ‘a mess’ and something he ‘would never do.'” Yes, even Republican immigrants gag at the thought of the Arizona laws and regulations. In fact, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that he is looking into a list of how many government contracts California has with Arizona with the possibility of pulling them. You go boy!
Sad that you to have to end this fine piece with a jab at the Republicans. You could have said Govenor. One other thing Senor Escalante would continue to teach because he teaches math and not English. Check dept of education ruling again it is for teachers of English only. Therefore; would you want your immigrants learning English from a heavily accented Asian?
Fred, it is not. I just did recheck just to make sure. The multiple reports are that it applies to any subject if there are students in the class who are learning English. It is not just for TESL classes. The classes most affected are kindergarten through second grade classes. Because of the high number of Spanish-speaking, Navajo-speaking, and Hopi-speaking USA citizens in Arizona, nearly half of entering students are considered English-learners. The actual figure is 46%. In passing, I have lived in Arizona. Arizona has multiple cultures and the Navajo Nation and the Hopi people also raise their children in their language as a first language. They learn English later.
“Nearly half the teachers at Creighton, a K-8 school in a Hispanic neighborhood of Phoenix, are native Spanish speakers. State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as ‘biolet,’ think as ‘tink’ and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.”
“These teachers ‘are very good educators who understand the culture of their students,’ said Ms. Agneessens, Creighton’s principal. ‘Teachers should speak grammatically correct English,’ she acknowledged, but added, ‘I object to the nuance of punishment for accent.'”
So, to repeat, this is not just about TESL classes. It is going to gut some kindergartens through second grade of teachers. I suspect that the Navajo and Hopi are not going to take this laying down either.
I think he ended on a praise, not a jab, for the Republicans—namely, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger.
True dat, as versus the ultra-conservative wing of the party.
How can you repeat the fact that the law as written affects all school subjects so many times and still have that be missed by so many commentators?
Tokah, in my longer reply to Fred’s comment, I quoted from an interview of a Phoenix, Arizona principal. She obviously thinks that it applies to any school teacher in any class that contains students who are in the process of learning English. That is why she is so worried about her kindergarten classes. Two of her three kindergarten teachers have accents. I did not quote the entire article, true, but that principal, who is the one who must apply the regulation, has no doubt that it means any teacher in any class regardless of whether it is a TESL class or not.
Why shouldn’t the GOP be jabbed over this? It’s not like the Dems are the ones doing it.
It sounds to me as if the law is confusing if people are interpreting it so differently. Of course, confusing laws seem to be par for the course these days. (Of course, I think my cellular telephone is confusing, so don’t mind me.)
That is crazy, Ernestito, what are they thinking …just bc a person has an accent that is suppose to lable them as dumb or something of that sort…Escalante was a wonderful teacher and admired by the community to improve education when students where not being force to learn so what is the state of Arizona thinking that some how that is going to improve their education system? Wow..I’m sorry but even my college profesor had the thickest Greek accent ever but the man was a genious…he spoke 7 language fluently and we all wanted to take calcules classes with him bc he knew how to teach…they to check themselves again..
You would applaud the news story I read yesterday. A Southeast Asian immigrant teacher was going to be fired because she had repeatedly flunked an English fluency (NOT accent) exam. A judge enjoined the district from firing her because, he/she found, the teacher’s PTSD was responsible for her flunking the exam.
Why would I approve the judge’s decision automatically? It seems to be stretching the federal ADA act to make that ruling.
I will put in one caveat. I think I would like to know whether said teacher was, say, successfully teaching mathematics or science, as measured by the standardized tests that are run in every state. If she is NOT teaching English or literature or composition, but another subject, and, if her students are successfully approving the standardized tests at a level equal to or better than the average for that school, then, I might ask, is the requirement for the English exam truly related to job performance?
You see, the judge may have been stretching the act. But, if the Arizona law is an excuse to ostensibly justify getting rid of legal immigrants in the schools, then you will find that federal judges will find any and every technicality in every federal law to start striking it down. One of the stances in our country has previously been that what is important is whether you can do the job. If the teacher is NOT an English, etc., teacher, and is doing the job, then there really is something wrong in Arizona for trying to get rid of a teacher based on a non-job related skill.
But, of course, if the skill can be shown to be directly job related, the law will back Arizona up.
There is a difference between flunking a test because of ignorance and flunking a test because of a disease with an anxiety factor in it that impedes your ability to complete the test with knowledge you DO have. Some people have such severe test taking anxiety that they simply CANNOT adequately respond with knowledge they in fact do have. I am a retired VA Psych nurse and have a lot of experience with PTSD. The teacher’s problem might have been that the room was too crowded or that she was not able to sit in a place that felt safe. Many people with PTSD have difficulty with crowded situations or in situations where they feel exposed. In these situations the anxiety level can be devastatingly acute and when anxiety is at that high a level, test taking would definately be impeded. I am thinking that perhaps the answer would be an exam in a different setting or just interacting with the person with a less threatening sort of examination in a secure environment. If this was the case and knowing PTSD symptoms and what they can do to people, it may well have been, then I would concur with the judges decision. It would be like asking a diabetic to take a test when they had severe hypoglycemia. The altered mental status of the hypoglycemia could cause someone perfectly fluent to fail. The teacher might be perfectly at home and relaxed in her classroom where she has some control of the environment and be perfectly fluent but fail a fluency test if the test taking setting triggered PTSD symptoms.
Thank you. I learned something new there.