In the last of these articles on conflict, Robert picks apart the prinicpal’s letter to Ben Lev. The letter itself is repeated here in italics first:
Dear —,
I waited to respond until I had a chance to meet with the department today to discuss some of these topics. As I mentioned in my last e-mail, I believe we will agree to disagree on this topic. Our department philosophy differs from your expectations in that we are designed to teach the whole language of reading comprehension, writing conventions, and oral delivery of language acquisition. In fact, it was revealed in the meeting that whole language development is supported in this model by English Language Learners as well as the UC/CSU system in recent research. We have discussed having a Native Spanish Speaker section in future years because students who have learned the language in the model you are suggesting having significant gaps in their writing and reading abilities.
I have observed all of our world language classes and am confident in their delivery of instruction. I don’t see the need to meet with our department members at this point as they have weighed your concerns and agreed that their methodology is effective. I would agree and support them at this point.
Robert responds:
The principal’s reference to potentially adding a class for Native Spanish Speakers “because students who have learned the language in the model you are suggesting having significant gaps in their writing and reading abilities” is specious. It does not challenge TCI/TPRS as a methodology. Here are the reasons:
1. Heritage/Native Speakers have not had targeted instruction using the method. The fact that they speak as well as they do from just hearing parents, grandparents, etc. speak the language is actually a testimonial to the effectiveness of TCI/TPRS; it works even when practiced by non-professionals. Why do parents not use the grammar model with their children? Because it doesn’t work.
2. The principal equates casual, non-professional exposure to the language with TCI/TPRS. If this is not a deliberate ploy (which would be dishonest), it reveals a glaring lack of understanding because the principal cannot distinguish between the professional application of a method of instruction and non-professional, casual exposure to a language. And yet this man is in a position to evaluate the teaching expertise of others?!
3. After 8+ years of formal instruction in English, as well as lifelong exposure to the language, students still have to be instructed in the reading, writing, spelling and grammar of their native language because “there are significant gaps” (just ask any English teacher). The principal has now indicted the entire school system. By proving too much, he proves nothing.
4. Reading and writing are very different skills from speaking and listening. Yet the principal complains that there are gaps in reading and writing abilities after years of casual exposure to oral language. Well, duh. This is like complaining that someone can’t shoot baskets after years of playing baseball or can’t play the organ after years of strumming a guitar. He merely demonstrates his ignorance of the skills involved and how languages are acquired.
5. The goals of instruction for this department are obviously not communication in the target language, regardless of what they may claim. It looks to me like the goals are accuracy of grammar and metacognitive understanding of the language system. There is nothing inherently wrong with those goals, it’s just that most students don’t take a high school language class for those reasons. The department is not addressing the perceived needs of its clientele. If this were a business instead of a government agency, they would have very few customers. I imagine that they have very few customers in the non-required classes as it is.
