DECLARATION OF KENJI HAKUTA
I, Kenji Hakuta, declare as follows
I am a Professor of Education at Stanford University. I
have been in my present position since 1989. Prior to that, I was Professor of Education
at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and before that,
Assistant and Associate Professor of Psychology at Yale University.
My first research study was published in 1973, and I have published
numerous articles and books on the topic of language. I specialize
in research on the development of LEP children. I conduct research
with LEP student populations, and I am directly familiar with
a substantial proportion of the scholarly and applied research
in this area.
In 1994, a planning meeting was convened which included
nine experts in language development, cognitive development, bilingual education, immigrant
education, minority child development, and educational evaluation
to determine whether there was a sufficient knowledge base to
inform the development of a research agenda on the education
of English language learners. In response to the suggestions
resulting from that meeting, the National Research Council established
a committee which was charged with developing such an agenda.
I was chair of the committee. That committee, through the work
of its members, commissioned papers, and hearings, reviewed virtually
the entire universe of research bearing on the education of English
learners, sometimes known as "limited English proficient" students.
The culmination of this project was a book entitled Improving
Schools for Language Minority Children — a Research Agenda, published
in 1997 by the National Research Council. The National Research
Council is an independent organization chartered by Congress
to provide advice to the federal government on scientific and
technical matters. Its committees are appointed by the governing
board to ensure balance of expertise, and its findings and recommendations
are extensively reviewed internally and through a well-established
scientific peer review system governed by a Report Review Committee
consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
In California, as in other states, students are expected to
be exposed to and acquire knowledge about a range of subjects. This is true at all grade
levels. The adopted course of study "beginning in grade
1 and continuing to grade 6" in California includes mathematics,
social studies, science, visual and performing arts, health and
other studies that a school board might prescribe. (See, Cal.
Education Code § 51210.) At upper grade levels, a range of courses
is required and offered. To receive a high school diploma in
California requires completion of the following courses, among
others: two courses in mathematics, two courses in science, and
three courses in social studies, including U.S. history, world
history, American government, civics and economics. (Cal. Education
Code § 51225.3.)
I am familiar with Proposition 227, and have been asked by
counsel to express my expert opinion concerning its efficacy in providing curricular
access to school children. I will use the term "curricular
access" in this Declaration to refer to access to the subjects
referenced in Paragraph 3, above.
Proposition 227 prescribes a one-year course defined alternatively
as "sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion." These
are terms which, as written, have no meaning in the educational
literature. There are, however, sheltered English approaches
to working with limited English proficient children, as well
as some literature concerning structured immersion. It is assumed
that the authors may have borrowed the terms used in the Proposition
from these sources.
The central goal of each of these approaches is to teach children
English as a second language. While either English or the child’s second language
is the principle method of instructing the child, virtually all
of the programs which have been evaluated also use the child’s
primary language to assist with the instruction of the child.
Such use may precede introduction of instruction in English,
or may be a planned adjunct to it. It would be my conclusion,
based on a review of the research literature, that there are
virtually no programs that have as a central thesis the essential
withdrawal of all instruction in a child’s own language. While
programs do exist which use very little of the child’s first
language, it is my observation that these are either designed
to instruct the child solely in English acquisition skills, or
are necessitated by logistical causes that have little to do
with academic merit.
While "sheltered instruction" or "structured
immersion" approaches often seek to provide some curricular access to students, there is no research
which would suggest, much less establish, that either approach
can or does provide the same level of curricular access as is
provided to English-speaking children instructed through their
own language. The literature that does exist is restricted to
the early elementary grades and addresses English language development.
To the extent that there are research findings concerning these
approaches, it is that they may, under optimal circumstances,
be as helpful (though not necessarily more helpful) in teaching
children English as some of the alternatives that rely upon initial
development of a child’s first language. There is, however, absolutely
no credible research that either of these approaches can provide
children with meaningful access to the subject-matter curriculum
which is required for graduation, as referenced in Paragraph
3 above. While it may be that under certain circumstances (e.g.,
with children who have a substantial but incomplete grasp of
English, or with children who have a strong literacy base in
their own language) that an ideal sheltered approach can be useful,
it would be sheer speculation to draw the conclusion that such
an approach can provide the same level of knowledge as is made
available to English-speaking children who are provided access
through their first language. In any event, Proposition 227 applies
to all children irrespective of their level of English, age,
native literacy, or other relevant factors..
A substantial body of basic research in cognitive science
supports the view that academic knowledge does not develop efficiently when a student
does not understand the language of instruction. Recent research
on the ways in which understanding in academic disciplines develops
shows that different areas of knowledge, such as history, science
and math, have different structures of knowledge, and their development
depends deeply on language. The NRC review concluded thus: "The
research reviewed here makes clear that language interactions,
questioning, expert explanations, discussions of alternative
solutions, formulations of reasons for conclusions, contribute
to the development of understanding of complex subject matter.
Serious practical and ethical questions arise if these optimal
methods for content area instruction are inaccessible to second-language
speakers, who are thus excluded from participation in the best
teaching practices." (Improving Schools for Language Minority
Children, at p. 73.)
What undergirds this conclusion is the research-based opinion
that unless a child receives substantial assistance in a language he understands,
he will not attain full grasp of a school’s curriculum. Indeed,
it is my opinion that the reason that most sheltered classes attempt
to provide meaningful degrees of native language assistance is
in response to this understanding, and the limits of sheltered
programs in providing full access to most children. It is my expert
opinion that the approach utilized under Proposition 227 will leave
virtually all children with significant educational deficits which
will impede their ability to understand curricular offerings. It
is my further opinion that a child removed from a program afer
only one year is almost certainly one who will carry significant
English language deficits into his subsequent reassignment which
will further impede his ability to participate in the educational
process.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day of May, 1998, at _________________________,
California.
Dr. Kenji Hakuta
|