Submitted by Nancy Joyce Jancourtz, May 23, 2007 09:30

Ms. Green's article gives many clues as to plausibe inaccuracies with "apparent" results, as well as the need for certain changes in the teaching mechanism.

First, the vocabulary expected of eighth graders (as given in the last paragraph) should be far more sophisticated. Ergo, it would seem fair to suggest that the examinations are being continually "dumbed down"...

It seems to this writer that children new to our nation and language should not compete with native-born Americans, until their English language skills have been sufficiently taught...Therein lies the the core qualification, i.e., the appropriate teaching of English to foreign born children--as well as their parents and grandparents (as the case may be). We are failing here, as well as with native-born American children. Pre-pubescent youngsters--pursuant to biology--absorb language by osmosis. They need no bilingual teaching, or "ESL". Children arriving on the cusp of puberty, i.e., at the age of 10 years and above; should receive optimal English language training over and above the regular school curriculum. This extra instruction, be it by computer program, evening or weekend classes, etc.--should also be made available to adult immigrants. Eventually, this change should eliminate the need for multiple language translations in the public sector that costs the taxpayers enormously--and stymie the true naturalization process.

Furthermore, all children must be taught language usage, spelling, how to use a dictionary as early as possible--and simultaneously--given the opportunity to learn history, basic economics, great literature--all the goodies I had as a child, that helped shape my intellectual curiosity.

Today's children--largely--are learning to be vacuous.

Nancy Joyce Jancourtz.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.