grant in his native language.nA prime example of this .can benfound in the continuing debate overnfederal and state policies on bilingualneducation. At times these policies havencome dangerously close to making thenmain goal of this program the maintenancenof the immigrant child’s nativenlanguage, rather than the eariy acquisitionnof English.nUnder the dominant method of bilingualneducation used throughout thisncountry, non-English-speaking studentsnare taught all academic subjectsnsuch as math, science, and historynexclusively in their native language.nEnglish is taught as a separate subject.nThe problem with this method is thatnthere is no objective standard used tonmeasure whether a child has learnednenough English to be placed in classesnwhere academic instruction is entirelynin English. As a result, some childrennhave been kept in native languagenclasses for six years.nIn the Newhall School District innCalifornia, some Hispanic parents arenraising their voices in criticism of thendistrict’s bilingual education program,nwhich relies on native language instruction.nTheir children complain ofnbeing systematically segregated fromntheir English-speaking peers. Now innhigh school, these students cite thenfailure of the program to teach themnEnglish first as the reason for beingnyears behind their classmates.nEven more alarming is a situation innthe Berkeley (California) UnifiednSchool District, where educators havenrecognized that all-native-language instructionnwould be an inadequate responsento the needs of all non-Englishspeakingnstudents. Challenged by anstudent body that spoke more than fourndifferent languages and by budgetarynconstraints, teachers and administratorsnresponded with innovative languagenprograms that utilized many methodsnof teaching English to non-Englishnspeakers.nThat school district is now in courtnanswering charges that the education itnprovided was inadequate because it didnnot provide transitional native languageninstruction for every non-Englishnspeaker. What was introduced 20 yearsnago as an experimental project has—ndespite inconclusive research —nbecome the only acceptable methodnfor bilingual education advocates.nIf native language instruction is notnthe answer, are we forced to return tonthe old, discredited, sink-or-swim approach?nNo: as shown in Berkeley andnother school districts, there are a numbernof alternative methods that demonstrablynprovide non-English-speakingnstudents with the special help theynneed, while avoiding the problems ofnall-native-language instruction.nSheltered English and English as anSecond Language (ESL) are just twonprograms that have been shown to benextremely effective in quickly makingnchildren proficient in English. Federalnfunds for these methods, however, arenrestricted to only 25 percent of thentotal amount allotted for bilingual education.nThere is another highly visible shiftnin federal policy that demonstrates theneroding support of government for ourncommon language: the requirementnfor bilingual voting ballots. Little evidencenhas ever been presented to shownthe need for ballots in other languages.nEven prominent Hispanic organizationsnacknowledge that currently morenthan 90 percent of native-bornnHispanics are fluent in English, andnmore than half of that population isnEnglish monolingual.nEurthermore, if the proponents ofnbilingual ballots are correct when theynclaim that the absence of native languagenballots prevents non-Englishspeakingncitizens from exercising theirnright to vote, then current bilingualnballot requirements are clearly unfair,nbecause they provide assistance to certainngroups of voters while ignoringnothers. Under current federal law, nativenlanguage ballots are required onlynfor certain language groups — thosenspeaking Spanish, Asian, or NativenAmerican languages. European or Africannimmigrants are not provided ballotsnin their native language even innjurisdictions covered by the VotingnRights Act.nMore importantly, we cannot continuento overlook the message we arenMAN AND MIND:nA CHRISTIAN THEORY OF PERSONALITYnMAN AND MINDnWhy are so many psychologists hostile tonreligious explanations of human behavior? Innwhat has been hailed as a path-breakingnstudy, nine psychologists, theologians andnphilosophers offer the reason: Thomas J.nBurke. Stephen R. Briggs, Mary Vander Goot,nPaul C. Vitz, Charles Ransford, MeroldnWestphal, William Kirk Kilpatrick, John S.nReist, Jr, and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen.npsycholdgy today.'”n- -Richeird [ohn Neuhausnauthor. The Nakcci Pubhc fiqurtrpn$5.00 PAPERBOUND (Michigan residents add 4% sales tax)nVISA AND MASTERCARD ORDERS 800-253-3200, EXT. 801nHILLSDALE COLLEGE PRESSnHillsdale, Michigan 49242nnne ffeW Vf’nMARCH 1989/45n