Must Speak English to be Elected?

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796
Must Speak English to be Elected?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/26/judge-candidates-grasp-of-en

Nelson said in his ruling that he wanted to make it clear that he wasn't saying that she had an "intelligence" issue, but it was because of her proficiency that he felt she should be removed from the ballot.

Right or Wrong?

eta-Keep in mind
In 2006, Arizona passed a law that made English the official language of the state.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Hmmm. I am undecided in this area. She does speak English, knowing how much is subjective. You would need to hear her to know. Also, I do not live in that area. Very few people where I live do not speak English so it is not something I have experience with. Interested to know what everyone else says though.

elleon17's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"The ability to read, write, speak, and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of the office without aid of an interpreter shall be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature," a section of the act reads.

I think this is a fair assessment of the position and for all jobs there are requirements that you must possess and this is one that is required for that job.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I agree I think one should be VERY proficient in the main language of your area. Politics is tricky and adding in a lack of fluency could be disastrous. My biggest issues with voters is them not being able to understand what they are voting for or against. Anyone voting or running for office should be able to understand and convey what their views are (in the case of the candidate) when it comes to politics.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Ridiculous. If voters want someone with that qualification, they can vote for one.

I have a real problem with people deciding what "fluency" is. Especially if they do not have fluency in a second language.

I serve on a public committee in my second language. I have to work harder than all of the other committee members but I do understand things and convey my opinions, even if the way I do it is not pretty.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I agree I think one should be VERY proficient in the main language of your area.

She is. She is a native Spanish speaker.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"blather" wrote:

Ridiculous. If voters want someone with that qualification, they can vote for one.

Yes this.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

Oh boy! This isn't going to end well.

But Cabrera's lawyers argued in court that her disqualification was truly unfair and may be unconstitutional, seeing as there is not an actual standard for a specific level of proficiency for a council candidate.

She's running for public office; a job that requires voters elect her. It is up to them to decide whether they want a woman with limited English ability, a person who severed time in federal prison, or died before election day. Yes, crack smokers and dead people have actually won elections.

There are very few qualifications/requirements to run for public office. I have contemplated running for Congree the past 4 years. Our rep has actually run unopposed in the past 2 elections. I'm over 25, lived in the US for at least 7 years and live in CA. I just need to pay $1740 or collect 3000 signatures and I can get my name on the ballot.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

"blather" wrote:

She is. She is a native Spanish speaker.

It's great that she is fluent in the language of the area. I think the requirement for that particular office, fluency in both Spanish and English would be the best choice. While she can communicate with her constituents, she may or may not be able to communicate with business that might want to come to her area. Her ability to negotiate with companies looking to relocate to her area could hamper job creation. Her limited understanding of English could also pose serious issues if she needed to coordinate with government agencies during a disaster situation. While I'm sympathetic to her, her lack of ability to understand more than very basic English would prevent her from taking a leadership position.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

So basically anyone requiring an interpreter for sign language isn't considered qualified either. I'm surprised this hasn't previously been challenged. I think it should simply be left to the voters.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

In an emergency, even a few seconds can count. Relaying critical information through a translator really isn't feasible. A mayor without skills in English would be a detriment to the community. Whether they like her or not, it's still not a good choice for the public as a whole.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

"Beertje" wrote:

So basically anyone requiring an interpreter for sign language isn't considered qualified either. I'm surprised this hasn't previously been challenged. I think it should simply be left to the voters.

There are job requirements that some disabled people cannot have, because the disability precludes them from performing the basic functions. A blind person cannot be an airline pilot or fire fighter. A deaf person would not likely make a good symphony conductor. Complying with ADA doesn't mean that every person has a right to every job. If you can make reasonable accommodations, you must make them. If a physical impairment prevents a person from performing the job duties, it's not discrimination to preclude them from a position.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

There are job requirements that some disabled people cannot have, because the disability precludes them from performing the basic functions. A blind person cannot be an airline pilot or fire fighter. A deaf person would not likely make a good symphony conductor. Complying with ADA doesn't mean that every person has a right to every job. If you can make reasonable accommodations, you must make them. If a physical impairment prevents a person from performing the job duties, it's not discrimination to preclude them from a position.

Except that I would argue that a personal translator that is available during their worktime is a reasonable accommodation in this scenario. Just because a person is deaf does not mean they can't effectively communicate in efficient manners the job specifies.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

How are many emergencies handled internationally but via translators? I think if they have a system figured out that works internationally, there must be a system that would be feasible for political office nationally as well.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

There are job requirements that some disabled people cannot have, because the disability precludes them from performing the basic functions. A blind person cannot be an airline pilot or fire fighter. A deaf person would not likely make a good symphony conductor. Complying with ADA doesn't mean that every person has a right to every job. If you can make reasonable accommodations, you must make them. If a physical impairment prevents a person from performing the job duties, it's not discrimination to preclude them from a position.

Holding public office is not one of them. There are minimal qualifications for running for office. It is up to the voters to decide if they want to elect that person or not.

As I said before, being dead doesn't keep you from being elected - Mel Caranahan for one. (In his case, the governor promised to appoint his wife to the vacant senate seat, which is exactly what happened.) Serving time in federal prison does not prevent you from getting electied (Marion Barry).

When we recalled Gray Davis, 135 people had their names on the ballot. All it took was $3500 or 10,000 signatures. 134 of them lost. That is the process and how it is meant to be based on the constitution.

If the voters want to elect her, that is their right. If they want to write in Mickey Mouse, that is their right. If you don't think she (or any candidate) is qualified, you don't vote for them.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I didn't know how I felt about this besides the obvious fact that she does not speak the English language well enough to cover the law (she couldn't tell them which high school she graduated from which is definitely not profiicent). However, the more I think about it, the more I realize how often even a city council member speaks in front of other people and for other people. If President Obama had an interpreter because he didn't speak English well enough for his constituents to understand him, a lot of the people he communicated with would have less respect for him. I think that need to be able to communicate with not only words but gestures and facail expresssions would be a necessary part of any politicians job. When you use the interpreter you have the delay that may mean that someone missed a raised eyebrow or misplaced it in the interpretation.

It sucks that she has got to a point in her life where she wants to serve her country and didn't take the time to learn the official language of her state even if most of her friends, family, and constituents in the immediate area speak the same language as her. It makes me kind of wonder what else she wouldn't want to put the effort into.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

In an emergency, even a few seconds can count. Relaying critical information through a translator really isn't feasible. A mayor without skills in English would be a detriment to the community. Whether they like her or not, it's still not a good choice for the public as a whole.

She's not running for mayor:

That's because when Cabrera threw her name in the hat to run for city council, Juan Carlos Escamilla, the mayor of San Luis, said he was concerned that she might not have the proper grasp of the language for the job. Escamilla filed a lawsuit in December that asked a court to determine if Cabrera's skills qualified her under state law to run for the council seat.

It is the mayor questioning her ability. (Kind of sounds like a conflict of interest to me.)

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

In an emergency, even a few seconds can count. Relaying critical information through a translator really isn't feasible. A mayor without skills in English would be a detriment to the community. Whether they like her or not, it's still not a good choice for the public as a whole.

That is not for you to decide. If enough of the voters felt as you do, she would not be elected.

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

There are job requirements that some disabled people cannot have, because the disability precludes them from performing the basic functions. A blind person cannot be an airline pilot or fire fighter. A deaf person would not likely make a good symphony conductor. Complying with ADA doesn't mean that every person has a right to every job. If you can make reasonable accommodations, you must make them. If a physical impairment prevents a person from performing the job duties, it's not discrimination to preclude them from a position.

Holding public office is not something that would hinder a Deaf person. I know hundreds of Deaf people (DH is a sign language interpreter). It is our life. There are some things a Deaf person can not do. Answer a normal phone (so not telemarketing), Be a cashier or waitress are a few examples. Although a public office is not something a Deaf person could not do. They would just have an interpreter that went with them to all meetings. Marlee Matlin has her own personal interpreter who goes with her all the time. I know a Deaf person that is a nuclear engineer at a power plant.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

That is not for you to decide. If enough of the voters felt as you do, she would not be elected.

Holding public office is not something that would hinder a Deaf person. I know hundreds of Deaf people (DH is a sign language interpreter). It is our life. There are some things a Deaf person can not do. Answer a normal phone (so not telemarketing), Be a cashier or waitress are a few examples. Although a public office is not something a Deaf person could not do. They would just have an interpreter that went with them to all meetings. Marlee Matlin has her own personal interpreter who goes with her all the time. I know a Deaf person that is a nuclear engineer at a power plant.

Even then, deaf people may not be limited. I worked with a deaf person at a grocery store in my teens, both as cashiers. My ex is profoundly deaf and worked as a waiter. Both were excellent lip readers and had early speech therapy so they were vocally understood and did not require interpreter services. One also had the assistance of hearing aides.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

That is not for you to decide. If enough of the voters felt as you do, she would not be elected.

Holding public office is not something that would hinder a Deaf person. I know hundreds of Deaf people (DH is a sign language interpreter). It is our life. There are some things a Deaf person can not do. Answer a normal phone (so not telemarketing), Be a cashier or waitress are a few examples. Although a public office is not something a Deaf person could not do. They would just have an interpreter that went with them to all meetings. Marlee Matlin has her own personal interpreter who goes with her all the time. I know a Deaf person that is a nuclear engineer at a power plant.

It's not for you to decide either! Wink

Snarkiness aside. Deafness is a disability under ADA that grants certain rights. You can choose to go learn a language, but you generally don't choose to be deaf/blind/physically impaired. She has the option of studying English to prepare her for holding a public office. I don't think that you can be effective representing a community on a state level if you do not speak English.

I don't think the position she's running for makes much difference. I think the debate is whether English language proficiency should be required to hold public office, and I think it's perfectly legal to require that.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"wlillie" wrote:

I didn't know how I felt about this besides the obvious fact that she does not speak the English language well enough to cover the law (she couldn't tell them which high school she graduated from which is definitely not profiicent). However, the more I think about it, the more I realize how often even a city council member speaks in front of other people and for other people. If President Obama had an interpreter because he didn't speak English well enough for his constituents to understand him, a lot of the people he communicated with would have less respect for him. I think that need to be able to communicate with not only words but gestures and facail expresssions would be a necessary part of any politicians job. When you use the interpreter you have the delay that may mean that someone missed a raised eyebrow or misplaced it in the interpretation.

It sucks that she has got to a point in her life where she wants to serve her country and didn't take the time to learn the official language of her state even if most of her friends, family, and constituents in the immediate area speak the same language as her. It makes me kind of wonder what else she wouldn't want to put the effort into.

To the bolded: they wouldn't have voted for him.

She's not running for president. She's running for a seat on the city council of a town of 25,000 people, 90% of whom are Hispanic or Latino, almost all of whom speak a language other than English as their primary language in their home.

Cabrera is one of 10 council candidates running in the city?s March primary, the Sun said.* She is considered something of a rabble-rouser, having spearheaded two failed recall attempts against the current mayor of San Luis, Juan Carlos Escamilla.

It really sounds like his motive is personal on this.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

Some people who's primary language is English and aren't understood well (slang, accents, etc.) or have speech impediments. Are they also not allowed in this state to run for public office of their choice? So people who may not even be able to grasp the concept of how government even works, much less barely be able to manage their daily tasks to function, for office as long as they're proficient in English, but those that are well known, intelligent, involved individuals who are just not proficient in English can not run. They have no problem with "intelligence issues" but they have a problem with proficiency in English. That makes no sense. If the voters don't want them in office, they simply won't vote for them. What is the mayor so afraid of? That she'll win?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Beertje" wrote:

Even then, deaf people may not be limited. I worked with a deaf person at a grocery store in my teens, both as cashiers. My ex is profoundly deaf and worked as a waiter. Both were excellent lip readers and had early speech therapy so they were vocally understood and did not require interpreter services. One also had the assistance of hearing aides.

You are right, there are some that can. I was just giving examples of what a Deaf person may not be able to do. Have you seen the T-shirts that say "The only thing a Deaf person can't do is hear".

I do agree though that not speaking English is a choice and Deafness is not.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

It States in the article that this started out because of politics but it doesn't matter that his intentions sucked. The law is still.there ans she isn't proficient. She is running for an office that has certain requirements that she could have met and chose not to.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"wlillie" wrote:

It States in the article that this started out because of politics but it doesn't matter that his intentions sucked. The law is still.there ans she isn't proficient. She is running for an office that has certain requirements that she could have met and chose not to.

I didn't see anywhere in that article where it listed the requirements for city council. It listed the requirements for state office, which she is not running for. It's up to the voters to decide whether she is qualified for the position.

And I actually had to think twice about where I graduated high school. I transferred schools my senior year & never really accepted it or felt I belonged there. My heart really feels that I "graduated" from my first high school. Whenever anyone asks any kind of high school question, I automatically answer with my first high school. Even on the stand, I probably would have blurted out "Mercy" without thinking, and been wrong. Should that disqualify me? Maybe she had a similar experience. I'm not going to hold that against her.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

"Spacers" wrote:

I didn't see anywhere in that article where it listed the requirements for city council. It listed the requirements for state office, which she is not running for. It's up to the voters to decide whether she is qualified for the position.

And I actually had to think twice about where I graduated high school. I transferred schools my senior year & never really accepted it or felt I belonged there. My heart really feels that I "graduated" from my first high school. Whenever anyone asks any kind of high school question, I automatically answer with my first high school. Even on the stand, I probably would have blurted out "Mercy" without thinking, and been wrong. Should that disqualify me? Maybe she had a similar experience. I'm not going to hold that against her.

She freely admits that she speaks very little English.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

She freely admits that she speaks very little English.

I freely admit I have never been to law school. Based on the constitution, that doesn't make ineligible to serve on the supreme court.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I freely admit I have never been to law school. Based on the constitution, that doesn't make ineligible to serve on the supreme court.

I'm not sure what that has to do with this.

I've seen several references to a law in Arizona that says that English is required for holding public office in that state. The articles have also said that the city council that she wants to run for conducts it's day-to-day business in English. All documents from the state are in English. The working council sessions are in English, with translators available for non-English speakers who want to present to the council during public meetings. If she is not proficient in the language, how is she going to be able to perform the job?

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

it's day-to-day business

.....
If she is not proficient in the language, how is she going to be able to perform the job?

So where is the line?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Strange_Cat" wrote:

If she is not proficient in the language, how is she going to be able to perform the job?

If a person is not proficient in a language their potential client or customer speaks, are you saying they're not capable of performing a job? That's where translators come into play. How else have hospitals, human services, legal services, public offices, foreign affairs, etc. been able to do their jobs when serving communities that speak multiple languages? And if the general public thinks hearing her voice, her speeches via translations, they have the power to not vote for her. However, with the population she is electing to serve, I'm guessing she will be able to effectively communicate in the language the community customarily prefers.

Strange_Cat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 02/08/02
Posts: 41

"Beertje" wrote:

If a person is not proficient in a language their potential client or customer speaks, are you saying they're not capable of performing a job? That's where translators come into play. How else have hospitals, human services, legal services, public offices, foreign affairs, etc. been able to do their jobs when serving communities that speak multiple languages? And if the general public thinks hearing her voice, her speeches via translations, they have the power to not vote for her. However, with the population she is electing to serve, I'm guessing she will be able to effectively communicate in the language the community customarily prefers.

If they are not proficient in the job to perform the day-to-day responsibilities, then they don't qualify for the job. It's not discrimination to require English language proficiency to be eligible for a job. Especially a job that requires a person to be able to read complex documents in English.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

In that case, the person hiring has to make that decision. That person is a voter, not a mayor.

Listen, I probably wouldn't vote for her due to the language issue. I am currently voting on a political party leader and the language issue is huge for me. But that does not take away her right to run.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

I think that to hold a political office in the United States, anywhere in the United States, you should be required to speak English fluently, with no problems.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

By no problems, do you mean no mistakes? Who would be on the committee in charge of deciding that? How many billions of dollars would it cost to vet every single candidate before they are allowed to stand for election? I should be in favour of this because it means George Bush would have never been able to run, but I'm not because it is a ridiculous idea.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"blather" wrote:

By no problems, do you mean no mistakes? Who would be on the committee in charge of deciding that? How many billions of dollars would it cost to vet every single candidate before they are allowed to stand for election? I should be in favour of this because it means George Bush would have never been able to run, but I'm not because it is a ridiculous idea.

No, becuase everyone makes mistakes, whether on purpose or not. Our dialects all sound different as well, depending on what part of the country that you live in. I mean be able to speak the language without issues, or slowing down, as it says that she does when she speaks. If you're holding any public office, you're goint to have speaking engagements, and in those you need to sound professional in your posotion as an American public official, and you don't if you aren't fluent in your speech and vocabulary.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

But how fluent is fluent? Are the spelling mistakes in your post enough to get you barred from public office? Who will decide this in your grand plan?

Why shouldn't this issue be up to the voters and only the voters?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

"Starryblue702" wrote:

I think that to hold a political office in the United States, anywhere in the United States, you should be required to speak English fluently, with no problems.

So, would you change the constitutional requirements to qualify to run as president as well? Should education requirements be added and for the office holders to have certain degrees specifically? Seems like "requirements" could get out of hand easily. Why not leave it up to voters to decide who is qualified to be their representative? I respect your viewpoint, just think it should be kept as your personal criteria and not "requirements" for everyone in office.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I think she should absolutely be able to run, let the voters decide if they want to hire someone. The only caveat to this is that if she needs help with translating anything, whether written or spoken she would need to pay for that help herself. I do not believe the taxpayers should be on the hook for any money that may need to be spent because she does not speak the language adequately

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"blather" wrote:

But how fluent is fluent? Are the spelling mistakes in your post enough to get you barred from public office? Who will decide this in your grand plan?

Why shouldn't this issue be up to the voters and only the voters?

A judge decided. The process worked.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Except the legal process is for the voters to decide.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"blather" wrote:

Except the legal process is for the voters to decide.

The voters did decide. They elected the State Congress that created the law in 1910 that state officials must understand English to run for office. The court interpreted that the law included the position she was running for.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The voters did decide. They elected the State Congress that created the law in 1910 that state officials must understand English to run for office. The court interpreted that the law included the position she was running for.

The document they keep citing is from 1910 - 2 years before AZ became a state. It said they could set up a constitution for the state. I'm not entirely sure how/why it is still considered law since it specically states the Territory of Mexico can become a state.

It's not the requirement in other cities in AZ.

What I find interesting is that that same document states public schools will be conducted entirely in English. This woman was born in the US and went through school in AZ, yes?

Anyway, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the qualifications for POTUS, SCOTUS, and Congress are less than those of a councilmember of a small town of 25,000 people. Funny, she could run against McCain for his Senate seat, but not for a position on city council?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

What I don't understand is how someone can graduate from high school in AZ without learning enough English to even answer the question of where you went to high school.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

What I don't understand is how someone can graduate from high school in AZ without learning enough English to even answer the question of where you went to high school.

Because you don't have to speak english to go to school in America anymore. Twenty percent of the children at my sons' school DO NOT speak any english!! I coudn't believe my eyes when they sent home the school stats at the beginning of the year! No wonder our children aren't learning anything (at least in the Nevada schools, ranked 46 out of 50 states) at school. It's a complete joke. This takes away from the help that my child needs (and everyone else's english speaking child) because the teacher no doubt has to spend twice the amount of time teaching them english, then the regular lessons of the day. So between that and the ridiculous "we're going to grade your kid on stuff that we haven't taught them yet" way of thinking, it's no wonder so many kids grauate as complete morons. But to fix it would actually require the government FIXING the illegal immigration problem that we currently have, then requiring those LEGAL immigrant citizens to not only learn english themselves but teach it to their children as well (current children and those that will be born in the future), then getting rid of these idiotic school boards that impliment these moronic testing procedures, not letting teachers be unionized so that they can't lose their jobs if they're terrible at them, getting rid of the "last hired, first fired" rule.... hey, a girl can dream that one day the school system that gets $2000 less per student than most other states can actually teach my child SOMETHING rather than give them a "D" in reading because you haven't taught him how to read yet. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4757225/nevadas-per-pupil-spending-near-very-bottom-in-nation

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Starryblue702" wrote:

Because you don't have to speak english to go to school in America anymore. Twenty percent of the children at my sons' school DO NOT speak any english!! I coudn't believe my eyes when they sent home the school stats at the beginning of the year! No wonder our children aren't learning anything (at least in the Nevada schools, ranked 46 out of 50 states) at school. It's a complete joke. This takes away from the help that my child needs (and everyone else's english speaking child) because the teacher no doubt has to spend twice the amount of time teaching them english, then the regular lessons of the day. So between that and the ridiculous "we're going to grade your kid on stuff that we haven't taught them yet" way of thinking, it's no wonder so many kids grauate as complete morons.

It doesn't work that way out here. DD8 has UA time when the kids are grouped on ability and get support based on that. At 7th & 8th grade it's 1 period a day. The students who go to the dual-immersion program actually do the best overall. Half of the day is taught in English and half the day is in Spanish. They end up truly fluent in both languages.

But to fix it would actually require the government FIXING the illegal immigration problem that we currently have, then requiring those LEGAL immigrant citizens to not only learn english themselves but teach it to their children as well (current children and those that will be born in the future), then getting rid of these idiotic school boards that impliment these moronic testing procedures,

This won't "fix" the woman in the OP. She was born here.

not letting teachers be unionized so that they can't lose their jobs if they're terrible at them, getting rid of the "last hired, first fired" rule....

That just isn't how it works. Many professions have due process rights. If someone accused you of something at work, I would hope your boss would investigate (at least ask you about it) instead of just firing you. Bad teachers can and do lose their jobs. I have witnessed quite a few go through the termination process and they usually end up resigning along the way. We don't have a last hired, first rule either. There are legal procedures to determine who is laid off and who isn't. Date of hire is one factor, but doesn't guarantee anything. There aren't too many professions where you are doing the same thing (just better) in year 17 as in year 1.

hey, a girl can dream that one day the school system that gets $2000 less per student than most other states can actually teach my child SOMETHING rather than give them a "D" in reading because you haven't taught him how to read yet. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4757225/nevadas-per-pupil-spending-near-very-bottom-in-nation

Reading is difficult. It takes patience and practice. With both of my girls it was a struggle and then it suddenly just clicked. I did everything I could to work with them all the time to help them learn.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

This won't "fix" the woman in the OP. She was born here. I know that, I was speaking overall how much illegal immigration is dragging this country down, from children to adulthood.

Reading is difficult. It takes patience and practice. With both of my girls it was a struggle and then it suddenly just clicked. I did everything I could to work with them all the time to help them learn. I agree, but my problem is that my son CAN read, but because he doesn't read "with inflection and tone" they gave him a D. The entirety of my state's school system is totally jacked up and the voters need to be screaming about it or we'll stay at the bottom of the barrell for education.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Starryblue702" wrote:

This won't "fix" the woman in the OP. She was born here. I know that, I was speaking overall how much illegal immigration is dragging this country down, from children to adulthood.

Reading is difficult. It takes patience and practice. With both of my girls it was a struggle and then it suddenly just clicked. I did everything I could to work with them all the time to help them learn. I agree, but my problem is that my son CAN read, but because he doesn't read "with inflection and tone" they gave him a D. The entirety of my state's school system is totally jacked up and the voters need to be screaming about it or we'll stay at the bottom of the barrell for education.

Are you seriously blaming illegal immigration for your own child's grades?

These people want to much to give their children a better life they give up everything in their home country and go illegally to a country that needs them desperately but treats them like crap. Do you think that those 20% of kids who are ESL students in your school have parents as entitled as you? Do you think their parents sit on message boards in Vietnamese or Spanish and complain about your child squandering the gift he has of being born in the US, born speaking the global language, and how it's hard for their kids to learn English because of the laziness of the native speakers in the class?
I don't think so.

It's not the voters who need to do something, it's parents.

Want to raise your child's grades?

When you read to your child, how is your inflection and tone? Are you reading every day without fail? Are you modeling good reading habits? Does your child have access to books all the time? When you go to the library do you pick out books your child can read and also some a little above your child's reading level for you to read to your child? Does your child see you and his father read for pleasure?

That's where reading starts. It has to happen in the home.

If you are not reading every day, start. Read verse (that's, you know, rhyming) and get your kids to memorize some. That will help the most with intonation, tone, pronunciation and inflection. Act a nursery rhyme out. Show your kids how to read in different ways (in the style of Shakespeare, with a French accent, scared, happy, slow motion, etc.).

Don't say you don't have time. You have to make time. Do it in the car if you have to, or during breakfast. But reading together 20 minutes a day is the single most important thing you can do for your child's education.

I personally would recommend James and the Giant Peach, that's a joy to read aloud. There's also Going on a Bear Hunt, a great book that a second grader should be able to read on their own. This is the author performing it.

[video=youtube;ytc0U2WAz4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytc0U2WAz4s[/video]

PS. It's spelled barrel. If you start reading more your spelling should improve.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

blather I agree with both you and Krystal.. lol
I think Krystal isn't blaming her child's grade on immigration, she is saying the time allocated for ESL students is taking time away from her son, I think this is a justified complaint. ESPECIALLY for public schoolers, shouldn't the schooling be done the most at school, not at home. I have found great things to offer my friends to supplement their public schooled child's education... However, shouldn't the school be doing this? Since it isn't and is falling short, or relying so much on parents to accomplish the schooling, something may need to be adjusted.

In looking at data it shows that the education level of the parent is a great indicator of how well a student does in public school, where it isn't as much if at all a factor when homeschooling.. What that shows me is just what blather is saying, parents have a great responsibility to spend time with their children, and "add in" where needed. Whether that be the missing aspects that the teacher can't hit at school for what ever reason, or during homeschooling.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Reading to your children isn't the responsibility of the school. It is as basic as providing a bed and food for a child. Showing children the wonderful world of books is important as instilling please and thank you and other manners.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"blather" wrote:

Are you seriously blaming illegal immigration for your own child's grades?

These people want to much to give their children a better life they give up everything in their home country and go illegally to a country that needs them desperately but treats them like crap. Do you think that those 20% of kids who are ESL students in your school have parents as entitled as you? Do you think their parents sit on message boards in Vietnamese or Spanish and complain about your child squandering the gift he has of being born in the US, born speaking the global language, and how it's hard for their kids to learn English because of the laziness of the native speakers in the class?
I don't think so.

It's not the voters who need to do something, it's parents.

Want to raise your child's grades?

When you read to your child, how is your inflection and tone? Are you reading every day without fail? Are you modeling good reading habits? Does your child have access to books all the time? When you go to the library do you pick out books your child can read and also some a little above your child's reading level for you to read to your child? Does your child see you and his father read for pleasure?

That's where reading starts. It has to happen in the home.

If you are not reading every day, start. Read verse (that's, you know, rhyming) and get your kids to memorize some. That will help the most with intonation, tone, pronunciation and inflection. Act a nursery rhyme out. Show your kids how to read in different ways (in the style of Shakespeare, with a French accent, scared, happy, slow motion, etc.).

Don't say you don't have time. You have to make time. Do it in the car if you have to, or during breakfast. But reading together 20 minutes a day is the single most important thing you can do for your child's education.

I personally would recommend James and the Giant Peach, that's a joy to read aloud. There's also Going on a Bear Hunt, a great book that a second grader should be able to read on their own. This is the author performing it.

[video=youtube;ytc0U2WAz4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytc0U2WAz4s[/video]

PS. It's spelled barrel. If you start reading more your spelling should improve.

First off, in no way am I blaming illegal immigration on my child's grades. I said that was "part" of the problem. And the D that he got in reading was SOLELY BASED ON THE PROFICIANCY TEST that they gave him, and not on any of the homework, work done in class nor any of the tests (which he gets A's and B's), that's why it's so upsetting... because his grades aren't based on the GOOD grades that he gets in class on all of his normal work and not based on that he CAN in fact read very well. I was simply stating that ONE of the problems is that teachers have to waste so much time in class teaching other children how to speak the english language when that should be done by the parents and children should be required to speak english fluently before coming to school.

Second, I actually do read to my child every day, it's part of his homework. And during the summers we faithfully go to the library every week and get new books to read each time. I DO actually read with inflection and tone, but I certainly don't expect my six year old to be able to do that perfectly, not this young. DH and I DO actually read all of the time, I get a new book myself each time I go to the library, if I'm not reading something on my ipad. Maybe you should stop judging and accusing people on here, as your spelling comment towards me is completely uncalled for and against the rules of this board. If you need reminding, this is a DEBATE board, where we debate the TOPIC, we don't personally attack one another for something as miniscule as a simple misspelled word.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Glad to hear that you are reading to your child and practicing his reading. You're right, standardized testing leaves much to be desired.

However, perhaps you should look "attack" up in the dictionary? There are no attacks from my side.

If you are judging others based on their English proficiency, expect others to do the same to you.

Pages