ogram began, immigrant children appeared to be absorbing English at a astonishing pace (Sahagun). Sylvia Harris, a teacher in South Central stated, “’the kids are doing very well....We’re very happy campers’” (Sahagun). At this same time, some teachers worried that their children might simply be imitating them rather than thinking in English or that many were falling behind in their studies. Still other “teachers lament having to water down core subjects such as science and social studies for students who are just beginning to read and write in English” and “regretted having to teach their English learners at a slower pace than they would have liked” (Sahagun). One year after the programs implementation, in August 1999, test scores appeared to have soared for immigrant students; “scores of English learners rose 18 percent in reading, 21 percent in mathematics, 15 percent in language, 21 percent in spelling and 19 percent overall” (Geyer). By August of 2000, even more evidence showed the success of English immersion. Test scores continued to rise dramatically in districts that implemented the program in a speedy fashion, where areas test scores remained stagnant in districts that refused to put the program into practice (Chavez). Suni Fernandez, a second grade teacher in Oceanside, explained that thirteen of her eighteen students were rated fluent by the state LAS test, a feat that two years ago was limited to one (Barone).It would seem as if the apparent success of English immersion programs would silence proponents of bilingual and dual immersion education, but it has not. Those still in favor of bilingual education wonder if the immersion program was really the cause of immigrant success in English. An economist at the University of California San Diego states, “There have been so many changes in California in the last few years that it’s really hard to...
