March 19, 2001

car EDUCATION COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m.

PRESIDING CHAIRMEN: Senator Gaffey

Representative Staples

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

SENATORS: Herlihy, Finch,

Fonfara, Genuario

REPRESENTATIVES: Kerensky, Heagney,

Beals, Blackwell,

Boucher, Boughton,

Cafero, Currey,

Diamantis, Fritz,

Giannaros, Klarides,

Merrill, Nafis,

Powers, Reinoso,

Ryan, Sawyer,

Shea, Wallace,

Widlitz, Willis

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT WARD: Good morning, Chairman Staples, Chairman Gaffey, members of the Education Committee. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to speak on the subject of a High School Exit Examination and it was interesting to listen to your earlier panel and I thank the Committee for treating seriously the issue of how to deal with both school accountability and student accountability.

And I thought it was interesting in some of that earlier testimony to say, well, one test may measure one and another -- for one's focussed on schools and one on students. I would suggest that we should never have as the principal focus of the Committee, schools, but lose sight of the only purpose to have a school, is for students.

And so that we need in all times to be sure that our measurements address both. It would make no sense to be in the abstract, saying that school are doing a good job, and not have one way of determining -- have a good system to determine at the end, whether students know the kinds of things that a consensus of experts would expect students to know upon leaving high school, and the reason for the High School Exit Examination Bill, is just that. To say that we think that Connecticut is at a stage in our testing system where we have our fourth, sixth and eighth grade Mastery Exams, a 10th grade CAPT test, that it is time to put the final piece to the puzzle together and to have a meaningful graduation examination requirement which is something to test, whether students know the core information that anyone who stands before an employer or goes in front of a college university and says, I have a state of Connecticut High School diploma from one of our public school systems, that that ought to mean something very significant and that we've actually tested and seen that it can reach that.

Unlike some states that maybe test for the first time in 12th grade, we obviously have put in place a system that will be checking a lot along the process, as the test that we've talked about. We passed a bill in 1999, that said there shall be no social promotion.

That's a public policy that was virtually unanimously, if not unanimously adopted by this General Assembly. If that's being done, if no student is being moved from grade to grade, based merely on having achieved another birthday, then there should be no concern that students will leave 12th grade without knowing the information that they ought to know to pass a meaningful high school exit examination.

So, I would urge the Committee to move forward, to ask the Department of Education or instruct the Department of Education to take a year to devise an appropriate exam. The Legislation can certainly and ought to require that they consult with administrators, faculty, parents, students in developing that exam.

To set a time-table for implementation and the suggestion is, that that be four years after the development of the exam so that every student, when he or she enters -- leaves eighth grade and enters one of our public high schools, knows four years in advance the kinds of things that would be expected to pass.

I certainly would also urge the Committee in doing so, to have an exam that could be taken as -- on a test basis a year earlier or perhaps even a year early as an absolute so that some students, if they've reached the level that we think they all must know by 12th grade, that may really encourage both the school district and the students to take advanced placement which are offered in many places.

But, that needs to be beefed up, as well. Well, if they've met the standards for graduation early and they've tested early on that, that's fine. That'll encourage real growth and real opportunity for students to advance at a higher level.

For kids that are tested early and aren't making that, let's not have the tragedy of someone leaving with a high school diploma in Connecticut and going to some employers or to college and need remedial help in the basic information that everyone should have in the basic skills that every student should have.

It's rather surprising the number of students that even the most competitive of our public universities, that when they test them upon entry, need to take non-credit math and non-credit English classes because they're simply unprepared for college English or college math.

That percentage, I think, and I don't have the basis for the stat in my recollection, is as high as 30 percent at whether it's at the University of Connecticut or CSU system. That tells you that we haven't set a bar high enough or at least haven't asked our students to stay focussed on those important issues and we believe that a high school examination will do that.

So, I would urge the Committee to act favorably. Again, this is not meant as a punitive measure and I've heard some people talk about it. It's not a punitive test. And if you give plenty of advanced warning and test in the early phases, it should never be.

The school system can put in the remedial help, but it does say that there are consequences to not acquiring the skills and information that on ought to acquire during 12 years of public education in the state of Connecticut, and I believe that we can develop a test that's both fair and will, in fact, if we demand more of students, they'll produce more and I think this High School Exit Exam is simply one way to move in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you, Representative Ward. I have a series of questions, but I just want to ask a couple of you because I don't want to take too much of the Committee's time or your time, right now. You heard some of the testimony earlier, as you mentioned, from the National people about what the potential impacts are. One of them are, that the exit exams typically are a lower bar because it's a graduation exam.

You're testing essentially, minimum competency on certain skills, and that could tend to drive curriculum -- we hear some criticism already, that people are teaching to the Mastery Test and one of the concerns that I just raise and I'm sure you would share this, and I'm just curious how -- are you concerned that an exit test would do this?

Is that, if the Mastery Tests are encouraging teaching to the test, because schools get notoriety about their Mastery Test results, and an exit exam might do the same and maybe even more focussed, according to some of the experts we had, aren't you concerned that we might over-emphasize minimal competency levels and really drive down the curriculum in the high school level to ensure the passage of the exam, rather than our current system which emphasizes reaching for a higher level of achievement?

REP. WARD: First let me say that the criticism at the (problem with tape) level that teachers are teaching to what we're testing in the Mastery Test, I don't find as criticism. We said that those tests measure things that you need to know to be a reasonably competent student.

So, I would hope that school boards would decide what best way to teach so that kids would meet -- unless the test is a bad test, then I would hope, in fact, that they would develop curriculum to meet that. It is reasonable to be concerned if you set the bar too low.

I would suggest that A, we don't need to set a bar too low for a high school exit examination, and then perhaps you could also have a two-tier system, if you wanted. One which was much like New York's that has a higher and they're even proposing higher, regent, so, sort of a high level regard on the diploma and it's something else that says you've at least met some of the basic standards.

And, if anything, I think that it would encourage, first of all, if there's any school district where the kids aren't reaching the minimum, I hope they will put programs in place to be sure that they all get to do that. There will remain competition for the brightest students to try to get in to the best colleges and to try to do as best they can.

I'm really concerned about a vast group of kids in the middle or at the lower end, -- I mean, when I look at the failure rates on our Mastery Tests, now, in some school districts, I have to wonder if you just get them through that and they never have to actually pass it, and then they get into high school. Where are they going to be at the end? Do they have the skills?

So, I think that it's fair to have the test. The criticism perhaps, that you'll set the bar too low, can be addressed by our Department of Education. A, don't set the bar too low, and B, you can have two standards. You can have, which we really do in the Mastery, which is a remedial level and a mastery level and so you could have a standard which is the high level and you could also have a standard which is the minimum that every student should have to be able to say they're a graduate from high school in the state of -- public high school in the state of Connecticut.

REP. STAPES: Just one more question about some states, apparently, according to the ECS information they supplied us with, provides some funding for remediation. I mean, it's not going to be a great mystery to us since we all see Mastery Tests, as to what student populations, what districts have the greatest difficulties in achieving a high level of passage on an exit exam.

Do you think it would be appropriate for us to provide state assistance for specifically targeted, for assisting those districts and those students who have difficulty in achieving passage on an exit exam, with the programs and the interventions they need to get to a level of passage?

REP. WARD: I certainly think that it's appropriate to look at that issue. I don't think you look at it blindly. I mean, we obviously are already providing assistance in early reading success in hopes that that will help bring those up, so I don't think you'd look at it without looking at what we're doing.

I would say that overall, I don't think that it is to the poorest districts, lack of state funding that may result in people not reaching that result, if we're paying them over $10,000.00 per pupil, I suspect some of the states that are cited with that specific remedial, aren't giving nearly -- aren't spending nearly as much on education as we are in Connecticut.

But, yes, having some redirection of state dollars, existing state dollars or additional dollars or redirection of local dollars, to be sure that every kid can pass a fair test, I think is appropriate educational spending.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Senator Gaffey.

SEN. GAFFEY: Hi, Bob.

REP. WARD: Morning, Senator.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you for coming, today. This is a very, very interesting subject to discuss and I must admit, at first I found myself a little betwicts and between on the issue. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that actually, the direction that Connecticut has approached, vis a vie, the funding, the School Readiness Program, the reading programs, how we conduct our Mastery Tests and CAPT testing, that we one, fund at the earliest of ages those types of educational skills, particularly reading, that typically are at the root of every challenge a student may find along the way.

Secondly, that we had a regimen of testing to monitor student progress in Connecticut and I think we've been hailed nationally for that regimen of testing. So, I'm a little concerned that we now sort shift the focus to the back end, rather than keeping the focus on the front end of the earliest of ages where I think that's where our dollars are pretty well spent.

The other concern I have, and you mention this in your testimony when you spoke of social promotion, I think I was probably the first one to utter the words on the Senate floor, about six years ago. But social promotion, in Connecticut, is mostly a problem in the elementary and junior high school grades, because once you get to high school, you've go to earn credits.

And that is why you see a freshman class at Hartford Public High School of 750 and a graduating class of 250. So, there's not really social promotion going on, there. What's happening is, there are children, unfortunately, who just aren't able to make the grade, and so I --

REP. WARD: Senator, I would strike me that if the drop-out rate is that high, then perhaps there's been social promotion before that and the kids are getting to high school unprepared.

SEN. GAFFEY: I agree with you.

REP. WARD: I'm not suggesting that we don't continue to address that. This isn't a bill that says, cancel the fourth, sixth and eighth grade Mastery Test --

SEN. GAFFEY: No, I know it's not.

REP. WARD: -- and go to a High School Exit Exam.

SEN. GAFFEY: I know it's not, Bob, but I think that I would rather put the emphasis and the money on those programs that we have implemented over the last four years that already are showing great success. I mean, the Yale study on the Readiness Program shows an incredible success rate in our poorer school districts. That's my concern.

And the second concern is, would this be -- this would be a mandate to the towns in the form of, if you look at the national statistics on this, where you've had problems in states with high failure rates, California, for instance. 88 percent failure rate. Arizona had a pretty high failure rate.

And if that failure rate transcends -- or translates into, okay, you're going to keep those kids back, now we're talking about a mandate that is going to, significantly with those numbers, increase the costs to local school districts.

Now, my assumption is, is that that's going to happen particularly in our poorer towns in Connecticut and I'm a little concerned about those costs, that they're going to have to face with this bill.

REP. WARD: Yes, Senator, I would say that I think the cost to society of instead allowing that kid to leave 12th grade without knowing what he or she should know to succeed in this world, what he or she should have to be a high school graduate, is a far greater cost.

I would rather see a kid get some extra help in 10th or 11th grade, so that when they have that diploma, it means something. And you're saying it may be a mandate and you're going to have to educate the kid a little more, it may be a refocus of what's going on now.

If all of our early childhood education is working perfectly, then we ought to have a pretty darn high success rate five and six and eight years from now, on a 12th grade exit exam, and that would be wonderful to happen. That's what I would hope would happen, but I'd like to see a concrete measure so we know.

It's one thing to say, hey we can prove the program is working good at the early end but let's not really find out if they know what they need to know, at the end. That, to me, defies logic. It makes sense to have student accountability, as well.

SEN. GAFFEY: Well, I -- I --

REP. WARD: And if it costs us some money, it costs us some money.

SEN. GAFFEY: I'm with you on -- we don't want any student leaving high school without the fundamental capabilities to read, write and calculate. Absolutely. All I'm suggesting is that I think the statistics show your investment of those monies that we're going to have to spend, whether it's 11th grade, 12th grade -- you're better spending it in the early years of a child's education.

That's all I'm suggesting. I mean, it's a -- I appreciate your argument and your position on this and it's just a question of where we're going to put the money and how that money is going to yield the best results over time.

REP. WARD: I guess a million or two million dollars a year in a 12 billion dollar budget, five years from now -- I'm sure greater than 12 billion dollar budget, to have a meaningful exit exam, I don't think is an unreasonable cost.

SEN. GAFFEY: Is that the -- are those the numbers that OFA suggests, that this would be a million or two, a year?

REP. WARD: I didn't look at numbers this year, but in the past, I felt is was between one and two million to develop the test and then a similar amount annually, thereafter to -- you know, change it and put it in place.

SEN. GAFFEY: And are there numbers that you know of that the State Department has helped you out with, as far as students that are at the 12th grade level, ready to graduate, that are unable to utilize fundamental skills in reading, writing, calculating?

REP. WARD: I haven't asked for such numbers and I'm not sure that they have any way to measure which students are getting out, today, that don't have those skills, because we haven't tested for that.

SEN. GAFFEY: Well, is your bill based upon a presumption that these students are leaving Connecticut high schools unable to read, write and calculate at the 12th grade level?

REP. WARD: Based upon a belief that it's only reasonable that we measure that so that we can determine it and based upon an understanding that many of our institutions of higher education are requiring students to take non-credit English and math classes before they'll let them into the college class. That tells me they think there's something lacking, even at that level, --

SEN. GAFFEY: Well, that's not the way you get numbers, at. We can get numbers on that, as far as the first year in college and how many Connecticut students are being required to take remedial courses because they can't handle the typical freshman year -- you know, math, English, whatever course. I mean, that's something we ought to get.

REP. WARD: I presume that we can get those numbers. I've seen numbers but I don't want to -- it said as high as 30 percent of the students on one or the other, but I don't want to be held to that number because I looked for my source and couldn't find it, this morning --

SEN. GAFFEY: Okay, fair enough.

REP. WARD: -- and I may be incorrect.

SEN. GAFFEY: I thank you for appearing. It's a good discussion and let's continue the discussion.

REP. WARD: Good, thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Further? Okay, thanks, Bill Ward.

REP. WARD: Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Representative Ferrari.

REP. FERRARI: Thank you, Senator Gaffey, Representative Staples and members of the Education Committee for the opportunity to testify, today in support of HB 5257, AN ACT CONCERNING HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAMINATIONS.

There are a number of reasons for us to pass this bill. Some more obvious than the others. Clearly, we all want to be sure that our children are receiving and education that will help them compete in today's society. One of the less obvious benefits to be gained by this program, will be to help restore the confidence of parents who have, or will have, children in the public school system.

Maybe more importantly, it will help to restore the confidence of people who went through that system years ago and who see it radically changed from what it was, then. These are the folks who vote and approve for school budgets and who are not confident that they are getting their dollar's worth.

Certainly, we have all heard stories of students who graduate, unable to read and write. We see and read stories about students who go to college who need remedial courses in reading, writing and arithmetic and it makes us very angry.

We are also aware that many students go through the same public school system and excel in college and in their later careers. This bill will, I believe, help restore a level of confidence in our public schools. It will help some -- it will help people see those successes in our system and it will help us identify those who need additional help. And thank you for your patience and attention and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, sir, for attending the hearing and testifying. Any questions for Representative Ferrari from Committee members? Thank you very much. Representative Caruso.

REP. CARUSO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify, today in support of raised HB 6889, AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION. I'm in support of that bill and for the record would also like to state that I'm opposed to SB 449, AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS, SB 292, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BI-LINGUAL EDUCATION IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS, and HB 6751, AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TEST EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS.

As a representative who represents a large portion of the district of Hispanic residents, and of children who have gone through the programs of bilingual education, I think there's a need to continue that program within the school system.

Also, we must keep in mind that every student should be judged for their abilities and to establish programs that set very strict time-lines, I think is unfair to those students. For example, the month period in the HB 6689, I hope the Committee would look, currently it talks about 30 months of a time period for the student to learn the language and as individuals ourselves, I think 30 months is inadequate when it comes to truly learn the language that's necessary.

If we were to take language courses, ourselves, it would be difficult to learn that, more so because the English language is more difficult, as many linguists have identified. I think as citizens of the United States, we are all encouraging others to learn English because that is the common language spoken.

But, at the same time, I think we have to take into account the ability to learn that language in an adequate amount of time and in addition we also should embrace diversity of language and ethnicity and culture. As an Italian-American, I am dismayed constantly at how little the Italian community, especially the young people, know the Italian language, as our generations have changed that ability has not been passed on to our younger people within the Italian community.

Within the Hispanic community, it is something that is cherished, to learn that language, to learn the culture and to continue that and I think that because of that, it is a challenge of course, to learn English a little quicker than we would like to. But, we need to embrace and support the diversity as well. I think that's very important to a community.

So, having said that, I hope the Committee would support HB 6889 which makes changes, does not abolish the bilingual program but it makes it much more manageable and effective and I think, would gain the most ultimate results that we want to achieve. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

SEN. GAFFEY: Questions? Thank you, Representative Caruso.

REP. CARUSO: Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Senator Bozek, from the great city of New Britain.

SEN. BOZEK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. GAFFEY: Good morning, Senator.

SEN. BOZEK: Gaffey and Staples and other distinguished members of the Education Committee. I hate to tell you, Tom. I forgot to write down what the bill number was on the Bilingual issue, that I had.

SEN. GAFFEY: I'll help you out with that, Senator, hold on a second.

SEN. BOZEK: So, for the record, my name is Thomas Bozek, I'm a State Senator from New Britain, representing New Britain and Berlin and I'm here to speak on the Bilingual Proposal bill that I have. The -- I forgot to write down the number and I left the bill upstairs --

SEN. GAFFEY: We'll get it for you.

SEN. BOZEK: Alright.

SEN. GAFFEY: SB 292, Senator.

SEN. BOZEK: SB 29 -- SB 292. Because there's so many issues and so much to say about this particular issue, I've -- I have some written notes and some bullet statements from items that -- of my large resource that I've brought with me.

But, ladies and gentlemen, it is past the time that bilingual education should have been eliminated as a failed program. This failed program was wrong from the beginning because we wanted to bridge a cultural, political, education difficulty.

All major media networks have highlighted and reflected on failings and controversy surrounding the failings and the short-comings of bilingual education concepts which virtually are reflected in our state of Connecticut, also.

This debate is one which is not embraced in a sincere, heartfelt, objective or practical discussion. Wanting to do what is good for the children academically, should be our charge. The accusatory finger-pointing in moving the political envelope as in other issues, dealing with minority related matters, has deterred politicians, due to being branded with some type of stigma.

Ladies and gentlemen, we tried a political prescription for bilingual problems and what we gave was a sweet-tasting placebo. The children that have failed, have died. They did not learn, they dropped out of school because they could not compete.

They took lower paying jobs and we've seen bills around here in the past that we felt obligated to support, which were those such as that say, let's pay higher wages to people because they have to earn a just living, and yet they weren't as prepared to compete in the future as they would want to be.

We have failed so many children and committed their lives to poor opportunities for fulfillment in their lives. The winners are those minority leaders who will benefit by being a champion for the rights to protect their cultural language.

Also, among this group, are the condescending self-righteous liberals who do not want to offend their minority brotherhood of hand-holding voting legislators. I know this sounds highly charged, but ladies and gentlemen, this system is broke. It hurts young people and the children are failing.

And these are not even my words, but they are paraphrased from other speakers and Ron Untz, who's a mogul in California who worked against this issue and is working against the issue in New York and it was highlighted most recently in the News Week Magazine.

So, I'm not -- these types of things aren't something that you haven't heard before. These children can learn. And compete. But we keep them apart when they go to school. They go into separate classrooms. Many teachers who teach them are not even fluent in English. And this is something that I'm sure we all know.

Where is their chance to learn? Getting help from the children who might be sitting next to them if they're in an Immersion Program, both learning and helping and sharing personal, intimate, emotional supports to learn, would be the right avenue to go.

They would become friends. They would share lunch together. They would share knowledge of each other.

They would dissipate the misunderstandings that exist in some of their homes and they go on to integrate better and like all other nationalities, in the near future, they would intermarry, because boys and girls want to find out more about each other but they're being kept apart.

We are not getting anywhere close to this, after 50 years and not after almost 30 years of bilingual education. Dissenters will point out cultural communication. I think it's bunk. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to maintain, nor extend, one's heritage. It is up to the group to do that themselves.

There is not enough time to reflect and explain the Greatest Generation that's been written by Tom Brokaw and parents of those people who participated and those even proceeded them who came to this country, to help advance themselves, interact with each other and intermarry and flourish.

When you try to make usually something easy, usually what happens is, you get something of a less of a product. You had a bill two years ago, which was a watered-down alternative to where part of the components were with regard to having teachers who were not fluent in English, to comply with taking a Praxis test in a specialty in which they were teaching and to limit children to 30 months of bilingual education.

Probably 30 months would have been okay. If they remain up to 30 months and able to quality themselves to get out of the one grade rather than keep promoting them and at the end of 30 months, if they were not fluent, what was the purpose of the 30 months?

There should be a blockage -- there should of minorities fighting to go up the ladder of success in this country and to compete for that but there is not. Leaders want to keep them back. They make excuses. What has the Hispanic Commission done to want to make Hispanic and Puerto Rican cultural children in our greater Hartford and Connecticut area, in our state, better and more successful in education? They've done nothing.

But I have a bill and I think that SB 292 is -- will help them children. Will help them learn better. Will make them -- their academic standards come ahead and they will be able to compete and succeed like all other groups that have come to our state in this country.

We have a chance to make a difference. You only have to have these people, those people who are opposed to bilingual be mad at you for possibly a year, because of the way the vote went. But after one year, as in California, I think that the successes will demonstrate for themselves, that we -- that you will be correct and the children will benefit the most.

I'm just about done, but I have just a few cursory sound bytes of information of different articles that I think have some significance of other people who felt that these issues are important for us to consider in the fact that bilingual is a failure.

I'd like to point out that bilingual -- that John Silvert, who is the Chancellor of Boston College stated that he is opposed to this and that this is a -- this program is a -- there are some other articles that I got here, is a failure. That Casper Weinburger, Chairman of Forbes Magazine, did not support it and felt that this is a failure and that it should be outlawed.

Herman Badillo, Chairman of City University in New York who wrote only this past October, the author of the Federal Bilingual Educational Law charged that the program has become a sham in New York City and leaves thousands of students illiterate instead of English-proficient.

Wall Street Journal had an article -- had a couple, but had one as far back as 1994, pointing out that the children enrolling in these programs are kept out of the mainstream and are failing.

Ron Untz, who I referred to before, has pointed out there is not a single successful bilingual program in the past, almost 30 years and Ron Untz has written a book and written an article about this area and experience in New York.

And in the New York Post, there's a wonderful article in the back of the New York Post in October, a number of pages that covers the bilingual program in New York and how people are trying to fix it and correct it and it demonstrates how some people have great successes and the people who have the worst success and the most failings are those Spanish courses, those children who are kept in those programs with Spanish, whereas the other kids are exposed to more English and Immersion and Assisted Immersion.

The New York Times says that to a large degree, and some us know this also, is that what's happened here and what's occurring is that a lot of the minority teachers and people who are in bilingual programs are only out to protect their jobs and those people who administer them are out to protect their jobs and in some cases, I heard a rumor only a couple of months ago, that these groups are trying to form their own bargaining unit in the teacher's organizations, here in Connecticut.

But, that people are concerned about their jobs rather than about the children. The New York Daily News cites that the failure of this program is hampering and holding back children. There is some -- there are a number of -- I know there's a limited amount of time, but there are articles and I can make copies of these, just that sometimes this stuff, and I'll make it a point if you wish that I'll make a package. I'll give it to you and have it done just sometime you don't know how interested people might be, but I'll do it and give it to you, Mr. Chairman, that will point out the number of sound bytes from some of these issues.

I might just jump down to -- besides these, Professor, Dr. Max Ritespurger had an occasion to go study in Germany. Took his daughter -- I think it was fifth grade and she -- they put her in an Immersion class. In two months, she was fluent, pretty fluent in German and at the end of the semester, in a paper in German, she had got a B+ because she had learned -- because she was Immersed.

The Los Angeles Times said that with regard to the Proposition 227, that over 63 percent of the people that were surveyed were in strong support of any in that particular program. Charles Glenn, National Research Council Study had pointed out of a number of points --

SEN. GAFFEY: Excuse me, Senator.

SEN. BOZEK: Alright.

SEN. GAFFEY: I'm starting to have trouble hearing the Senator talk, so I'd like everybody to come to order. The rules of this Committee, if you have a cell phone, turn it off, because it's rude to the people who are testifying and it's rude to the people who are trying to be attentive. So, if you have it, turn it off. The next time it goes off, the person with that cell phone is going to asked to leave. Senator Bozek.

SEN. BOZEK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was -- because I didn't want to go through it, each of the articles -- I have an article here which reflects on the original reason for the bilingual bill which was the federal basis, article 16, I have here, 1974, the case Lowe versus Nichols and in this particular case, the constitutional basis for the bilingual education program in America ultimately was derived from Lowe versus Nichols which was unanimously decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in '74 where the decision held that placing of non-English speaking children in regular public school classrooms violated the equal protection of the 1964 Civil Rights.

However, the court did not specify in a precise remedy, nor did it say that it had to be required bilingual education. In 1978, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which included California, decided the Guadeloupe Tempe clarification of the issue of language assistance raised by Lowe versus Nichols and in this decision, the Appellate Court explicitly and emphatically held that bilingual education was not required in itself, under the U.S. Constitution and that providing extra English language assistance to students was perfectly adequate of satisfying the requirements of the Lowe versus Liberals.

And, I think that in these particular areas, they show the importance of having English speaking children. If I was allowed a lot more time and you -- and hopefully, some of you will look at some of the items that I'll make over for you and look for the underlying and the check-off areas that are within the context. You can read the complete context of some of these items and articles and make assessments and judgements for yourself.

I haven't come across articles that say that bilingual is helping children. I think that if we are going to help children, academically, maybe there are some cultural differences. If we're -- if they need help -- what they need help in is the fact that when they go to school, they are going to have knowledge that they are going to be assisted in learning so that they can compete.

In my city in New Britain, we have grown from 30's to 50's -- in 1970 -- 1996, 78 bilingual teachers. 21 support assisted teachers and 22 -- I forget -- another title that they have to assist the children -- bilingual children. It hasn't done much for them. They drop out between junior high school and 10th grade.

In our school, we have about 11,000 children. The last two years, we only graduated just under 300 children. It's a waste of our tax dollars, number one, and it's not -- it's depriving these children for an opportunity while they're in the state of Connecticut, that they are going to get the best opportunity to exceed so that even if they went somewhere else, they're going to reflect on that we're here and I think that the parents who see that the children are learning and being a success, will want to stay here.

I know that there's a lot of trangency in this culture. In New Britain, for example, we have about 33 to 34 percent trangency. I think that more children will want to stay in our cities when the parents know that these programs are working for their children.

So, my position is pretty clear. I think, and that if we're going to do anything for the children, the taxpayers, I think will benefit, but we're going to show that the children will benefit and the state of Connecticut will benefit in the long run by having children who are successfully graduating and competing our society and in our state. Thanks very much.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thanks, Senator. There are legislators who have expressed in asking a question. Representative Boughton, you're first followed by Representative Boucher.

REP. BOUGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bozek for coming to testify, today. I just want to outline a scenario to you and maybe get your thoughts on it? About situations that we face every day in our public schools. Last week, last Wednesday, I was working in the office and eight students came in. Eight young people came in who had not be enrolled in school before, just arrived here in America, wanted to go to school.

None of them spoke English. The youngest was age 17, the oldest was about 18 and a half, 19. And we are obligated to educate those young people up to age 21. The reality for us to be able to teach them English and teach them all of the math and science and algebra and everything thing else that they're going to need to graduate, and meet the graduation requirements, by age 21 is pretty bleak. Is pretty tough to do.

So, the concept of the bilingual program in our school is to help those students learn in their academic areas while they are also concurrently, learning English. So, it's a two-step process. It's three periods of Immersion and it's four period of academics.

Because we want those kids to be able to graduate before age 21 with knowledge and being able to speak and read and write in English. If we were to take out the bilingual program, how would we address that scenario? What could we do in order to keep those kids on track, academically?

SEN. BOZEK: Thank you very -- thank you. It is more of a unique proposal -- question or difficulty then the standard process that we have with the younger children that come into our system.

I can tell you an experience I know of one of the people who were just promoted to General over here who came in from Poland a number of years ago and was -- came in and was brought to a classroom with a gentleman who happens to be our mayor of the city who had only been in the country a number of months, himself, and it was a geometry class where he first met him and a teacher says, you can speak some English, you're getting by, now. And this was in the '60's and I want you to help this gentleman get along.

He got graduated, went to college, was in Vietnam, he's a General. Maybe things are different. It's maybe what was required. Maybe, culturally, he had other support at home, but in school at that time, they could assign somebody. Now, at 17 or 18, it's -- I imagine it's possible, still that if you want them to graduate at that time, you probably may determine some level that they're in school.

Let me just a -- let me argue this. Probably if you go to age 21, might be the 10th grade. I would suggest that if we were in an Immersion or an Assisted Immersion program, then we would have somebody, a youngster work with him, hopefully what even might be good is if the program is done away with, is we would have a bilingual speaking youngster who maybe even themselves, came through the system and now is very conversant and knowledgeable and educated and up to speed on English academic work, but would understand his language and possibly could work with this person and I think that either he or she in this case, could work with the individual at a high school level and I think that young people, both could benefit because there's a learning experience, I think, in trying to work with somebody, to want to give.

I think that's a human nature trait, especially for young people and there's an opportunity there that -- I know it sounds a little bit altruistic, but I think that that type of experience, if we go forward with assigning maybe a couple of kids to work with this young person, and to having somebody who has -- in a program we have multi-lingual people.

We may have an assisted bilingual program so that we have to have some support in the system because, especially in our inner cities, where we do have numbers of youngsters come from different cultures and speaking different languages, but without having a program where they're just learning whatever language it is, but working with somebody who is an assistant type of bilingual person, along with youngsters, I think that they could learn faster and more because they'll adapt and have more conversations with younger people and therefore have an opportunity to come up to speed, fast, and probably most likely graduate by age 21 and no doubt, probably, and be English proficient.

REP. BOUGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. GAFFEY: Your welcome, Representative. Representative Boucher.

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome, Senator Bozek. You and I have a long history on this issue together because I know we had many spirited debates when we were trying to look at this issue a couple of years ago and really investigate what was going on.

There's no question it's controversial, so questions people have different opinions about it and that's why we thought it would be best if we took an extensive look at the issue and visit as many of the bilingual programs in the state and make an analysis and see where we could improve the situation.

And I worked hard to convince you that the reforms that we tried to put in place would, in fact, improve the current bilingual program and in fact, address the question that was just posed by Representative Boughton on the person that enters school late, so they get English as second language as their primary vehicle, how do you feel about English as a second language as being a tool that the schools can use to help students?

SEN. BOZEK: I think the ESL program is a good program and it's a better workable program than the bilingual program, itself. I think that there is -- I'm interested in getting these kids out. I'm not opposed to the mechanics of providing other alternatives that in some cases, need to be tailored to a different type of youngster.

REP. BOUCHER: And you still have a problem with the 30 month time limit that someone would be in a program, such as --

(Gap in testimony changing from tape 1a to 1b)

SEN. BOZEK: -- that youngsters, if they're able to -- in this system, if they're able to learn, they'll pick it up right away and I think that 30 months is just a matter of, if you think they're learning the subject matter, I think that -- and they're learning some English, I think we're mistaking -- there are a lot -- I haven't met a teacher who thought it was a good program. And only the other day, I went to -- I went out to Southington, to a function where a federation of other than teachers, but people that work for the system, but there were some teachers. None of them thought that the program was good, but I think that -- oh, I lost my train of thought --

REP. BOUCHER: Well, I think the analysis on the 30 months is --

SEN. BOZEK: Yes, the 30 month, was that the children, if they're going to acquire English, they can do it in the classroom. If they're going to work with a bilingual teacher who many of them can't speak English, I mean, well, they're not conversant as it says in some of these articles, they're not -- then that child is held up.

They may be fortunate enough to be in a classroom where it's an English speaking person who's very fluent in Spanish and that -- the catch there is, that the concept there was to work with a child who's Spanish -- native language is Spanish, to then try to use words of English more and bring them out, has greater potential.

But, there aren't as many of those teachers involved and the only reason I'm referring to the Spanish is that in all these articles, the deficiency is not with the Chinese or the German or the Polish or the Italian or the Asian languages. The deficiency is clearly in all of these articles are -- deal with the Spanish-speaking and especially the article you'll read in the New York Times issue.

REP. BOUCHER: You're concerned about having a teacher be qualified, was a concern that we also had on our Committee and on our Panel and that is why we took a look at the current legislation to make sure that we didn't have constant waivers for requirement for certification and this is why the legislation is tougher, today.

And probably why a number of the individuals are in this room today to protest maybe some of the things that were put in place that we actually, to address a lot of the concerns that you have. Because in fact, we have found some of those things to be true.

SEN. BOZEK: You know, there are some -- Representative, there are some children and it's pointed out in two of these articles, there are some children who are -- who can speak English, okay? And they can even read English, but they remain in the program because their parents want them.

Now, they're not doing as well as the other children and I think that here, what we -- it's a problem, that children are being jeopardized because of some other type of factors -- those are the types of things you almost can't deny. Hold out.

But, if you do away with this type of program the kids are going to remain and they'll be in a class where the classmates are together and they're not segregated. They come in, they go to bilingual programs, they're segregated. And they have lunch together. They have activities together. You know, they tend to group together and what you're going to do is you're going to dismiss some of that so the kids develop friendship and get to know each other better.

And that they learn faster together and I think that this is -- this should be the avenue for young people to want to experience what everybody else is about and then to be successful.

SEN. GAFFEY: Further, Representative Reinoso.

REP. REINOSO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. -- Senator Bozek. Senator, I was listening carefully. Your statements -- I'm an immigrant. I was born in Peru, very proud to be Latino. And I started my career, basically in the Bilingual Program at Harding High School in Bridgeport.

I'd like to ask you this. Maybe it might be a hypothetical question at this moment, but you said that a student learned German in two months. If I had to ask you, say you planning to go back to college.

You have to take intensive, intensive classes in Spanish and you have to let's say, go to Spain and totally start taking classes in the Spanish, in chemistry or let's say you want to change your career. You want to be a medical -- a doctor. Do you think that in two months you can learn the language?

SEN. BOZEK: Well, in the article -- in two months, I don't think that I could learn the language to be --

SEN. GAFFEY: Again, I'm going to warn everybody. This Chair doesn't put up with outbursts. This man has an opinion. It may be at variance with other people's opinions. He's got a right to express it, just like everybody else in this room. So, let's be respectful. Let's not have any outbursts and let's let the dialogue continue between Representative Reinoso who has the floor, and Senator Bozek who is responding to his question.

SEN. BOZEK: In this case here, was a young child, and the article said that child -- that they converse when they came home and with their friends from school. Now, I'm sure it wasn't to the degree that they could read everything.

But, it did point out that by the end of that year she was able to read. She picked up, fast. And the young people, even today, in a lot of bilingual programs, who are -- I'm sure some of the Spanish ones also, but more on non-Spanish, don't stay in a program as long, from teachers that I have talked to over the years saying that it might be motivation in the family, might be -- for some other rational.

But no, going to Peru in two months, I can say this much. I would bet if I thought I was going to go to Peru, just like I'm Polish, I used to get beat-up on some of the Poles because -- you can't speak Polish, okay? And I'd say, I know a few words. I can listen here, tell a little bit, understand a little bit.

Look, if I went to one of these countries and I would plan to be there, I would want to learn that language and if I would -- if I had children, I'd want them to have a one-up by trying to be as fast as they could.

But I think that if I had to go to a Spanish country and decide I'm going to do a career there, I think that I would try to more immerse myself, and I think you understand, so that especially as an adult, so you could come up to speed, understand people and get your way around and be understanding and so you could understand people better, yourself.

REP. REINOSO: Senator, my other question is, again, we have a student -- say that we have a student or students that are coming to this great country and they are in grade 11. Okay? Ready to become seniors and become successful young citizens and you know, to help the country.

But they don't speak English. They need to go into a program where they can learn the language. They know for the same time -- you see there are different factors. One is the cultural track.

You know, this is a new country and so the transition. How can you provide the transition to this young man, understanding that our reputation here, in this state and in the country is to provide the most elemental civil rights to an individual to learn and to be part of this country. So, how can you help a kid that is in grade 11, or a senior who's education was interrupted, for any reasons, name them.

SEN. BOZEK: Similar to the question before about an older youngster but still in the classroom area. I think that what probably is the best for that child is to be immersed and be with -- he's not going to be just alone.

When they're immersed they're going to be worked with youngsters next to them, in their class. They're going to be asking for help the other one is going to help them, they're going to learn stuff from each other.

If I think you just put them in a Spanish-speaking program by themselves and learn Spanish because they're older, that's what they're accustomed to, it's possible it would be like getting their high school degree in Peru or Puerto Rico or some other Latino -- Latino country and then, here they are outside and they've got to learn English to survive and get along.

They maybe were educated, but here they have an opportunity at last, to put in some extra effort, some extra time and while it occurs, I think that they will make friends and learn to understand the culture and their friends and what they're -- the type of people that they will be competing about later.

I want to point out that people who are outside of school areas, years ago, that came to this country to gain citizenship, had to learn English and they went to night school to learn English so they could pass citizenship. And many of them -- you know, took great pride in it and so it was a cultural change for them just like for people of Latino heritage.

I think there are a lot of Latino people in this country now and I think that the sake that they can help each other and do more by being on top because they to compete and be successful, is a better then what's occurring. I think in some cases, it causes distrust and dissention because people don't know each other enough.

People understand a lot, but after a while, people say, geez, these people have been around a long time. Well, it's not the same person. There's different people, but if the group says, look, we have to learn and participate and be involved, they can help each other.

That -- those new people that come here, there's organizations and societies, that are prepared to say look, we can help you out. We can help you find a job, more successful. I think those areas are better going forward in that area rather than wait for evolution.

We've been at this a long time and culturally it's -- what happens is they go past different generations of non-Spanish, I think people see the fact that they remember as youngsters, they weren't successful in school and then their kids are in school and they're saying, geez, there's a problem. These kids aren't as successful in the bilingual programs. He'd have the same problem that when we were in school. And that's catching up to us and it's not working.

SEN. GAFFEY: Senator, I want to thank you for coming today. I hate to cut off the dialogue, but as Legislators, we can have these dialogues on an on-going basis. There are some legislators that are waiting to testify. We want to get them in before the allotted time is up. Senator Bozek --

SEN. BOZEK: I appreciate your time and sensitivity to my dialogue. It's difficult to get some of these things on the table, Mr. Chairman but I think they're so important to the children and to their families and opportunities for all of us.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Senator.

REP. RIENOSO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bozek.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Representative Reinoso. Appreciate it. Senator Hartley. You're next on the list.

SEN. HARTLEY: Good morning. Is it still morning? Oh, no. Good afternoon. I will attempt to be very brief. I know that it is a long day that you are all looking at, but I wanted to say the top of the morning to you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. GAFFEY: And the rest of day to you, Madame.

SEN. HARTLEY: Since we didn't have a chance to do that, last week. Mr. Chairman and members --

SEN. GAFFEY: I might add that Gaelic is one of the most difficult languages that anybody could learn, in this world.

SEN. HARTLEY: As we're talking about language.

SEN. GAFFEY: And one of the oldest.

SEN. HARTLEY: Yes, indeed. I am here -- for the record, my name is Joan Hartley. I am the Senator from the 15th District and I am here to testify on behalf of raised HB 1296, specifically, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, Section One of that bill. And I first of all would like to thank the Chairman and the leadership and the members of the Committee for raising this issue because indeed, it is one that I think needs the attention of this Committee.

Section One of raised HB 1296, speaks to -- or revisits a statute which essentially has not been dealt with since the early 70's and that is regional school district structure. Simply stated, this language attempts to even the playing field for participants in a regional school district by requiring the cost for school construction to be assessed on the basis of student population for each of the participating towns in such a regional district.

Plain and simple, Committee -- Education Committee members, it is a fairness issue. Let me illustrate it with a case in point, if I might and that is Regional School System 15, which is the Middlebury Southbury school system.

It is, in fact, the largest Regional school district in the state of Connecticut. The participants, as I indicated are the towns of Southbury and Middlebury. Southbury being a town of 64 square miles. Middlebury being a town of 16 square miles.

They are about to embark on a very significant school construction program which is not different than I think, many of our school districts in the state in view of the burgeoning student population which we see coming through our elementary school system.

But, I think the numbers probably speak best and can illustrate the point. Southbury has, in this school district, 73.5 percent of the student population to Middlebury's 26.5 percent of the population. And in fact, with regards to this particular school construction project, the new school which is planning to be built, will not house one student from the Middlebury school system.

It will indeed be, in it's entirety, all Southbury students. So, you can perhaps understand the concern with respect to the funding of such a project. That is, the local share of the funding, and let me just share with you, to be very quick, if I might, the last three year's population growth and that is, in 97, 98, the total district being 3,900 of which only a 1,030 were Middlebury students.

The following year, total population being 4,055, the number of Middlebury students that particular year was 1,061 and the following year, that is '99 - 2000, the total school enrollment was 4,228. Of that number, Middlebury had 1,123 students. This afternoon, after -- at some point in the Public Hearing process, we'll be testifying.

The Chairman of Finance from the town of Middlebury who is -- who has made a presentation, actually in July to the Intragovernment Affairs Committee on this exact issue. And I'm sure we'll share more of the details, but to just give you a glimpse of the disparate issue, which has, unfortunately led to some serious tension and divisiveness between the two towns and the regional school district.

The common denominator, I think, is that we want to provide the very best schools. Region 15 is a very recognized school district, having made great strides, none of which we ever want to compromise but indeed, to just talk about the equity process and the more appropriate funding of such projects. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank the Committee members for their attention.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you very much, Senator Hartley and we'll endeavor to push this language through for you.

SEN. HARTLEY: I thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: You're welcome. Is Senator Crisco in attendance? I don't see Senator Crisco. Representative Martinez. Good afternoon, Representative Martinez.

REP. MARTINEZ: Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today and thank you for raising this bill and also having this hearing here, today. And as you might know, I am a very proud Puerto Rican, North-American legislator trying to do the best that I can for the city of Bridgeport and for the people that I represent in Bridgeport.

I am here speaking in support for equity and educational excellence for students who are learning English as their second language through programs of bilingual education, English as a Second Language and Dual Language programs across the state of Connecticut.

We can all afford to argue or how to teach English when it is urgent that more improved the overall achievement of English language learners and address the needs of Connecticut and America in a global economy. We must think globally and multiply languages must become -- multiple language must become as integral to the core of our education system of math, science and reading.

For those reasons, I support and urge my colleagues in the Connecticut Legislature, to do the same. I also support raised SB 449, AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS, with reservation. I support giving children of all languages, backgrounds and opportunities to learn more than one language.

A tremendous opportunity exists for our nation to develop a necessary linguistic resource. Students in programs such as Dual Language, Bilingual education, achieve something of which most American adults can only dream fluent bilingualism.

The growing interdependence within the international economy and the increasing need for bilingual skills in the job market supports the promotion of bilingualisms, as a sound investment in our nation's future.

I do not support the following bills. Raised HB 6751, AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TEST EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS. This bill would reduce the current exemption for three years to one year. Educationally, this makes no sense at all since it takes a student almost five years, at least, to acquire academic English.

Committee SB 292, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS. This bill would eliminate the mandate for bilingual education programs. Bilingual education must be offered to eligible students. It makes the provision of a program optional.

This is not in the best interest of students who are eligible for such programs across the state of Connecticut. If anything, the current law should be made comprehensive so that it also addresses the educational needs of those English language learners who are not eligible for a program of bilingual education because they come from low incidence populations, such as Greenwich.

We have a large population there of Mexicans, South American people and because they don't have 20 kids in one school, they don't have a bilingual education opportunity. I oppose putting a limit on the amount of time school can provide academic and language support services for limited English proficient students.

Children learn at different rates and many require extra academic support to help them succeed. English language learning students come to school with diverse needs and varying levels of language proficiency, literacy skills and academic preparation. Mandating time limits on programs that serve students, intrudes on school districts abilities to tailor effective research based curriculum and compromises the quality of instruction.

I support HB 6889, AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION. This is a comprehensive bill because it requires local districts to identify all non-English language learners in a given district and provides funding when ever there are 20 students and beyond, and I have to let you know that I am not a product of bilingual education.

I came to United States -- my mother brought me to United States when I was 14 years of age. And at that time, they have a voucher to go into a private school and that's where I went. I went into a private school. And when I was sitting down and the teacher asked me to go to the board and do a (inaudible) the numbers -- it was a math problem that she wanted for me to go and resolve on the board in front of the other students.

I thought that she had asked me to go and erase the board. And I did erase the whole numbers -- math numbers that she had on the board. And she was very upset with me. She grabbed me by my ear. She sat me down on my chair and a year after that, I didn't want to go to school anymore.

I dropped out of school when I was 15. The only excuse that I had in my house to drop out of school was to either go to work or get married. It was easy for me to get married, so I married when I was 15 years old. 16 years old, I had my first child and I went to school after -- after I was a mother. It was a struggle for me to finish my school and I did it, but it was real hard.

And I'm not saying that not having the bilingual program there was the reason for me to get married and get pregnant, but it did help a lot because when I came from Puerto Rico, I was an A student in my country.

So, it was too hard for me to sit in the classroom, not knowing what was going on and on top of that, to be embarrassed and scolded by a teacher that didn't like or didn't understand what I went through.

I really urge you to work with us. To work close with Phillipe Reinoso, our State Rep, he's a bilingual educator and so am I, we care for our children. We're out on the streets. We know what's going on. We know the struggle that our kids have and we need to help them and we need to do what we need to do and I know that you listen to us and it is unfortunate that we still have people that they have such a bad, negative feeling about bilingual education. It really hurts.

I was sitting there, my heart was pounding when I was listening to some of the misinformation that was given here, today, for you. And I really wish that I could really get close to those people that really don't understand and I got this big feeling that it's more than that.

I got the big feeling that they don't like us Hispanics and that is really bad because we care about this country and I feel very -- I feel very fortunate that I'm here in the United States and I would feel very fortunate that I'm here with all of you and that I can serve the people --

SEN. GAFFEY: Representative, we feel very fortunate that you're here and I'm glad that you came today. I will mention that the rules of the General Assembly specifically prohibit someone impugning the motives of another member of the General Assembly. The Senator certainly had an opinion. It is in variance with my opinion. It's at variance with your opinion. Probably at variance with a lot of people's opinions, but he's got an opinion and a right to express that --

REP. MARTINEZ: Please forgive me --

SEN. GAFFEY: But let me say that --

REP. MARTINEZ: -- for that.

SEN. GAFFEY: -- you're brand new and I want to welcome you to the Education Committee. I thought you did a great job with your testimony. Particularly you're extemporaneous testimony on your life experience, which is very powerful. And which will maybe illuminate some minds here, that may not be seeing this clearly. This whole issue. And I think that that has been very helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to come down here and testify to what obviously, means a great deal to you. So, thank you very much. I would -- I'm going to have to not have questions at this point so we can get the other members of the General Assembly, like Representative Mantilla who's been sitting here for a long time, now, so that's she's able to testify. Representative Martinez, welcome, great job, and I look forward to working with you.

REP. MARTINEZ: Thank you very much. Please let me know out of this committee if you need any information. I'll be more than gladly to help and work with you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you very much. Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Gaffey and members of the Committee. It's a pleasure to be here. For the record, I'm Representative Evelyn Montilla of the 4th District in Hartford and I'm here for one main purpose and a couple of other items I would like to get on the record.

I am certainly in support of AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION, HB 6889. Did I have the number correctly? Forgive me for not having written testimony to be delivered to you ahead of time because it turns out I'm testifying on several committee today and I could only write so much, but I have a very, very clear opinion on this matter.

I think that one of the points that we need to make clear, not just to the Committee, but to ourselves as well, is that there is one under-riding goal for everyone who is involved in every effort regarding bilingual education programs and the bilingual education student.

And that is exactly that. The student. I want to make sure that we make on mistake in understanding that the goal of everyone involved, actually, in favor or even against, is to make sure that we give every possible opportunity for students who come from other countries, for students who are not primarily English speaking, to give them every possible opportunity to have the most positive outcome in terms of their own education, their own development and their ability to contribute to a society which we all are very proud of, here in the United States.

So, with that in mind, I want to make sure that I touch on a couple of the points. Another point that I do want to make sure we understand, also, is at least certainly in everyone that I am working with on this matter, there is no overriding goal of decimating what was done last year in our own efforts to fine-tune the bilingual education program.

What is proposed in this bill, in my view, more additional -- and additional fine-tuning to be sure that none of the children, for example, Representative Boughton, none of the students that someone like Representative Boughton proposed in his example, they -- we want to make sure that they do not fall behind between the cracks and that is exactly what we're coming after.

That's the reason why I'm very supportive of redefining the 30 month limit to be sure that it takes into consideration the mobility of so many of our students. I also am very supportive of making sure that the high school students, those who come at the high school age, and I happen to have been an example as well.

I came in when I was 15 years old, from Puerto Rico and those students in particular, very often come from not just countries -- areas like Puerto Rico, but also from other Latin American countries and many other countries that are not Spanish-speaking and they come with a level of education that frankly, sometimes, is superior to ours, and if we do not make sure that we put the changes in place that are going to ensure that that academic achievement continues, and make sure that that student is able to come out of high school and graduate, with the best chances possible, we need to make sure we implement the change that we're talking about in this bill.

I think that the changes that we made the last time around, that in my opinion, inadvertently left those students behind, really deserves a second look at to be able to make sure that we change it. Regarding the bilingual education teachers and the certification and education that this bill proposes, as well, I think that it has become very clear, particularly in recent months, that the state of Connecticut is facing a shortage in many areas, one of them being in the educators of our children.

Additionally, there have been -- forgive me for not having them in front of me, but there have been a number of reports that indicates the fact that there is an extreme shortage of minority educators in our schools. That we have encountered a number of difficulties that, number one, are preventing those teachers from being able to extend their full potential to educate our children.

But, most importantly, number two, is to have the state of Connecticut really be able to offer the highest quality education for every child. For that very same reason, I encourage this Committee to take a very close look at the changes, once again, that are proposed in this bill to be sure that we do everything possible with only one goal in mind, and once again, that is to provide the highest quality education and provided by the highest quality and highest trained and educated teachers, themselves.

With that goal, I really encourage you to look at these changes and help us come up with the solution that needs to be assured to address the shortage that we have in our state which eventually is really having an effect on our children. Those are the main points that I have.

I really appreciate you giving me this opportunity and for any questions that you may have after the Committee hearing. I understand we're trying to get through a number of people who, I think, are very important for you to hear from. I very much look forward to working with all of you. Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you very much, Representative Mantilla. I appreciate your time. That's it for Legislators. Fernando Betancourt.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: Good afternoon, Senator Gaffey and members of the Committee. Senator Gaffey, I am cognizant of the rules of the General Assembly. And I would like to share, before I go over my testimony that I am drained, emotionally. I understand the emotional nature of this debate, but I am saddened and hurt when testimony is given to the General Assembly, that deviates from the scientific proof of the matter.

And, for the record, I want to use my personal privilege to say, that even though I am a product of bilingual education system in Puerto Rico, I'm also the product of a family who lost lives fighting for this country and in so doing, they didn't know enough English, and I want that to be also part of the record.

According to a United States Department of Education report titled, "Creating the Will", Hispanics achieving educational excellence, the Latino population continues to grow, yet educational achievement continues to lag behind that of the rest of the nation.

The educational achievement gap between Latino students and their peers, according to this report, is a result of multiple factors. Among them are poverty issues, limited English proficiency, under representation in the Early Childhood education programs, well-trained teachers, isolation and resource-poor schools.

Furthermore, the resources the child brings into the classroom, such as the second language, are not universally valued. The active participation of parents in the education of their children is not facilitated and the educational assessment often in the form of tests, are incorrectly used to make decisions that negatively impact the students.

These factors continue through all of the educational pipe-line, from early childhood through graduate and professional education. As a result of these factors, the Latino population finds itself always behind in educational matters compared to other ethnic groups.

At a time when Latinos are the fastest growing community and where our state is following suit with the nation, in facing a teacher shortage, imbalances in educational funding, as students must strive to improve their educational achievement and parents, educators, business leaders, elected officials and government representatives must help our students achieve educational excellence by providing them with the highest quality educational training, and at the same time, provide fair wages for those teachers who decide to follow this career path.

The Latino Puerto Rican Affairs Commission strongly supports raised HB 6889, AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION. This is a comprehensive bill because it requires local school districts to identify all language, all English language learners in a given district and provide educational funding whenever there are 20 such students and beyond, to be consistent with current law.

LPRAC also supports in the new language in raised HB 6889, that will change the time limit for participation in such programs from just 30 months to 30 consecutive months and not counting kindergarten as part of the time limit for the program.

This will assure that the students are not neglected because of their mobility and allow primary school children to really focus on language acquisition and literacy development which is a crucial cycle in the primary grade.

Raised HB 6889 will correctly extend the time frame for bilingual and English as a Second Language educators to meet all certification requirements and provide an emergency certificate for these prospective teachers.

Furthermore, the bill in our opinion, correctly removes the requirement that states if an eligible student enrolled in the secondary school when the student has fewer than 30 months remaining before graduation, the local or regional board of education shall assign the student to an English as a Second Language program.

We believe that this short changes a student because he or she is not able to have the necessary course work in other important academic areas which are required for graduation, offer in the language the student best understands.

Another important fact of why (inaudible) supports proposed HB 6889, as currently drafted, is because the bill includes the Dual Language Program as part of the Bilingual Education statute. Dual Language Program according to this bill, means a program that uses both English and one other language for instruction in which a student who's dominate language is English, and a student who's dominate language is the other language, participates.

This is important because current research shows that the majority of English language learners, do exceptionally well in Dual Language Programs in academic assessment in English and their native language and vice versa. The Latino Puerto Rican First Commission also asks your support for raised SB 449, pending and condition to the definitions listed under Section One, are rewritten, so that the distinction is made between the transitional bilingual education program currently used in the eligible schools and the Dual Language program.

We believe the language needs to be added which addresses that in the Dual Language Program, the goal is for students to acquire two languages, gain high academic achievement in literacy and content instruction and be integrated with their English-speaking counterparts for all or part of the school day to promote cross-cultural awareness.

In my testimony, I list a number of other areas that we submit for your recommendation. LPRFC also opposes for Committee, and I emphasize, oppose SB 292, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

The General Assembly has embarked in the last two years in the process leading to a comprehensive assessment of the bilingual education in Connecticut. As a result, the law has suffered substantive changes with a strong bi-partisan support. Approval of the SB 292 would be totally inconsistent with the unanimous consensus to improve bilingual education as it in effect, eliminate the mandate that is the safe-guard to the right to adequate and equal education to thousands of children who are not native speakers.

And, in closing, Mr. Senator, those of you who know me, know that I can be vehement in defending my point, but I think that I --

SEN. GAFFEY: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: I am vehement in defending my points, but I think that this Committee, particularly Representative Beals, knows that we have participated in sub-committees. Representative Boucher and many others. I think that we have to go beyond in making an effort to work in good faith, respecting our differences, but providing good, accurate scientific research to this Committee. So, you would be in a better position to make your decisions.

SEN. GAFFEY: Fernando, I mean, we've had a good working relationship. We worked hard on this for two years. Representative Beals, Senator Friedman, Representative Boucher and others have worked hard on this issue with you and other advocates, we'll continue to do so and thank you for your participation and your on-going participation in the future. Thank you very much.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Representative -- I'm sorry. Senator Fonfara from the great city of Hartford would like to ask you a question.

SEN. FONFARA: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, good afternoon, Fernando.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: Good afternoon --

SEN. FONFARA: It's good to see you again. Would you explain a little bit better for me, on page four of your statement where you speak about the need for language changes or definition that it be rewritten regarding transition bilingual education program and dual language. I'm not understanding what the issue is, there.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: We propose that in addition to the definition listed on number four, we added this language so it would be very clear that the differentiation between both models, as a matter of fact, as you know, we have supported Dual Language or two-way bilingual education. We were a little bit concerned about when the Legislature approved last year, two pilot programs, that we don't have an assessment to see how those programs are doing and we were concerned and what we are proposing is that including this technical language, we will secure that that's equality of a program that we will achieve.

SEN. FONFARA: And so, in other words, if it isn't supported that an assessment would not render positive results or results that might come about if it were supported?

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: Well, we don't know about the assessment because perhaps it's too early after only one year. But, we will strongly support any evaluation component of those programs so we can show that in effect they are good and they are valuable. Now, what we propose is that this language we added to any proposed legislation, so everybody understands that that is what the Dual Language program, is.

SEN. FONFARA: Thank you.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Fernando. Okay. Let's go to the other list. David Holden, please. Let me just say at the outset that the Chair has the prerogative of calling people to testify and will exercise that prerogative, particularly because of the number of children that we have here in the audience today.

I'm going to, after a couple of the people have testified -- or signed up very early on the list, start calling children to testify so that they're not sitting here all afternoon, falling asleep. They could get back and tend to their school work. Mr. Holden.

DAVID HOLDEN: Senator Gaffey and representatives of the Education Committee. My name is David Holden, I'm Business Manager with the Simsbury, Connecticut Public Schools. I'm pleased today to speak in support of an increased reimbursement rate for one school construction project every 20 years, for public school districts, HB 5501.

I have served as the Business Manager in Simsbury for the past 20 years and during that period of time, have been involved in the planning and construction of numerous school additions and renovation projects within our school district.

Although I never would have anticipated it happening, this summer I will oversee the re-roofing of Squadron Line school for the second time during my tenure as Business Manager, as the expected life of a flat school roof is 20 years.

The seven schools in Simsbury range in age from 31 year of age to 90 years old. Two of our schools were constructed in the 50's, two in the 60's and one in 1970. The construction of schools in Simsbury as in most communities, is directly tied to the student enrollment patterns which tend to be cyclical in nature.

The historical enrollment pattern in Simsbury during the past 40 years and projected forward to the year 2010, is as follows. In 1960, we had 3,356 students. 10 years later, in 1970, 5,576. In 1980, 4,488. In 1990, it declined down to 3,779, and for the year 2010, we estimate 5,500 and almost 90 students.

The fluctuation both up and down has ranged between 1,800 and 2,000 students over a 20 year period. Most communities such as ours creates a six year capital improvement project plans that are updated annually. The typical bonding period on a major construction project is a 20 year bond.

As is evident from the swing in enrollment patterns, local communities are faced with school construction needs that just to meet school enrollment fluctuations in 20 to 30 year cycles. It would be extremely beneficial for local communities to know that within a 20 year period, they could plan on one major school construction project receiving a higher percentage than state school construction grant participation.

We plan carefully and thoughtfully, but it is extremely difficult for small to medium size communities to be able to incorporate the bonding cost of a major school construction project with minimal or modest state participation.

Local communities that are facing operating budget pressures due to increased enrollments, reduced state and federal support and competing capital budget needs, would benefit significantly in their long-term planning, knowing that a major capital project would receive increased state grant support.

Decisions being made now, at the local levels, to address capital improvement and capital maintenance needs, are being adversely impacted due to the lack of available capital dollars. The Education Committee HB 5501, would go a long way towards enabling communities to meet their school construction needs without major sacrifices in other education municipal areas. Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Mr. Holden. Representative Heagney.

REP. HEAGNEY: Thank you, Dave for coming to testify today. Just one quick thing. I know you're going --

(Gap in testimony changing from tape 1b to 2a)

REP. HEAGNEY: -- project and I understand there's a discussion in the community that maybe it would not be a new school but might be a revised program for a renovation.

DAVID HOLDEN: That's correct.

REP. HEAGNEY: And so you anticipate knowing that in the next few weeks?

DAVID HOLDEN: Within the next month or so, correct.

REP. HEAGNEY: I'll look forward to your report on that, thank you for coming and testifying on this bill. Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Mr. Holden. Anything further? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Milford Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Mary Jo Kramer. Dr. Kramer? Good afternoon, Dr. Kramer.

DR. KRAMER: Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you, today. I'm testifying in regards to HB 5257, AN ACT CONCERNING AN EXIT EXAM. I'm Mary Jo Kramer. I'm the Superintendent of Milford Public Schools. I'm testifying on behalf of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents and for the past three years I've chaired their committee on state testing. We work very closely with the State Department of Education on the implementation and reporting of state test results.

I've also had the opportunity to look at the state testing movement in Connecticut since 1978 when I first arrived in Connecticut, put in a proficiency test. The position of the Public School Superintendents of Connecticut is that we have -- we place a very high priority on academic achievement.

We believe in high standards for all youngsters and we support accountability in our schools and in the state. Not only with the Mastery Test in the Connecticut Academic Performance Test, but with a variety of reports which we give and public accounting which we do.

We put those kinds of accountability systems into our school system. We have led the improvement which this state has seen, in achievement results, not only on the Mastery Test and the CAPT, but also on the national assessment of educational progress, where Connecticut very often is at the tops in terms of the ranking of states around the country and has shown great achievement levels.

It is because we are so committed to reaching high levels of achievement for all students, that we do not support this bill. If you look at an analysis which will be provided to you, of states around the country by various researchers, there is no clear evidence that an exit test makes a difference in raising student achievement.

Some researchers have indicated that in fact, it has a negative effect. In some states, when a comparison was made of the NAEP grade eight test results from 1992 to 1996, there was more improvement made in those states which did not have an exit exam than in the states which did.

A latest study done in 2001, by Brian Jacobs, said that there is nothing in the literature, the studies, the analysis which says that exit exams either improve or deplete student achievement. I know as an administrator, I would not choose a costly intervention if I were aware of the fact that there was no evidence that made a difference in student achievement.

And so, I'm imploring that you look at it in that perspective and make a similar choice. The second reason why we are opposed to this particular bill is for reasons of equity and equal opportunity. One finding which is clear from the literature is that the drop-out rate does increase as these tests are introduced.

And, in fact, there's a disproportionatly high percentage of minority youngsters who do drop out. Certainly, the future of a drop-out is dismal. The burden to a taxpayer is considerable. I think one only needs to look at the prison population with the high percent of that population who are indeed, drop-outs.

I, for one, and I would again urge the Legislature to think carefully about this issue. Would not want to do something which would increase the likelihood of having more drop-outs, particularly among our minority youngsters.

The final reason we are opposed to this, is that we believe a single measure, even though combined with others, if it is a single measure which must be met to graduate, is not consistent with professional ethical standards. We think it is professionally unethical to make a determination about a youngster's future based upon a single test.

We would suggest, instead of a single measure that the Legislature look at and consider promoting local options for a graduation requirement. We have one in my school district. There are now six other school districts, as of last month, around the state that have put in local performance based graduation requirements, on their own.

In my case, for example, we are requiring the students produce a written essay before they graduate, complete a complex math problem and do a complex problem -- learning problem, using technology. Those are performance based requirements. They are authentic in relating to real life skills and real life successes.

The Wisconsin Model which you heard about this morning, is one such model that the Legislature may look at, but we do not believe a state mandate required exit exam will raise student achievement. It will certainly exacerbate the gap between minority and non-minority students in achievement, and in our view it is unethical to choose to allow a child's life future, to be determined by a single test which is not simply reliable enough to do that job. Thank you very much.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Dr. Kramer, it's nice to see you again.

DR. KRAMER: Nice to see you, too.

SEN. GAFFEY: My visit down in your fair town, back in the Fall, to discuss the ECS formula with your Mayor and Aldermanic Board and Board of Education. I must say, you have one of the most ornate town halls that I've ever been in. Beautiful.

DR. KRAMER: It is beautiful.

SEN. GAFFEY: But, let me ask you -- excuse me.

DR. KRAMER: It's my Mayor. He wants more money.

SEN. GAFFEY: No, it's my aide. He's my boss. You referenced that there's more improvement in states that do not have an exit exam than there are in those that have an exit exam. Can you give me the cite of that reference?

DR. KRAMER: Sure. I'm going to provide this for you with the testimony so you will have it. I'll read directly from the information I have. If you compare the change of each state's NAEP scores, between 1992 and 1996, the existence of a high school exit exam made it no more likely that fourth grade results improved and made it less likely that eighth grade results improved.

Moreover, if you track a given cohort of students, comparing fourth graders in 1992 with eighth graders in 1996, the states whose student's improved the most, typically did not have a high stakes graduation exit exam at the time. While many of the states with the least growth, did.

SEN. GAFFEY: And what -- sorry. What's the cite of that?

DR. KRAMER: The cite of that is Paul E. Barton and Richard Cooley, Growth in Schools, Princeton, ETS, 1998.

SEN. GAFFEY: Those are published by a bunch of -- or couple of people from Princeton?

DR. KRAMER: Right. At ETS, Education Testing Service.

SEN. GAFFEY: Okay, you can submit that with --

DR. KRAMER: And then there's another reference from the University of Chicago. That's a 2001. That one suggests that there was no difference in the analysis.

SEN. GAFFEY: Okay, thank you very much. If you could just submit that all with the record, I'd appreciate. Representative Staples.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Excuse me for chewing my lunch. I wanted to ask you a little more about the Milford local assessments that you do. You said there are five or six other districts that do it? That's very -- that's an interesting model for us to consider, trying to encourage districts to do more of this because you have a much greater capacity to create a system that works with what you're doing in your district.

Can you tell me a little more about what you know about some of the other districts and what they're doing, or perhaps expand on how you replace, or I should say, what you use instead of a exit exam. I mean, do you have other testing instruments, or do you just do different types of evaluations of performance? What is your system centered around that's different from an exit exam approach?

DR. KRAMER: I can speak more about what we're doing and it's very similar to (problem with tape) is doing because we work together on it. I know that the Connecticut State Department of Education website has listed all the communities which now have their own graduation requirements, performance based, and you can find it there.

In short, what we are doing is we are saying to students that they have to in the case of writing, complete an extensive, coherent, organized essay before they graduate. And they can be exempt from completing that if they achieve a certain score on the CAPT exam.

If they achieve a certain score of eight on the interdisciplinary section of that test. If they can't achieve that score, then they have five times within the course of their junior and senior year to meet that requirement. Now, we are using the same kind of rubric or standards or criteria that the state uses in assessing writing.

We have trained our teachers to do that, so as a student in any course attempts, during one of these five times, to complete that essay, to write an essay, that is then given over to a committee of teachers who have been trained and then they will grade it and notify the student and his or her parents.

We also have a required course that they must take in their senior year if at that point they haven't completed the exam, plus there are other supports that we put in place such as tutors, summer school -- we're requiring that they go to summer school to learn how to write and so forth.

We think virtually all of our students, except those with very, very severe special education need problems, will be able to pass the exam before they graduate. In math, which comes into effect this coming year, -- let me just go back a minute.

In -- when we put this into effect, we phased it in starting three years ago, but it affected last year's sophomores who are also taking the CAPT test. What it did was bring a great deal of seriousness to the CAPT test that was not there before.

And, in fact, we saw 25 percent increase in our interdisciplinary score as a result of the attention that the students gave now to this particular test because it -- you could be exempted from our writing requirement if you passed the test.

The math is a complex math problem and that comes into effect with this year's sophomores and the other performance based requirement that we have in place, we've had in place for a couple of years, is a technology requirement and that is that students again, in the course -- we did not add a course to do this, in any course, a student can complete this requirement using technology to solve a complex learning problem which we think is a necessary skill for them to have before they leave. And, virtually all of our students pass that.

REP. STAPLES: I think that's very interesting and that sounds like the right way of the right type of approach and I guess my question would be, just on the writing and on the math, are those -- are what you're testing tied into the curriculum?

I mean, is it fair to assume that the writing requirement or the math test that you're developing are an outgrowth of what you're teaching in the grades, prior to the students being responsible for that? That they're connected directly to what it is they're supposed to be learning in the school?

DR. KRAMER: Right. That's what -- well, I mean, our curriculum is, in mathematics, is very problem solving oriented and we want students to be able to use, at least when they graduate, some basic algebra and geometry as well as the other computational skills that are necessary. Decimals, you know, all of that.

So, that's a part of our curriculum and that's what we're teaching. That's what we consider essential. In terms of writing, we've always held as a major goal of the school district, as I think most school districts do, that we want our students to be able to graduate being able to write.

We feel by being able to write, that the way the test is set up, it assumes reading, so we don't have a separate reading test, but yes, that's what we spend a great deal of time doing, is teaching students how to read and write and perform mathematics, solve mathematical problems.

REP. STAPLES: I appreciate that, thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Senator Heagney.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Good morning, Superintendent.

DR. KRAMER: Good morning, or afternoon, I guess, it is.

SEN. HEAGNEY: And I guess you're right. Do I understand that correctly that you're using the 10th grade CAPT test as sort of a clearing house so that if you pass that, then these other requirements don't apply to you?

DR. KRAMER: But we're using it as an exemption. We have other exemptions. For example, if you score at a certain level on the math section of the SAT you can be exempt, as well.

SEN. HEAGNEY: And the English section?

DR. KRAMER: Not on the Verbal. The Verbal is not -- the Verbal section of the SAT is really a reading test and what our graduation requirement is, is a writing test. But, the math section of the SAT is more consistent since it does focus on geometry and algebra with what we're trying to achieve with our math requirement.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Okay, and then, so that if you don't get an exemption, either one of -- are there any other exemptions that one might have?

DR. KRAMER: Oh, it has do with certainly students are very severely disabled.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Right.

DR. KRAMER: Certainly if students just came to our school district and hadn't had the opportunity to participate in the preparation nor to be supported in meeting this requirement. So, there's those kinds of exemptions.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Okay. And then those children that do not earn an exemption, there's a English writing test and then there's a math test that you're going to be implementing, is that correct?

DR. KRAMER: Well, actually, they have to write -- if you think about writing a composition or an essay like you and I used to do when we went to school. They have to do that in the course in one of their courses, in their English courses over the -- over a period of two years, they have five different times in which there will be an opportunity given for them to write this essay in response to a piece of literature and so forth, and then once they -- those papers are collected, they can be used by the classroom teacher as part of their grade.

But the real purpose is that they are sent to a committee and that committee anonymously applies certain standards to judge good writing and grades those papers and let's the student know whether or not they have passed the writing requirement. And, of course, there's due process provisions as well, in there. But that's essentially how the process works.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Okay, then there would be a math section that's coming into effect --

DR. KRAMER: It's a separate test and again, it would be in the context of their math courses that they're already taking, that they would be given an opportunity to solve a complex math problem that would be a test that they would be given that's structured throughout the district.

I mean, it's not a different test for -- it's one test. It sets a standard and incorporates the kind of problem solving abilities that we need -- that we feel we need to have in place. We're piloting this, this year.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Are there other sections that you anticipate?

DR. KRAMER: No, not at this point in time. We felt that we needed to focus on the basic skills. The writing and the mathematics. I mean, that could be possible, but we thought we were taking on enough as it was. And there is a cost. I mean, to tell you there's a local cost associated because you have to train the teachers, you have to pay the committee to meet and to grade these papers.

There's piloting that needs to be done. There's materials, plus if you really want to be fair -- if we want to be fair to the students, we have to have other supports in place such as summer school -- excuse me -- summer school, normally summer school is when you fail a course. This is summer school that helps you learn how to write. That's a very different emphasis.

We put tutors into the high school level, writing tutors. We put math tutors into the middle school level to help students and then the students will be required to take a writing course their senior year if they have not met this requirement by that time. So, we're trying every which way that we can to assure that they will be able to meet this standard.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Okay, and what brought about the initiation of this program?

DR. KRAMER: Oh, a couple of different reasons. I -- going back to what I said earlier about accountability, I really do believe that we should aspire in public education, have all of our students graduate and with those basic communication skills that are necessary to succeed in life and when people say, business people sometimes say, well, they come out of high school and they can't write, they can't compute, they can't do this, I really wanted us to -- we don't believe -- we believe that we could produce students who could do those things and in a sense, we put our money where our mouth was.

So, that was one reason. Thank you very much. The second reason is, is that the teachers have been very concerned about -- and this is not just a Milford concern, I've heard it all over the state and I think any Superintendent would tell you that it exists in their community as well, that students are not taking seriously the Connecticut Academic Performance Test.

There doesn't seem to be a consequence for them in terms of that test and specifically, there's no relationship between taking that test and getting into the University of Connecticut or any university system. So far, the -- it's not a score that is being paid attention to out in the larger world.

So, we wanted something that would put a little bit more weight on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test and bring some meaning to it. Now, that's not to say that I want an exit exam which is very high stakes and students attend to that for the reasons I gave.

I don't want to bring attention to the test for that -- in that form. I felt it would be better to bring attention to the test and the importance of being serious about learning the kinds of objectives which that test reflects. I thought it would be better by having our own graduation requirement.

SEN. HEAGNEY: But the essence of what you've done, is it not, is to put in some requirements that then heighten the student's awareness of what they were trying to achieve by achieving a high school degree.

DR. KRAMER: Right, right. I think --

SEN. HEAGNEY: And isn't that the essence of why 20 some-odd states have said, we want to have something that brings focus of what is trying to be achieved with a high school degree?

DR. KRAMER: But the difference is, is that we saw an increase in our achievement level on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test. And, when we reach -- when the current juniors reach senior year, we will have students who are leaving and there will be a written document that says that they know how to write.

There'll be a sample, and their test will be available, be on file. The difference is, is that the research on the testing which occurred around the exit exams, the high stakes exit exams around the nation, is that there's no evidence that makes a difference in student achievement.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Well, I guess what you told -- what you testified to earlier, was that they've looked at fourth and eighth graders. I would think that we would be looking to test students in high school to see where the exit exam has some impact.

I certainly wasn't, in fourth grade, looking to high school and maybe a little bit in the eighth grade, but you know, I really think that -- you know, those statistics are misplaced and that we really should be looking at identifying certain qualifications for students at the high school level and I think it's very debatable about exactly how you format one of these programs. But I think the need for a program is undebatable and I think that we just need to find the right program that works well for our students.

DR. KRAMER: Well, if there is an exit exam, then I assure you that preparation is going to start occurring at a lower grade. Certainly, at eighth grade. And in some of the -- in the NAEP test results at grade eight, in some of these studies, there is actually a decline. So, one would presume that there -- that the exit exam is not just limited to what happens in the last four years of school.

I mean, certainly, if you're preparing students to be able to read and write and perform complex mathematical operations, that needs to happen all the way through the grades, but certainly in eighth grade I would expect that there would be some difference made.

But, in any event, even if you probe this further and as you can see from my statement or the one page that I'm going to provide to you with different highlights, if you probe this further and I think that if you talk to people like Linda Darling Hammond, who is in research, well-respected and bring her here or talk to Althie Cohen who is in Massachusetts and has done a great deal of analysis of this. Or, bring in latest study, Brian Jacobs at the University of Chicago.

There's no evidence that it makes a difference in achievement. So, why would we want to locally, I'm just going to speak locally, why would I want to spend a great deal of money because this exit exam will require a new test. The current CAPT test was never intended to be an exit exam. Why would I want to spend the enormous amount of state dollars, creating a new test? If it didn't make a difference in student achievement?

I'd rather put my money into something that is more likely to make a difference and why would I want to, also, encourage the likelihood of having more drop-outs? I'd rather put the money into alternative education programs which have a very good record, if they're quality programs, of preventing drop-outs.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Well, I think the key becomes making sure that our high school diplomas have meaning. Meaning to the student. Meaning to their parents, and meaning to employers and colleges that look at those and if that's where we've got to focus, that there is something meaningful coming out of that high school degree and I think that your approach is a very good one in Milford, and I think that -- you know, this bill doesn't mandate what our approach should look like. It simply says, we should have an approach and I think that we're on the same page in that regard.

DR. KRAMER: Well, I think it's different. I think it's very different to create a local exit exam or a local graduation requirement which is performance based. See, I think that's a major difference. You're talking about creating a paper and pencil kind of test. I'm talking about a performance based kind of system and I consider writing a performance skill.

So, I think it's very different to have a performance based system created at the local level which supports all the research on what good education should be and as opposed to having a state mandated test.

And as far as the diploma meaning something, with -- there are many of us who graduated from high school with diplomas that meant something to us, and we never had an exit exam. So, there are some students who have, I'm sure, diplomas that do not reflect that they can do the most basic of skills, but that's not the vast majority.

The diploma means exactly what our high school system has been set out to achieve and that is that we have participated in courses. Our youngsters have participated in courses and achieved certain level grades in those courses to garner a high school diploma. But it does mean something.

SEN. HEAGNEY: Well, I think it should mean more than that. I think it means not just grades and not just attendance. It should mean that some minimum level of achievement has been reached by that student and we have a lot of testimony today and I really appreciate your back and forth, but I know I think we'll frustrate everyone if we continue on. Maybe another day, though. Thank you so much.

SEN. GAFFEY: May I ask if the Superintendents would give some thought to a hybrid approach on this entire issue? We already have the CAPT test, so we already have a pencil and paper test that's given in the 10th grade, as you well know.

DR. KRAMER: Right.

SEN. GAFFEY: And what I hear around the state of Connecticut is that kids don't take the CAPT test seriously because it doesn't mean anything. So, in light of Representative Ward's bill, it strikes me, and Cam and I were just discussing it a little bit, maybe we can have a hybrid here of utilizing the CAPT test as setting some level of passing, and then utilize that in the same vein as Representative Ward has suggested, since you already have the test in place and then have remedial programs adjusted to those students who aren't achieving that standard that we -- or the State Department sets in conjunction with the Superintendents and CABE and everybody else involved as to what would be the minimum level of achievement in writing and calculating, so that we have an idea of where our high school students are in the 10th grade.

DR. KRAMER: Well, again, I would not recommend that approach.

SEN. GAFFEY: Why not? You're already using the CAPT test.

DR. KRAMER: Right.

SEN. GAFFEY: What's the CAPT test for?

DR. KRAMER: I would recommend that there be a local option for local school districts to peruse that, but essentially you're still using a single test for a single state test to determine whether or not students will be able to graduate from high school.

SEN. GAFFEY: No, I didn't say that. But, you know, there is merit in the argument that Representative Heagney is making and there is merit in the argument that Representative Ward makes. I think in the sense that you want to get a handle on where these kids are, on an achievement basis. Reading, writing, calculating. So we know where they are. Are they meeting a minimum standard?

At some way along the way in their high school career and if we already have the CAPT test, in place, and I hear from everybody, teachers, students, CAPT test doesn't mean anything. That's why nobody takes it seriously. That's why the scores are low.

Well, you know what? If it means something then, along the context of what Representative Heagney was talking about, then maybe we start seeing scores come up and more importantly, maybe we get to reach those students that may have slipped through the cracks and aren't reached. So, they get some minimal level of competency in those areas. That's all I'm saying.

DR. KRAMER: Yeah, but the CAPT test just for your information along that same line, the CAPT test is already divided into four bands. Now, mostly what we focus on in the state is the percent above goal. But goal is really, in our view, equivalent to having an A to a B+ kind of grade.

What we don't focus on, which I think to me is a more critical issue, is just what you're talking about. The percentage of students who are at the lowest level of the CAPT test. In raising that up, those raising up or reducing the percent of students at that lowest level, I think is the most critical challenge that we face. But, we're not focusing on it because of the way that we report.

SEN. GAFFEY: And my only point is that we have a vehicle in place that will enable us to focus on the CAPT results and I want to thank you very much for taking the time to come here and the city of Milford appreciates your testimony and --

DR. KRAMER: Thank you. Nice to see you again.

SEN. GAFFEY: Okay. Now, what we're going to do is we're going to call a panel of students from Elias Howe School which is in Bridgeport? Representative Reinoso? Great city, Bridgeport. So, very proud of that. That's right. Representative Reinoso, did you also say that the Principal of Elias Howe is here? The Superintendent is Maureen Alester? Okay, Superintendent Alester, if you would come up with your students. Hold on a second. One at a time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Marina, hold on a second. Who's the Superintendent? She stepped out? Okay.

Then let's bring the kids forward. Madeline, Tonya, Angelica and Hector. Pablo and Marco. Okay? Okay, now, what you're going to do is you're going to identify your full name for the record, okay? So, that when we transcribe this in writing, we're able to know who said what, okay? Why don't you -- I'll tell you what.

Let's start. Do you have a microphone -- your little thing -- the button you can push in the middle? Push the middle button, alright? It should light up. Okay? Now you're miked up and you can go first. Identify yourself and then we'll go from my left to my right, okay?

TONYA DAVERVIC: Good afternoon, Senator Gaffey, Representative Staples. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Tonya Daveric. I came to the United States three years and six months ago in third grade. I come from Yugoslavia, in Europe. My family came here because there was a war going on in my country. When I came here I didn't know how to speak English. My first teacher here was Miss McMurray. She and Miss Batista taught me to speak English.

SEN. GAFFEY: Tonya? I'm going to have to ask you -- you know your microphone is on? I'm having difficulty hearing you. If you could just -- I'm sorry? Yeah, let's switch -- I'll tell you what. This is a better microphone, so let's switch. Tonya, you take this one, first, okay? And try to speak as loud as you can, alright? Thank you.

TONYA DAVERVIC: Do you want me to start all over? Okay. Good afternoon, State Senator Gaffey, Representative Staples. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tonya Davieric. I came to the United States three years and six months ago, in third grade. I come from Yugoslavia in Europe.

My family came here because there was a war going on in my country. When I came here I didn't know how to speak English. My first teacher here was Miss McMurray. She and Miss Batista taught me to speak English. In fourth grade I was selected to participate in the TAG program. Since third grade to now I have had good teachers that have helped me with every kind of problem that I had.

Since fourth grade, I have achieved first and second honors every marking period. My sister, Sonya, came here when she was in fifth grade. She's also a very good student. She was selected for the TAG program when she was at Elias Howe. One of the best teachers I have had since third grade was Miss Trubay (phonetic), the TAG teacher. She is an understanding person and it is fun to be with her.

I support HB 6889 because I think it's very important to speak more than one language. Many of the students at Elias Howe School participate at the bilingual program. Most of the children that come to Elias Howe School struggle with the English language. Schools need the bilingual program to help all students. I hope that you are willing to make the changes needed because many students need bilingual education. Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you, Tonya. Very well done. Good job. Okay, we want you guys to switch again.

MADELINE MOJICA: Good afternoon, State Senator Gaffey and State Representative Staples. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here to support HB 6889. My name is Madeline Mojica and I'm a product of the bilingual program.

I first came to Connecticut in the summer of 1990 and I attended Elias Howe in forth and fifth grades and John Winthrop school in sixth grade where I was in the bilingual program. Afterwards, I went to seventh and eighth grade in the mainstream at James J. Curiale and then on to Warren Harding Health Magnet Program. I was the salutorian of Harding High School class of 1999. Now I attend Housatonic Community College with a major in early childhood education.

I believe the bilingual program has helped me a great deal. When I first came to the United States from Puerto Rico, I did not know a thing in English because of the bilingual program I did not have to struggle to understand my teachers or understand the assignments that I had to do.

At this moment, not only did the bilingual program help me in school, but also in my personal life. I'm able to speak, write and read in English and Spanish, fluently. I'm also a good translator. The bilingual program has helped my family, too. I'm the oldest of five children and the bilingual program has helped all of my siblings.

At this moment, they're all in the mainstream program and doing fine. I know that they will have struggled if we did not have the benefit of the bilingual program. I'm in support of HB 6889, with the exception of allowing school districts to select ESL or any other teacher to teach in the bilingual program.

The state should make every effort to extend the current deferral for bilingual teacher candidates so that we can continue to instruct students in their native language in both bilingual and dual language programs.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you very much. Excellent job and I'm glad you're working Early Childhood because we need you in this state. Thank you very much. Okay, fellows, who's first? You feel like you're at the barber shop? Go ahead.

PABLO VALENTIN: Good afternoon, Senator Gaffey and Representative Staples. Good morning, -- good afternoon, everyone. My name is Pablo Valentin. I am a successful product of bilingual education at Elias Howe school in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

I'm here to support HB 6889. I came to Elias Howe School in 1998 at the age of nine from Puerto Rico. I was not able to speak English. Part of Elias Howe's Bilingual Talented and Gifted -- three years later, I'm not only in a mainstream class, where I'm also part of Elias Howe's Bilingual Talented and Gifted Program, also known as TAG, which will give me the opportunity of going on to Central Magnet High School and then on to college.

I was very fortunate to have had bilingual teachers that helped prepare me for the transition into the English language. I hope that kids will have the same opportunities that bilingual education gave to me. I thank you for your time. I hope you will consider making the changes that will help our students. Please support HB 6889. We welcome you to visit Elias Howe School. Here is some information on how to contact us.

SEN. GAFFEY: Pablo, Pablo, Pablo, Pablo. Thank you for the invitation, by the way. The senator from Hartford, Senator Fonfara would like to ask you a question, Pablo.

SEN. FONFARA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question, Pablo, and I think your testimony was very helpful. When you came from Puerto Rico, at the age of nine you were in what grade at that time?

PABLO VALENTIN: I think it was third.

SEN. FONFARA: Third? Did you learn any English at all in Puerto Rico?

PABLO VALENTIN: No.

SEN. FONFARA: In school? Was that an option in your class -- in your school, that you could have if you wanted to?

PABLO VALENTIN: I guess.

SEN. FONFARA: You're not sure? You don't remember? Okay. Thank you.

SEN. GAFFEY: Where are you from in Puerto Rico, Pablo?

PABLO VALENTIN: San Yuan.

SEN. GAFFEY: Thank you very much for your time.

MARCO FLORES: Good afternoon, Senator Gaffey, --

SEN. GAFFEY: (mike off)

MARCO FLORES: Okay. Good afternoon, Senator Gaffey and Representative Staples. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Marco Flores. I'm a fifth grade student at Elias Howe School in Bridgeport. I'm here to support HB 6889. I'm also a part of Elias Howe's Bilingual Talented and Gifted Program, also known as TAG.

I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to be in the bilingual program. Every day I see students who would be struggling if they did not have the opportunity of a bilingual program. And it makes me feel badly that they would not be given the time and support they need, they would need to learn English. Thank you for your time and hope you will consider making the changes that will help other students have success in school. Please support HB 6889.

SEN. GAFFEY: Marco, did you come here from -- did your family move to Connecticut from Puerto Rico?

MARCO FLORES: No.

SEN. GAFFEY: No. So, you were living in Bridgeport all along? You were born in Bridgeport?

MARCO FLORES: I was born in Fairfield, not in Bridgeport.

SEN. GAFFEY: Born in Fairfield, okay. Well, you're a social climber. Now you're -- well, listen. So, you took bilingual ed in what grades?

MARCO FLORES: I think only in fifth.

SEN. GAFFEY: I'm sorry?

MARCO FLORES: Only in fifth.

SEN. GAFFEY: Only in fifth. You're in fifth, right now?

MARCO FLORES: Uh-hmmm.

SEN. GAFFEY: I must say, your English is amazingly good. I mean, it's fantastic. All the students, very, very impressed. We're going to have to take a trip down to see your school. Representative Reinoso, you're going to have to -- (applause). Thank you, Marco.

MARCO FLORES: You're welcome.

SEN. GAFFEY: Did everybody go from Elias Howe that's here? All the students? No, Elias Howe first. The students that signed up for Elias Howe. Is the Superintendent back in the room? Hello, Superintendent. How are you?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: (Spanish spoken). For those of you who do not speak any English, I am -- any Spanish, I am Sonia Diaz Saledo. I am the Superintendent of Schools in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Very proud to represent Connecticut recently at the Council of Great City Schools, the first time that we have participated. And bilingual education is certainly one of the issues before the Federal Legislature, also, so I'm delighted to be here testifying in favor of HB 6889 and also in favor of Dual Language schools.

When I entered schools in the south Bronx, fresh from Puerto Rico, I knew not a word of English. It wasn't until the second grade that I understood the nuances between the words verb and bird, the differences between can and can't. For a child, these experiences can be traumatic. For me to remember these events must mean they were an indelible part of my psyche and to this day, I remember these stories and talk about them as I recall all of my professional experiences.

I began my career in Boston public schools as a bilingual educator, first grade bilingual teacher and to this day, I bump into my students and what they share with me is that without the experience of bilingual education, they would not have experienced a lot of the success that they enjoy today.

I conducted a very, very deep research while a doctoral student at Harvard. My dissertation was on Latino students at the high school level and what is it that contributes to the success of a Latino student? We recently had Gary Orefield present at the district and he talked about the level of disparity that still exist among minority students, more than anything within the Latino community which is the group that will be the greatest minority group in the United States in years to come.

There is a significant body of research that tells us about the high dropout rates, about the low retention rates, about the fact that Latino students are the ones who have the least success at the college level and I am here to tell you that if we want to provide successful --

(Gap in testimony changing from tape 2a to 2b)

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: -- experiences for our students, we have to provide the kind of educational environments that truly nurture students and scaffolds the education for a child, for a student, for a young adolescent to come here to the United States, this great country and sit in a classroom of incomprehensible gibberish, because that is what a language that you do not understand sounds like, is unconscionable.

We have to be able to provide the kinds of transitions where students can understand the lexicon, the terminology and can gain the appropriate skills in English in order to succeed. I tell my students it's important to become fluent in English. Depending upon the age that you come here, your accent is even more perceptible or less.

But nonetheless, it isn't about accent. It is about comprehension. It is about understanding and it is about access to quality education and knowing that we can really make a difference in student's lives. There is so much written -- Sonya Nietto (phonetic) from UMASS, Amherst, has written very eloquently about Latino students dropping out. About what makes the difference in a child's life and she is a strong advocate for bilingual education.

James Crawford has written eloquently about dual language programs and knowing that it isn't a program that is thrown together at the flash of a second. Dual language programs are wonderful and they're certainly an ideal way to address the issue of instruction in English and helping students become literate, but they take tremendous planning and they take tremendous resources.

And if we're going to provide the kinds of opportunities for our students, it's absolutely pivotal and essential that we understand how children learn, how they acquire literacy in two languages, the fact that research has proven that a child who has strong background and strong skills in his or her native language, is able to transfer these skills more readily into English, will become a stronger learner in English.

And if we're going to reduce the achievement gap. If we're going to increase the numbers of students graduating at the high school level with strong skills going on to college or going on to successful work experiences, we have to provide the kinds of nurturing experiences during the school academic year and during their school lives that will buffer their knowledge, that will create that sense of self esteem and that will value the different languages and the different cultures that our students bring to school.

It's my honor here to be before you, to be able to answer any questions, to represent my district, my city and to represent students across the country.

SEN. GAFFEY: Let me just say as Senate Chair of this Committee, it is an honor to have you here. That's some of the most powerful testimony I've heard in six years of sitting in this chair. Anybody have any questions for the Superintendent? The Senator Fonfara followed by Representative Boucher.

SEN. FONFARA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would echo your comments and welcome.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Thank you.

SEN. FONFARA: You certainly, whether it be your family plus tied to your own inner drive. You are certainly -- Bridgeport it sounds from here anyway that it is very lucky to have you as it's leader.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Gracias.

SEN. FONFARA: I would -- de nada. I would wonder if you make a distinction between a good bilingual program and a not so good bilingual program?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Absolutely. I think it's important also to understand that we cannot impose artificial deadlines on students. We are sensitive -- Howard Gartner has written about multiple intelligences. We talk incessantly about the fact that teachers are now being very sensitive to the different learning styles and also we're sensitive to the teaching styles that work with particular populations or that don't work.

We certainly look at the whole language movement, knowing that it doesn't work well for a lot of Latino students. We've gone back to phonetics. We've done a melange of both but we do have to look very carefully at the fact that in bilingual programs the assessment piece is critical and it's not an artificial test imposed by the state.

It's not a high stakes test where students are not prepared because they don't have the particular skills or language -- prepared to take those mastery tests. But it's more about making sure that the teacher is in tune with the curriculum that there are alignments there.

That there is a real strong nexus between what is being taught, what is being assessed, what is being tested and that there's constant monitoring of student progress. The best bilingual teachers are those who are fluent equally in both languages. We can't always guarantee that, but the piece that comes along with this, that can guarantee this or can certainly assure more validity, is having professional development that is ongoing.

It's one of the pieces that I'm bringing before my district. It's one of the reasons why I've asked for an increased budget. There has to be a focus on continuous professional development and it has to be not only on teaching methodologies but it has to be on content, and bilingual teachers must be part of this but there has to be a strong program and a strong plan in place within the district, not just in terms of long-range acquisition of language skills, but also a short-range programs that truly put in place good assessments of children's progress.

SEN. FONFARA: Thank you. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, it seems to be that there is always a perceived friction when this Committee begins to look at issues related to bilingual education as it has in the last two or three years, and tried very sincerely, in my opinion, to reform the program. Not abolish the program.

There may be some in this building who would want to do that, but they're thankfully, in the minority. Substantially so. But, the vast majority of people on this Committee want to reform bilingual and have taken steps to do that in the last few years in a manner that would achieve or help achieve the results that you've spoken about and others have spoken about, today, in terms of lessening -- shrinking the gap between Latino students and non-Latino students in terms of educational achievement and so, it becomes more difficult to work on these things if there is a sense that any efforts to reform bilingual education is seen as efforts to abolish bilingual education.

And I think your testimony today gives

this Committee an ability to use that information towards how to massage this and not have people believe that that effort is ultimately one that would threaten the program.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I appreciate those comments and I would exhort the Committee to exercise tremendous largess in terms of thinking about how you modify bilingual programs. I also would like to reference the comments of the student who was sitting here just before I came to this seat, with respect to the question about where he was born and when he was in bilingual education.

It is a significant piece of our children's background that they go back and forth, especially the students from Puerto Rico. This phenomenon is called the "vie ven". They go, they come back, they go, they come back. And I experienced that myself, having attended first, third, and fifth grades in Puerto Rico.

In Puerto Rico as in many other Spanish-speaking and Latin American countries, English is part of the curriculum, more so in Puerto Rico because of the whole colonial history that we have. But, you must understand that it is not -- it is a conversational English that is taught and often times the impression isn't as great as we would like it to be.

So, that when students come here in spite of the fact that they've had some exposure to English, it isn't enough for them to feel comfortable and recently as of last Thursday, I met with a young boy in the fourth grade who was experiencing severe trauma. Even within a bilingual classroom because of the fear of expectation.

He has straight A's in Puerto Rico. He is so afraid he is not going to be able to meet the expectations here, that it created all kinds of physical traumas for him, so if you would keep in mind all of the small stories that have come before you today, certainly the eloquence of Lydia Martinez and the poignant stories that all our students bring, that if you would remember that as you make decisions.

SEN. FONFARA: Your professional opinion and both in terms of both your personal experience, educationally as well as in your profession, today, do you believe that we could do better by having stronger relationships with the island in terms of education? So that students aren't facing this trauma that you speak about where -- there -- because there is such of a back and forth and there are various reasons for that.

That's -- that should not be taken as criticism, but the fact that children are exposed to two different educational systems. And when I hear that some are doing so well on the island but then come here and are suffering, there needs to -- it seems to me there'd be better relationships to try to address that particular problem.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I think the Senator has a superb recommendation and I know that in the past there have been some programs that tried to link up the education between the island of Puerto Rico and the United States and I think that we have to do a better job of that.

Particularly in the urban sectors where we have so many students who are -- whose stay here is transitory, and who have such a high mobility rate. I think that if we had some kind of measure, some kind of system set up where we had a transitional program, not in the sense of transitional bilingual education, but some kind of program that really addressed all of the elements that these students have to experience as they go back and forth because many times we cannot control the parents.

They go back and forth for lots of different reasons and we cannot impose any kind of sanctions or penalties on that, but if we have the systems here, and we have the connectiveness and the connections to the island and the other places where children keep coming back and forth from, then I think perhaps we will have more knowledge and more information that should feed the programs that we set up here. I will gladly volunteer for that kind of committee.

SEN. FONFARA: Thank you, Madam Superintendent.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Thank you very much for your time and attention.

SEN. GAFFEY: Representative Boucher followed by Representative Kerensky followed by Representative Beals.

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also would love to congratulate you for an outstanding presentation to us and you're extremely articulate and I have to say that we share a lot in common, having started in the same way and I also being a student that was traumatized and spoke no English for a number of years where there were no bilingual or SEL for that matter.

There was no support and I found from my own personal experience that just the near immersion, as painful as it was, took about three years for me to acquire enough of the language to be able to be more successful in school. Especially when you don't have parental environment where they're very well educated or they know the language, either.

So, it is, no question, an issue that's of great personal concern to me and is why that I served on the Committee to look at bilingual education for the state of Connecticut. I might add that I went on, not that Spanish is my native language, but I went on to study Spanish and have taught it, as well. And have been an interpreter many, many, too many years ago.

So, you can say that I have a very deep interest in this issue. When I listened to the children that were before us that were absolutely wonderful, wonderful students that should be congratulated and I suspect they're going to be very successful in the future, it seemed to me that most of them seemed to be between three years, six months, to even a year in a bilingual program.

And when we looked at the research on this, we saw that the majority of students tended to graduate out of the program more success from the program after three years. And also in what you've spoken to us about and maybe others as well, I haven't yet heard real substantive criticism of the new reforms we tried to put in place to actually elevate the entire profession of bilingual and the instruction of bilingual and make it be something that we can be proud of and would lack the kind of criticism.

Because, in fact, we've had this in place since the 1970's and all we've been hearing are negative comments in results and statistics have shown that, as well. So, there was a great deal of earnest work involved in trying to create a better system that you could all be proud to be a member of.

So, could you be a little bit more specific, besides the fact that you don't want a time limit at all, as to what components of these reforms that we've established that bother you or you think are very detrimental to the bilingual program?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: In particular, putting a time putting a time limit of thirty months where it's not consecutive. I feel very strongly that if a child has interrupted service in bilingual education, there's a very strong chance that that child may loose a lot of the skills, may not be able to pick up exactly where he or she was while enrolled in the bilingual program.

I think there has to be sensitively that piece. I think it's critical that you look at that certification piece of teachers. I think that we do need a little bit of latitude. We a number of hard to fill areas and we're experiencing severe difficulty in attracting teachers to some of the urban areas.

In Bridgeport, in particular, there is a disparity within the salary scale and we're trying to attract teachers who are certified, but often times, it's much more difficult and there has to be some flexibility with respect to the state certification program. Those two areas in particular, I think, are two that I think do have a significant impact.

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. GAFFEY: (mike off)

REP. KERENSKY: Thank you. Let me ask you a question. First of all, I want to thank you for your eloquent testimony. You certainly are a wonderful spokesperson for bilingual education. And so, I would like to ask you some questions reflecting back on your role as Superintendent. Can you, just to help me put it in perspective, tell me how many bilingual students you have and what your school population is?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Our school population is currently 22,500 students, approximately. And if you divide -- if you look at the district in terms of demographics, approximately 50 percent of our students speak a language other than English at home. We have students who speak more than 65 languages within the district, but about 10 percent of our students are enrolled in the bilingual programs and early language programs, -- English language programs.

REP. KERENSKY: Okay, so about how many -- ball park, about how many bilingual teachers do you have in your system?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Well, we have approximately 1,480 teachers and if you take the population which is about 10 percent, and you divide that, I would say about 150 bilingual teachers.

REP. KERENSKY: One of the concerns in the past has been that necessitated or that at least prompted the long discussions and the ultimate reform in the law in '99, had to do with English competence of the teachers. The philosophy being that if the teachers are not fluent, then they can't really perform the excellent dual language function to which you've referred as being a highly successful technique. Do you know off the top of your head just some general number about how many of those 115 students have limited --

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: 150 teachers.

REP. KERENSKY: 150 -- I'm sorry -- 115 teachers have limited English proficiency?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Well, I have visited all of the schools in the district and I go around to schools quite often and I have not met anyone who is not proficient in English. There are varying degrees of proficiency and ability to speak in English, but when we hire teachers, we do an intensive interview and there are criteria that they have to meet, so I would say that the majority of our teachers are very proficient in two languages.

Depending on, in some cases, stronger in one than the other, but we do have quite a number of bilingual teachers, very committed, but again, I would urge the Committee and the State to look at additional funds for professional development because part of the key to successful programs is on-going, intense growth and you can't do this, you become stagnant if you don't continue to grow and part of the philosophy that we have, not in just bilingual education but in the district as a general philosophy, is that we're life-long learners and we all continue to learn.

I urge my principals, I urge my administrators to learn new words everyday, to use them in context, to write them down, the same thing that we tell students who are in third, fourth, and fifth grades. It's about continuous learning and it's about not ever sitting back and being complacent about what you know or what you don't know.

And it has to do with the resilience that we all have within ourselves also and the fact that we want to push ourselves, but we try to do this within the district.

I want to refer also again to the dual language programs because as you asked me about teachers who are proficient or not proficient or not strong in English, that the criteria for a successful dual language program are not just that you have, pretty much, a 50-50 student population where one -- half of the student population is fluent in English and half is fluent in the native language and their both going to learn each other's languages, but that there is a real sense of equal value distributed to both segments of the population.

That teachers be fluent in both languages as much as possible and that there be a real commitment to creating an environment that really, truly is bicultural and biliterate. So, that certainly includes the whole notion of teachers being biliterate and bicultural and bilingual, also. And that is the philosophy that I would espouse and that I would promote.

REP. KERENSKY: So, are you -- are all of your bilingual classes dual language?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: No, they're not. They're not. We are in the process of implementing a dual language at Howe school for next year. They will go into the first phase of the planning. They will take a year to plan the program because there are so many different elements that have to be in place. It has to be well thought out and the staff has to be trained, etcetera. But, what we have is many bilingual programs and we have many students enrolled in ESL where we don't have a concentration of 20 students in the same language, then we provide intensive English as a second language.

REP. KERENSKY: Okay. Thank you. Now, that actually leads directly into my last question and that has to do with your ESL program. Do you know about how many ESL teachers you have?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I don't, but Yvette Defayo is here and she can tell me. 20. We have 20 ESL teachers.

REP. KERENSKY: Oh, okay. Have those -- what kind of an assessment would you place on the ESL program as presently constituted in the state?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I apologize. I did not hear the last part of your question.

REP. KERENSKY: I'm sorry. The ESL program as presently practiced in Connecticut -- how would you assess that in terms of its success for your system?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I think where you don't have the numbers of students and enough to form a bilingual class, ESL is certainly the second option. It's not the preferable option, but I think that what it does is provide us with the kind of support for students who can't be involved in native language class and we try to do a number of -- implement a number of methodologies, use a number of different pedagogile approaches.

One of them being the Sheltered English which tends to work more with students, particularly at a higher level and so, while it's not the optimal opportunity for students, I think that it certainly meets, to some extent, the needs of our students.

REP. KERENSKY: Okay, thank you very much and I would like to call on Representative Beals.

REP. BEALS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Do you know about how many of your students would be in a bilingual program for 30 consecutive months?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I'm sorry, I don't have that information. Could you repeat that question?

REP. BEALS: You mentioned that a great many of them go back and forth a lot, so --

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Right. Sometimes those numbers are hard to keep track of. We have a very high mobility rate in Bridgeport as we experience in many of the urban sectors, particularly New York and Boston where you have the larger Puerto Rican populations.

I think that more than anything, it's a lot easier for students from Puerto Rico because of our citizenship status to go back and forth more readily than other students. It's a lot more difficult when children have to get visas, etcetera.

But the majority of our Latino students are from Puerto Rico and at any given moment, we can't predict whether or not they would leave the district or not. Or, even move to a different city and then come back.

REP. BEALS: But would you say that perhaps a majority of your bilingual students wouldn't be in the program for 30 consecutive months?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I would say that one third to one half of our students would experience this, if not a greater number. I'm being very conservative.

REP. BEALS: So, for those students, it would essentially be no limit to the amount of time they could spend in the program under this legislation.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: They would certainly have that option of the 30 consecutive months, but I think it's based on the level of accountability of a district and a school to gauge the amount of English that a child has. That's why these entrance exams are so critical. That's why it's so important to assess the child when he or she is in the program or when he or she enters the program. So, that we have a real clear sense of where that child is in terms of language ability.

REP. BEALS: And can you tell me how it would help a child not to count kindergarten in that 30 months?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Well, the kindergarten experience is very critical in many ways, but more than anything, in terms of the social development of a child and to increase that pressure on a child with the language acquisition abilities, I think is really compounding the issue.

I think that the whole notion of readiness is critical to a child's success and for that child to be able to develop different kinds of skills, different cognitive skills, among those the language skills.

But, I think to put that tremendous pressure in terms of language acquisition would be really to exacerbate the kindergarten experience and in turn, it might become a contradictory experience or it might be one that is not as beneficial to a child as it could otherwise, be.

REP. BEALS: But isn't language acquisition something that young children do extremely well? As opposed to adolescents, for example.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Well, they do but studies have shown that a child at any rate will learn a different language in some ways and many of the same ways. One of the other things that I think is critical here, is that we certainly have large numbers of family who are very poor. Families who are single parent members of families who move around a lot, as I indicated before.

So, that it isn't just one particular area. We're looking at a whole series of social conditions that really have an impact on the way a child learns and I think that in reference to a lot of the research that I've done with students who have succeeded, some of that success comes as a result of personal resilience.

That, in spite of the odds, in spite of the adversity, these children are succeeding. But, if we can create classes and schools that are nurturing, that really are supportive, that understand how children learn, that understand the different developmental stages, that we can create a nation of learners and we can really change the arena and how children learn and the level of success that children experience.

REP. BEALS: Now, as you've pointed out, children who come from countries where there aren't 20 or more of the same language group, ESL is all they get, is there any good reason that ESL could not serve as support and transitional services for children who come to the end of 30 months and also those who enter high school with less than 30 months?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I think that it's very critical to assess where a child is at the end of 30 months to make sure that that child has sufficient knowledge in English so that he or she is not going to fail in a mainstream class.

I think that when you look at high school students who come here, whether it's with 30 months or less, before graduation, I think that we need to think about rigor and academic courses. I think we need to think about high level courses, advanced placement courses, and it would be unfair, just as it would be unfair to ask any of you to go take a calculus course in French or Hebrew or Greek and expect you to succeed without any kind of support.

There is very specific terminology. There's a lexicon that's learned within different disciplines. And it's significant for us to be able to understand that these students deserve to learn at a high level and that if you have them in an ESL class, it's going to be very superficial.

It's not going to be a richer experience for them and very often the experience doesn't engage them enough to keep them in school. So, I think that you have to look at a lot of different factors of how children learn. How adolescents succeed. How you set up high schools that work for children.

REP. BEALS: Because Section Two of this -- of the HB 6889, does in fact, allow school districts to have a dual language or ESL program in lieu of a bilingual program -- it's my understanding, so I was interested in that. I don't know whether you support every single provision of this bill, but I wondered -- there's one where it removes English language immersion as an option for parents. Are you in favor of that? And if so, why?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: I would say that again, English Immersion is a very traumatic experience for students. It's certainly was for me when I came and for many of the students whom I have interviewed, whom I have surveyed. They have indicted to me that for those students who had to go through an English immersion, it was very traumatic.

That for them to have had the opportunity of a bilingual class where they were known and valued, where their language and culture and the way that they learn in their particular countries is understood, would have been a more beneficial experience.

REP. BEALS: Finally, just a question to see how well we're doing on getting the word out. Were you aware that there was an alternate route to certification in bilingual education programs offered last summer by the Department? By the State?

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Yes, I am aware and I am aware of the alternative routes of certification in other areas and I think it's wonderful. I think it's remarkable that you have given our educational opportunities to individuals with a not traditional background and I think it's great and I think that we need to pursue these kinds of alternative routes to certification.

REP. BEALS: And I trust you're also aware that it's being offered again this summer.

SONIA DIAZ SALEDO: Yes.

REP. BEALS: Despite the fact that nobody came last summer, so they couldn't do it.

SONIA DIAZ SALENDO: Well, we're --

REP. BEALS: Yeah, okay, thank you.

SONIA DIAZ SALENDO: I think just one comment in terms of also high stakes tests. I just want to make sure that my opinion is recorded in terms of exit tests and I think we've looked at high stakes test in different states and it's really critical for us not to look at a high stakes test here because students have enough to deal with right now. We have tremendous anxiety at the high school level. Our dropout rate is pretty significant especially if you look at the cohorts and I think that a high stakes test would really discourage students from staying in school.

REP. STAPLES: Any more questions? Thank you very much, Superintendent.

SONIA DIAZ SALENDO: Thank you so much for this opportunity.

REP. STAPLES: We'll have one more student panel at this time and then we'll return to the list and take people in order. The student panel -- we have some students, I understand from Bulkeley who have to leave shortly, so there's been a request to have them come up and that panel -- oh, and one from Hartford Public High School.

Let me see, Joselin, Marvin, Yessia, Alma and Thao. Did I get that? I hope I did that right. If you could all come up and one of you sit at the desk here, and you can go first. Thank you. Make sure that you mention your name and what grade you're in and go right ahead.

ALMA SAHMID: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Alma and I'm attending the Bulkeley High. I'm a senior. I come from Bosnia, but I used to live in Germany. I have been here for the past two years. The bilingual program has helped me a lot with my English. The teachers are very helpful and give each student individual attention. My English is very good now and for that I have to thank the bilingual program and their teachers.

There are many students arriving without any English skills that will benefit from the program. If they would be allowed to follow the path that I did in the bilingual program, if I would not have the opportunity to enter into the bilingual program, I would not be here giving this speech in English.

And I also want to mention that we have in the bilingual program, a Bosnian teacher and if you need any help we can turn up to her and ask her for any help, she will help us. I want to thank you for listening to me.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. I know everyone likes to clap and I want to encourage you to be supportive, but we don't permit clapping or outbursts in our hearings. We find it makes things move more quickly, so please refrain from doing that. Thank you.

JOSELIN CASTRO: Good evening. I'm Joselin Castro, representing Bulkeley High School and I believe that learning a foreign language is always hard but not impossible. It is tough when trying to learn a new language if the explanation is not in your own.

That is why I disagree with the idea of eliminating the bilingual program. I think that learning a second language is a -- a second language is extremely important in order to succeed in this or any other country. That's why, in my opinion, people who are newly arrived from other countries should have the right to learn English starting from the beginning.

If you eliminate the bilingual program, these are some of the things that could have a negative impact on other students. One, it will be harder and it will take longer for students that are just starting. Number two. This will bring down the student's academic level, their goals and their dreams due to their fear of failing. Third, the hopes and dreams of others coming here will be destroyed because they will not have any support.

The bilingual program has given me the privilege of understanding and learning one of the most important languages in the entire world. Thanks to the bilingual program, I have the ability to communicate in this new language. Now, you believe in us.

I know you believe in us and want only the best for us. Please hear our voices because we are the future. Your future. We will be the professionals that will help this country to go on. I trust that you won't let us down. Finally, I would end by giving you the definition of bilingual. Bilingual means two languages. Thank you. Any questions?

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Next person?

(Gap in testimony changing from tape 2b to 3a)

YESSICA AMPARO: Good afternoon. My name is Yessica Amparo. I come from Dominican Republic. I am a senior from Hartford Public High School and I represent bilingual programs and I'm going to say something like this.

My name is Yessica Amparo, how I'll tell you. I am concerned about several proposed bilingual education bills. I am here on behalf of bilingual in Hartford Public High School -- (gap in tape) -- option of providing either bilingual education or dual language program. Dual language program are provided for all students. A student had different level of ability.

Secondly, SB 292, AN ACT CONCERNING REQUIREMENT FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS. It's unfair (indiscernible) for bilingual education will violence to the right of (indiscernible). We deserve appropriate and equal education.

My next concern is the HB 6751 AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TESTS EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED ENGLISH-PROFICIENT STUDENTS, lowering the (indiscernible) from 30 to 10 months is not enough. It's for us to prepare for the CNT and CAPT test. We need time to process all the skills.

HB 6889, AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION would allow (indiscernible) to choose English as a second language or dual language program (indiscernible) comprehensive bilingual education program. ESL is only one concern of comprehensive bilingual education program. ESL is only one concern of an effective bilingual program and dual language program should be used for enrichment.

Bilingual students also oppose the language in section 4A suggest district may hire of certain teachers. We should be provide the same quality education as now student -- as other student. We need a teacher who has revised a specific training in language development and bilingual education. We need additional resource increase funding and quality teacher.

The effort to chain the bilingual mandate deny us a right to equal and appropriate education for limit English professing a student. Personally, it's not -- to learn a second language is not easy. For example, with the country when I come from, my first language is Spanish and that is too difficult for me because I never learn English in my country and that is very, very difficult. If you keep the bilingual program, it's going to be more difficult especially -- I'm a senior and we're more proud to know the skill to learn another language. If anybody have a question?

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. I don't think we have any questions. Thank you. Next student, please?

MARVIN SOTO: (Spanish is spoken). Good morning to everybody. My name is Marvin Soto. I came to Hartford from Nicaragua two years ago and I spoke no English at all. I was excited and I was scared because I didn't know the language. When I started high school, I was really scared. It was a new experience for me. The first day, I went to the ESL class and I didn't know what to expect. Thank God, everyone was friendly and I heard a familiar language.

My next year of high school was spectacular. I started to play tennis for the school and I met several great teachers. Some of the teachers in this program are Miss Glider, Mr. Caro and Mrs. Ramos. Miss Glider has inspired me to keep going. These teachers not only taught me English, but also about life. They are all a great inspiration to me. I would not have learned if it weren't for the program and for them.

I have just started mainstream classes two weeks ago. This in itself is amazing. This would not have been possible if it weren't for the bilingual program. The bilingual program is very important and helpful. It has helped me a lot and it will help all the others who come from different countries. Thank you to Bulkeley High School and the bilingual program. That's it.

REP. STAPES: Thank you very much. Okay, next?

THAO MIN TRAN: (Spanish is spoken) Good evening, everybody. I'm here to represent Bulkeley High School Bilingual Program Education works. My name is Thao Min Tran. I'm here to represent all the English as Second Language students. When I first came here I didn't know any word of English. I went to South Middle school for two weeks then they moved me to Burr School for three weeks. Then they moved me to Bulkeley High School. At Buckeley High School my teacher taught me a lot. Mrs. Starks, Miss Glider and Miss Hazel and Mr. Caro also teach me in the bilingual program. They are my favorite teacher and they help me a lot. Today I know English because of all the teacher in the bilingual program at Buckeley. I am very happy to be in bilingual program. The bilingual program has changed my life in many ways for the better. Because of this program I can read, write and speak English with my friends. I will never forget all the teacher that have taught me for many years. Please keep the bilingual program for new student who want the same opportunity to learn like me. Thank youth. Thao, Buckeley High School.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions for any of the students? Thank you very much for coming. Okay, we'll have Jacqueline Jacoby followed by Leona Ambrosini. And I want to thank some of the professionals who have been here for awhile who are very high on the sign up list because we moved past you with students repeatedly, and I appreciate your --

JACQUELINE JACOBY: Well, if you're going to be displaced, there's no one better to be displaced by then these wonderful young people. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jackie Jacoby, I'm Superintendent of Schools in Glastonbury and I'm here representing both Glastonbury and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents.

I'd like to speak today about HB 6811, AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TESTING EXEMPTION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS FOR NO NEXUS CHILDREN.

Now, this past fall, Connecticut did implement the new guidelines for all special ed students in grades four, six and eight to participate in the standard administration of the CMT or to take an alternate assessment.

I have served as an administrator and now superintendent in Glastonbury schools for the last 20 years and I'm pleased to say that Glastonbury and other communities were early participants in the special education inclusion process. We maintain our commitment to this initiative because we believe it is in the best interest of our students.

However, some of the language changes in this bill related to the Mastery Test, seem not to strengthen our commitment to special needs students, but in fact, may diminish it. The language changes, although minor, could have major implications. The language proposes that only under exceptional circumstances can a Planning and Placement Team exempt a student from the Mastery Testing and then provide an alternate assessment.

We suggest that we maintain the language that is in the bill and that the preponderance of the responsibility be left to the PPT to be the decision makers, not the language of the legislation.

The staff, and certainly parents who are part of that PPT process are much more knowledgeable about the student and should make that decision without the added burden imposed by the more restrictive language of the proposed bill.

Therefore, we urge you to maintain the language of the original bill. The second piece of this piece of legislation, the second change to the bill is of uppermost importance to all school districts in Connecticut.

It relates to no nexus children and the state assuming responsibility for the costs of special education and related services for youngsters -- no nexus youngsters placed in a school district by a state agency or the courts.

It has been our experience that more than half of the students placed in foster homes are students that require special services. There are several communities where foster placements occur in a disproportionate number and therefore the financial burden is unfairly distributed.

We have learned that even in the case of students who are placed in a foster home with nexus, in a few months, parent rights are often terminated and then the youngster becomes the school's financial responsibility.

Now, we are requesting you support the language changes in this bill so that all no nexus students who require special education have that special education paid for by the state in order to relieve the financial burden on school districts.

School district staff are pleased to be able to provide service for these students, but it has become an unfair and an inequitable financial burden for some communities. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on these two issues. I would be happy to respond to any questions.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? I'm sorry. Yes, Representative Blackwell.

REP. BLACKWELL: Just a quick question. Does the PPT have to document when it is inappropriate to test the student?

JACQUELINE JACOBY: Yes, so there is written documentation.

REP. BLACKWELL: (mike off)

JACQUELINE JACOBY: It can be. I believe that what is sent to the state are simply the number of students by name who are exempt, but that information could be provided if it were asked for, but it isn't a process of people just opting to have children opt out. It is a process that is a part of a PPT.

REP. BLACKWELL: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAPLES: Representative Herlihy.

REP. HERLIHY: Dr. Jacoby, thanks for testifying. How are you?

JACQUELINE JACOBY: I'm well, thanks.

REP. HERLIHY: Are you wearing your Glastonbury hat or are you representing another group? I missed the beginning of your testimony.

JACQUELINE JACOBY: I'm -- actually, I'm representing CAPS.

REP. HERLIHY: CAPS? Okay. Can I use Glastonbury as an example, because I know you'd be familiar with their -- what percentage of special ed kids are relieved from the CMT's? Do you know, offhand?

JACQUELINE JACOBY: It's a very small percentage of students that are exempt.

REP. HERLIHY: So, this is not an issue or a problem in your particular community --

JACQUELINE JACOBY: It is not.

REP. HERLIHY: -- you're speaking on a broader scale. Now, right, wrong or indifferent, you know that many school districts in terms of performance are measured by the CMT result. Do you find it unequitable to have an extremely small percentage of special ed students exempted in communities like Glastonbury? Whereas, as many as 20 percent of the students can be exempted in other communities because perhaps the standards for exemptions are not standardized from community to community, from school district to school district?

JACQUELINE JACOBY: I guess that I would suggest that we ought to work on that standardization. I'm not really troubled, quite frankly, when a town has a much larger exemption rate than we do. There are generally good reasons for that but I would work at trying to standardize the procedure as opposed to eliminating the exemption.

REP. HERLIHY: Would this be an effort to perhaps do that and hold them to a higher standard in that they must meet a -- and I'm not sure how we would define exceptional circumstances, but if we could somehow get a handle on that, wouldn't this be an effort to do that?

JACQUELINE JACOBY: I'm not sure that it would be. I think that there is an effort and I read the Commissioner's testimony. I was not here earlier in the morning, but I know that the Commissioner's Office is looking at providing a different kind of language for this particular bill and I would expect that they may, in fact, want to speak about some criteria that would be used.

REP. HERLIHY: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any more questions? Thank you for your testimony.

JACQUELINE JACOBY: Thank you very much.

REP. STAPLES: Leona Ambrosini.

LEONA AMBROSINI: Representative Staples, and members of the Educational Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. My name is Leona Ambrosini. I'm a supervisor special ed and I've been a supervisor for 14 years. I'm also Chairperson of the Urban Affairs Committee for ConnCase.

I'm here to support your HB 5820 AN ACT CONCERNING CHILDREN PLACED IN ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION PROGRAMS. In response to legislation passed by the General Assembly in 1995, the Office of Alternative Sanctions began to establish programs for juveniles placed by the Superior Court Juvenile Matters.

These alternative programs serve a population that includes both male and female, generally between the ages of 10 and 16. (Indiscernible) in which the parent resides is required to pay the educational cost for the regular and special education students placed in alternative to incarceration programs.

Previously, the student was in Long Lane, the state paid for that student's educational cost. In placing a student in an alternative to incarceration program, the state is choosing not to place the student in the public school system or incarceration system, but the state is not bearing the financial responsibility for that choice.

For example, New Haven public schools spends $641,986.00 while Bridgeport spent $347,648.00 in fiscal year '99-2000 for the educational costs alone for these alternative programs. New Haven is a center for three of these programs.

They are the Oasis, Host, and Just programs, and Commissioner Sergy circular letter of November 3rd, 1997, he states, quote, "in each situation, these placements are state agency placements and all the rules regarding such placements are applicable here. However, most of these placements are short-term and never exceed the per-pupil cost to be eligible for excess cost grant type two, or excess cost grant type four."

Now, why this is important, excess cost grant type two is for those students placed that are special education placed. The excess cost in New Haven -- the per-pupil cost in New Haven is $10,053.00. So, for special education student placed that placement would have to exceed that cost.

Regular education students would be grant type four. In grant type four, you only get reimbursed if the student is residentially placed. The only residential program for these alternative incarceration programs is the Just Program. So, there's no reimbursement for the student for regular ed, for the Host and the Oasis Program.

In New Haven, a student would have to stay 94 days before we would be eligible for any type of excess cost. In March of 2000, New Haven had approximately 60 students placed in alternative to incarceration programs. Out of those placements, 47 students were placed after February 1st. Six students were placed after January 1st.

These students are not eligible for any reimbursement because the last date for submission for excess cost is February 1st of each year. There's two submissions for excess cost. One is December 1st and the next one is February 1st. So, any student placed after February 1st, we would not be able to have any reimbursement for.

HB 5820 addresses the seriousness of costly problems of unfanned (phonetic) mandates. I ask that you support this bill in it's entirety. Do you have any questions?

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any questions? No. Thank you very much. Sue Weiselburg followed by Phil Apruzzese with CEA.

SUE WEISELBURG: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Susan Weiselburg. I am School Construction Program Coordinator for New Haven Public Schools and with me is Tom Ruesher who is School Construction Program Director. We're here to talk to you this afternoon about the facilities that feed the students that helps provide them with a better education.

To testify in favor of HB 5172, AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR CENTRAL KITCHEN FACILITIES AND SATELLITE KITCHEN FACILITIES. New Haven has an active school construction program. Out of our 43 schools, 20 are approved projects by the state and are in design, construction completion or planning close to design.

We have another 23 projects to go and that is phase two of our updated school facilities plan and we will be filing for those projects over the next few years. Part of what we are doing with our school construction program is constructing a central kitchen facility as a result of recommendations by a national food service consulting company that we cook food for the students in a cook, chill fashion and then send it out to each receiving school which then warms it up and otherwise cooks it and serves it to students.

We are in the process of constructing that central kitchen facility but part of getting the better food to the students is upgrading the kitchens at the receiving schools. We are already doing that at the schools that are in phase one of our school construction program, the first 20 schools.

Of the remaining 23, there are 17 we have identified where we would like to perform those satellite kitchen renovations, all of them minor projects under a million dollars each. We will be applying to the state for those renovations but under current state law, each satellite kitchen renovation, although it is part of one implementation plan for our central kitchen, would be a separate project.

And it seems to us that it is a better use of our resources and the state's resources, to make it one project and that is essentially what the legislation before you does. It lets the minor renovation work at the satellite kitchens be considered one project to implement the central kitchen plan so that we can bring better food to the kids in a more timely fashion.

We have reviewed this legislation with the State Department of Education and they are not in opposition to it. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: No green hotdogs, right?

SUSAN WEISELBURG: Certainly, that's our goal.

REP. STAPLES: It sounds like a reasonable proposal. Any -- yes? Representative Beals.

REP. BEALS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have you talked to anyone in Hamden about this? The reason I ask is that we at one time had a central kitchen and then became very unhappy with it and spent a lot of money putting kitchens into schools and upgrading kitchens so that they could each do their own. So, just so you can avoid some of the pitfalls of another town, --

SUSAN WEISELBURG: We currently have production kitchens where we cook food at a couple of our schools and send it out and all of our kitchens need to be improved regardless. Many of them are in aging buildings and have inadequate equipment and ventilation, no matter what. But I would like to let Tom answer that a little bit further about how, perhaps, this kitchen may be different than what Hamden did have.

TOM RUESHER: Yes, I'm Tom Ruesher. As Sue mentioned, I'm the Program Director for the school construction program. I think what's happened in recent years is the cook chill process has allowed the central kitchen facilities to improve the quality of the food. I think most of the central kitchen facilities that may have been built -- you know, say 10 or 15 years ago, were all attempting to go in the direction that, for instance, New Haven currently -- how New Haven currently operates where food is cooked in the central location. It's then prepackaged and you try to race the food out on a daily basis and so you end up in a problem with not only the logistics of the operation but just the overall quality of the food as it's delivered and the way it's presented is really substandard. So, I think the -- what's changed since probably Hamden tried their experiment was the cook chill process where the food is actually cooked in a large pan to speak, and then it's quickly chilled. You put it in a freezer and then you deliver the food whenever you want. You don't have to run it out to the school on a daily basis and then when the food is stored at the school, again, stored in a chilled fashion and then it's what they call "rethermolized" in the same pan. So, the food is actually served to the children in the same pan that it's cooked and it's a much higher quality process. It may not sound appetizing, but in fact, --

REP. STAPLES: And that term "rethermolized" really got my mouth watering. I don't know about you.

TOM RUESHER: In fact it's much better than the way it's currently done.

REP. STAPLES: I'm sure it is.

TOM RUESHER: Take my word for it.

REP. STAPLES: Any other questions? Yes, Representative Kerensky.

REP. KERENSKY: Good afternoon. I was going to ask you a question about higher quality food, but I want to thank you for adding to our vocabulary now that we know what "rethermolized" is. I do still have a question about higher quality food. How would the food that you serve change as a result of it being rethermolized? What do you mean by better quality food?

TOM RUESHER: Well, I should have used the word "rewarmed". It's only warmed. Rethermolized is the lingo that's used in the food service processes. But, the food is just rewarmed. It's been cooked. It's been prepared and it's been frozen and all you're doing is warming it up consistent with the process that doesn't change the quality or -- you know, or cook the food. Basically, it's been cooked. All you're doing is really defrosting it and warming it up.

REP. KERENSKY: No, I understand that but I just wonder what the difference in the quality compared to what you're offering currently, is.

TOM RUESHER: Oh, the quality of the food you're able to serve is much higher. You can do things that you can't do under the current process. You can't cook the type of meals under the current process and package it and then ship it out.

You basically end up with a prepackaged type of menu today, that's what we're serving and it very severely limits the kinds of things you can serve and still -- you know, have a healthful type of meal. Whereas, in the central kitchen process, you're -- the number of options that are available to you are much wider.

REP. KERENSKY: I really have some specific questions about the quality of food is what I'm asking about, not really the process because I've had some people talk to me about participation in the lunch programs and one of the issues they mentioned was quality food and the other was the tendency apparently for school lunch programs to supplement the high quality food with available junk food and junk drinks. So, --

TOM REUSHER: Yes, I think that's part of the problem today in that the selection of what can be prepared at for instance, our central facility is so limited, that when it comes out to the school, in fact, you know it's not only the selection but also the way in which it's served.

It's basically, you know, you can't see what you're buying the way it's packaged and the -- so what happens is the children don't buy that and they buy the junk food options that are made available to the children. So, the participation in the prepared food is low and what it tends to do is exactly the thing that you're talking about.

It tends to push kids towards taking more junk food type options so the idea of this program is to make the quality of the food that's presented. It's to make the way in which it's served much better than it is now.

The serveries in most of these schools are totally inadequate and violate a number of health provisions, just to the way in which the food is stored and the ventilation requirements. So the idea is to up the quality, up the participation in good, healthful, nutritious menus.

REP. KERENSKY: Okay, thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Senator Herlihy, you have a question?

SEN. HERLIHY: A couple of quick questions, financial. Aggregate. What's the total cost after all is said and done?

TOM REUSHER: All is said and done, it's probably $15 million total for the central kitchen and all the changes to the various kitchen facilities.

SEN. HERLIHY: And New Haven's reimbursement rate is?

TOM REUSHER: 80 percent.

SEN. HERLIHY: 80 percent of that?

TOM REUSHER: Yes.

SEN. HERLIHY: And is this an experimental process or are there dozens of school districts in the state that have gone this way and swear by the upgrade?

TOM REUSHER: In the state the only other district who is using a central kitchen facility is Bridgeport and I understand they actually --

SUSAN WEISELBURG: Their's is prepacked.

TOM REUSHER: -- yeah, there is a prepackaged arrangement. This will be the first cook chill central kitchen in Connecticut. There are central kitchen operations that use cook chill throughout the country, so this is not experimental in terms of a nationwide process and in many large multi-facility operations, I mean, cook chill is not a new process. It's been around for 10 years or so and the application in a central kitchen environment is something that's well proven.

SEN. HERLIHY: But there aren't any operating in Connecticut. Bridgeport's is similar, but not quite the same?

TOM RUESHER: That's correct.

SEN. HERLIHY: Okay. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: More questions? No. Thank you very much.

SUSAN WEISELBURG: Thank you. Come for lunch in about a year.

REP. STAPLES: (mike off)

PHIL APRUZZESE: Good afternoon, Representative Staples and members of the Education Committee. I'm Phil Apruzzese the Vice-President of the Connecticut Education Association. You have my testimony in its entirety, but to be brief I will only comment on four of the items that are in it. CEA supports changes to bilingual education proposed in HB 6889.

This measure would help fill positions in a shortage area while improving the quality of bilingual programs. We oppose the elimination of the bilingual mandate raised in SB 292. As an organization, we support bilingual programs in every school district when appropriate.

CEA opposes HB 1175, changing the academic year in which the students take the CAPT test. Currently, it allows students the opportunity to retake sections they many not master the first time. Change from the sophomore year to the junior year will eliminate that option.

CEA also opposes HB 5257 establishing a high school exit examination. Most people outside the classroom do not understand the test should be used as diagnostic tools. Using the tests to determine student graduation diminishes them as tools to improve instruction.

And as you heard this morning, information from states that currently have exit exams show those states are now creating ways to allow students who fail the exam, a way to graduate.

CEA also opposes HB 5753 that would provide scholarships to students in public colleges that perform well on the CAPT test. There are documented differences in performance levels on this test between students in urban, rural and those in suburban districts.

There should be multiple means of assessment used for any scholarship the state decides to fund. Perhaps the CAPT component could be added to raised HB 5520, AN ACT CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS, heard at a previous hearing by this Committee. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. I'll take any questions that you may have.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Representative Beals.

REP. BEALS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your statement about HB 6889, are you just addressing the last -- I guess, paragraph G of Section Two, where it talks about the emergency certificates or are you addressing everything in that bill?

PHIL APRUZZESE: We are addressing everything in the bill, but particularly that area.

REP. BEALS: Okay, and let me ask you the same question I asked the Superintendent. Were you aware that the Department offered an alternate route to bilingual certification, last summer?

PHIL APRUZZESE: Yes, we were.

REP. BEALS: Somehow, that word did not get out and hardly anybody showed up and it is being offered again this summer, so I trust it will be better publicized.

PHIL APRUZZESE: We will also publicize it, thank you.

REP. BEALS: Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Representative Heagney.

REP. HEAGNEY: Yes, on your concern regarding the high school exit exam --

PHIL APRUZZESE: Yes.

REP. HEAGNEY: -- there was some dialogue earlier with one of the superintendents that testified and Chairman Gaffey was discussing it. Did you like the way the Milford program is put together?

PHIL APRUZZESE: The Milford program is not unique, by the way and --

REP. HEAGNEY: No, I understand and --

PHIL APRUZZESE: -- there are other districts that do similar kinds of things. I believe you have the CAPT test in place, if we use it the correct way I believe that could be one component.

REP. HEAGNEY: I think one of the interesting things that came out of that was the emphasis that the students put on the CAPT test when there was a consequence on the other end, albeit not a death knell, but still a consequence. So, CEA would be supportive of that kind of a hybrid system?

PHIL APRUZZESE: Well, we'd have to look at the entirety of that magnitude of that kind of a system, but obviously we would like to see the CAPT test in place with the options of mastery of that.

REP. HEAGNEY: Thank you.

PHIL APRUZZESE: You're welcome.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any more questions? No. Thank you very much.

PHIL APRUZZESE: Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Mr. Medina? Did you have a couple of students with you or no, they're gone already? Angelique and Hector Rodriguez?

MAX MEDINA, JR.: I think they're ready to follow.

REP. STAPLES: Okay.

MAX MEDINA, JR.: Good afternoon, Representative Staples and members of the Committee. I thank you for this privilege. I thank you for your patience today. I'll be brief. My name is Max Medina, Jr.. I'm an elected member of the Bridgeport Board of Education, having served on that Board since 1993. I'm also the proud parent of four children, all of whom attend the public school system in Bridgeport and I am proud to be a graduate of the Bridgeport public school system having attended from K to 12, all the way through.

I'm here today on behalf to speak in favor of raised HB 6889, for many of the reasons that you heard here earlier today and I'll try to not repeat points made by other speakers. At the local level, we of course have to implement and abide by legislation passed by the General Assembly and we would ask you to consider how we have to go about doing that at the local level.

Specifically, as was dramatically demonstrated today by the student speakers, anyone of us who spends any time with children realizes that they all learn at their own different rates. No two children are alike. And we believe that it's good common sense to acknowledge that reality and for that reason, I speak against arbitrary deadlines such as the provisions in the existing laws limiting bilingual support to 30 months. At a minimum, if that's amended to include 30 continuous months, it will give us a far more equitable result.

There are other examples within the bill, such as the language within sub-sections two, sub-section C, where it mandates that more than half of the instruction be in English within the first year. Again, bright line tests allow adults to feel good about having addressed a problem but in application in a real classroom with 20 or more students, it is much more problematic.

I'd like to make two other points, if I may. First, although the Latino community is impassioned about this issue, too many people assume that this is a Hispanic or Latino issue, only. In Bridgeport, if you go into any one of our buildings and spin the globe in the corner of the room and stop it with your finger, you're probably going to land on a country that sends children to us to be educated in our buildings.

I think you heard testimony about over 50 languages being spoken, so this is not a matter that is of importance solely to the Hispanic population, but also to Portuguese, to the Cape Verdians, to -- in Bridgeport, we have a sizeable Kurdish population, believe it or not.

So, it is an issue that cuts across a great number of communities. Secondly, no one who speaks on behalf of the continued support for bilingual education is looking to segregate those students. I think you heard dramatic testimony from those Elias Howe students that many of them in a relatively brief period of time have shown an amazing ability to become fluent in English.

That's what all of us want for our children. We don't want our children to be educated for 12 years in their native language. We want them to learn English. To learn English as quickly as possible. When I went to the Bridgeport public school system for the first time, I spoke only Spanish.

My parents were raised on farms in Puerto Rico, but they told me that education was the way that people like us were able to improve our lot in life and I'm thankful to the Bridgeport public school teachers who prepared me for success in life and who allowed me to go on to college and law school.

The children that you saw here today are embarked through a similar passage through our society. The teachers who work with them see them every day and realize they need this infrastructure bilingual support. I can lay claim to be one of those people who was smart enough to hire Dr. Saledo, whose powerful testimony you heard here earlier today.

I adopt her reasoning and I thank the Committee for its patience and I urge you to reject the use of arbitrary deadlines that have horrible consequences on real children in real classrooms. I thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Questions? No. Thank you for your testimony. Did you already testify? The students. Or, did you want to testify? I called you up but you don't have to. It's your choice. You're Hector, right? Just give us your name for the record.

HECTOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Hector Rodriguez and I'm a senior at Harding High School. Also a product of Bridgeport's bilingual program. I'm here today to voice my support of HB 6889 which amends the current public law 99-211, an act improving bilingual education.

I strongly support a change that will allow high school students who have less than 30 months to graduation to receive academic instruction in their native language while acquiring English. I entered Harding High School as a freshman bilingual student with limited oral and academic skills in English.

With the support from my bilingual and ESL teachers, I was able to successfully transfer my native academic skills into a major subject area classes in English. Presently, I am a three year member of the National Honor Society and President of the Harding High School's Aspira Program.

I now have both the English and Spanish skills and the confidence to continue my education at the University of New Haven in September, 2001. I plan to major in computer engineer. These achievements and my future career goals would not have been possible without the support and skills I received from the bilingual program. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Anjelica?

ANJELICA BUILES: Hi. My name is Anjelica Builes and I am a senior at Harding High School in Bridgeport, Connecticut. I am currently a student in Bridgeport's bilingual program and a member of the National Honor Society. I am here today to give my support to HB 6889, which will make changes to the current public law 99-211, AN ACT IMPROVING BILINGUAL EDUCATION. I am opposed to the mandate that does not allow bilingual high school students with less than 30 months until graduation to not be offered the opportunity to receive bilingual services.

I have only been in the United States for a year and a half and I entered Harding High School not speaking a work of English. I cannot imagine how difficult it would have been for me if I was not allowed to receive subject area instruction in my native language while learning English.

The bilingual program gave me the confidence and support that I needed in order to succeed in my studies. I am planning to continue in my education in the fall at the university level and major in psychology. I am confident that my bilingual skills will help me that to achieve my future goals. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Questions? No. Thank you. There are no questions, right?

?: We just wanted to challenge the rule of the Chair in not being able to applaud, but that's --

REP. STAPLES: Rules. I don't know. I have nothing to do with the rules. Okay, let's see. John Dayton and Bill Bilotti.

JOHN DAYTON: Good afternoon. My name is John Dayton. I'm Chairman of the Board of Finance in the town of Middlebury. I was elected in 1983 and I have served as Chair since 1988. I came before the Special Committee on Intergovernmental Relations in this past summer and from that committee, we sought to have a change in the State Funding Formula to address the inequity of taxation between towns and partnership in regional school districts, statewide when there is a long-term one-sided growth factor which has caused the smaller town within that district to pay a disproportionate share of the cost for additional school buildings because of such growth.

The determination of that committee said that it was a local issue which was somewhat frustrating for the town of Middlebury which has only voted one time in 10 years on the first vote to approve a school referendum for operational costs or for bonding costs for new buildings.

In that period of time, we have only approved twice in 15 separate votes. So, you can imagine the frustration between the two towns. There are fringe groups that are seeking -- have sought deregionalization, full deregionalization or partial deregionalization.

I am very pleased to report that as of last week the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance of the two towns, are coming together and I'd like to read something that will be made a motion at tonight's Board of Education meeting. It's signed by the Board of Finance, myself and the Board of Finance's Chair from Southbury, John Michaels.

The undersign acknowledge a 1999 Regional Study Sub-Committee with representatives from the two Boards of Finance that studied the inequity of school costs resulting from building in the recent past and future, due to student population increases in Southbury.

We concur that the extra cost are incurred by Region 15 with a disproportionate amount borne by residents of Middlebury because of the cost of additional facilities to support growth. The Regional Sub-Committee determined that those costs were in the neighborhood of $140 --

(Gap in testimony changing from tape 3a to 3b)

JOHN DAYTON: -- of rising to approximately $400,000 with the new bonding issue of $84 million dollars to be put in place. While this amount is relatively small in comparison to the entire school budget, we believe that as a matter of fairness, that the state should provide an appropriate change to the Regional School Financing Formula to allow for the fair allocation of the building costs to those communities that proportionately cause the need for additional buildings.

In that regard, we work diligently to pursue an appropriate state remedy to provide the basic fairness. In the interest of time, I will pass, but I just want to point out the town of Middlebury's growth was 4,700 when we started the district in 1967. We are now 6,100. Southbury was 5,100. They're now 17,000.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. Rob, you have a question, sir. Representative Heagney.

REP. HEAGNEY: I couldn't let you go because I used to be Chairman of my town's Board of Finance and I know what you go through.

JOHN DAYTON: Well, I had hair when I started the job.

REP. HEAGNEY: Well, I'd like to say it grows back. Just walk us through because I didn't have the foundation and I wasn't in a town that had a regional school district but where do you start with your sharing of a building and is there no mechanism at all or does it have to be by agreement?

JOHN DAYTON: Well, let me start. Regional school districts are different and it's very hard, I think, for anybody outside a regional school district to understand. Regional school districts are a separate municipality under the state of Connecticut.

For instance, Regional School District 15 is not -- the school is in the town of Middlebury. Not Middlebury's. The Regional School District 15's. Same thing with Southbury. It's a very hard concept to understand. 38 other states around the country merge the Grand List by using county governments for regional school education. Connecticut doesn't.

And it's a unique factor, so the schools belong to the region. We pay in on a per head basis. Roughly, $7,800.00 per student, into the region.

REP. HEAGNEY: For the operating costs?

JOHN DAYTON: But our people are taxed based on our Grand List in Middlebury. Our Grand List on a proportional basis to our population is smaller. Southbury, when we first merged in 1967, Middlebury 16 square miles. Southbury, 64 square miles. Population is about the same. People didn't understand the dynamics of that huge geographic difference.

There was a thing called Interstate 84. It was only put in that year. Now, the dynamics of understanding the growth of Southbury were not to be understood for 20 years. And from that, there's been tremendous consternation by both sides. Such that for a very small issues for small dollar amounts, Southbury -- I think they have the third lowest equalized Grand List in the state. Middlebury -- we're 59th. There's a difference there and the funding difference has caused relatively high taxes in Middlebury, relatively low taxes in Southbury, then on top of it, Southbury grows roughly a 100 students per year more than Middlebury.

So, every three years, they're looking for new school buildings. If the school budget passes, which we hope it does, based on the working agreement that we've delineated today, Middlebury will have the highest per capita debt in the state of Connecticut, according to CPEC, Connecticut Public Expenditures Council.

The five highest towns in the state with the highest per capita debt load are regional school districts. Why? Predominately because they're upper income towns. They're rural towns and they don't get the state funding. Middlebury in 1992 had the lowest percentage of state funding in the state. We were 1.66 percent of our total budget, came back to us but state of Connecticut in comparison to the city of Waterbury that's over 40 percent.

REP. HEAGNEY: Okay. Just take me through that in terms of the building, you're saying that basically you have this sort of group dynamic Grand List. In other words, you set a mill rate and it just is applied.

JOHN DAYTON: That's correct.

REP. HEAGNEY: Okay and so -- and how does this bill separate those things out?

JOHN DAYTON: Well, you get your bill from the town of Middlebury --

REP. HEAGNEY: No, no. I'm sorry. Our legislation, not your tax bill.

JOHN DAYTON: Your legislation is the first effort in trying to delineate costs of construction. It does need some work. Representative Hartley -- Senator Hartley will address that, I believe, with you folks separately.

REP. HEAGNEY: Okay.

JOHN DAYTON: Both of us -- I'm just back from vacation. I didn't even know I was going to be here today and I wasn't prepared. I do have the package that we used for the Department of Governmental Relations this last summer and I'm prepared to provide those to the Chairman for distribution.

REP. HEAGNEY: Great. Thank you very much.

JOHN DAYTON: Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: (mike off)

BILL BILOTTI: Representative Staples, distinguished panel, my name is Bill Bilotti. I'm a resident of Middlebury and I'm going to approach this not as a town official but as a resident and I want to talk a little bit to the scope of what inequities mean in such a school district.

In the town of Middlebury if you look at the school district in the way that the schools are -- the enrollment of the schools, and you look at that region, what is taking place for us is that we have inequities generated by a town that's growing at three times our rate.

The impact, as John has said, has been in the tax base and our taxes have gone up significantly. The town of Middlebury is put in to a situation in the region where the capacity issues have to be met. We have many students that need to attend classrooms, however, the growth in terms of the capacity is one-sided. It's coming out of Middlebury.

I'm going to give you some examples of that. I going to give you exactly what the enrollment is in the schools so you can understand that. And these numbers are given to me by Region 15 as of October of 2000, the year of 2000 of this past year. Beginning with the Southbury schools, Pomperaug Elementary School has an enrollment of 558 students.

556 students are from Southbury. Two are from Middlebury. Gainfield Elementary School has an enrollment of 493 students. All 493 students are from Southbury. Rochambeau Middle School has an enrollment of 567 students. 544 are from Southbury. 11 are from Middlebury and they're in the special ed program. At Pomperaug High School, there's 1,144 students. 834 are from Southbury. Only 320 from Middlebury.

Now, when I look at the Middlebury schools, and this is in the town of Middlebury, Long Meadow Elementary School was just built because of the capacity issues that Southbury had in the elementary grades. There are 556 students at this institution. There's 471 from Southbury, only 85 from Middlebury.

When I look at Middlebury, our Memorial Middle School which is the middle school in Middlebury, the total enrollment is 413 students. There are 233 from Southbury, 280 from Middlebury. There's one other school called Middlebury Elementary and that's the only school that Middlebury has capacity at. There's 428 students and the majority are from Middlebury, only two from Southbury.

What the issue on the table is, is the town -- is the Regional School District is proposing to approve additions to Pomperaug High School, additions to Rochambeau Grammer School, Memorial Middle School and build a brand new elementary school in Southbury.

Now, three of those four projects are in Southbury. The new elementary school will hold capacity for 750 students. There will be none from Middlebury at that school. The issue that we're facing with the population as a resident is the fact that we have to borrow this money and the share of the region is $53,856,000 will be bonded money.

The impact on the residents of Middlebury being at that 59th percentage, state-wide, if you look at all 169 municipalities, versus Southbury, is this. If you calculate and you amortize the rate money, the cost that it's going to take to bond that money and then you take it out within the first five years for an average home in Middlebury that has a cost of $142,000, it will be an additional $980.00 in taxes. If your house is worth $200,000 or better, or $200,000 K, I should say, the tax increase will be $1,400 and if your house is worth $300,000 your taxes will be $2,000 within the first five years of this one capital expenditure on this one project.

What we're saying in Middlebury is we're being faced paying 27 percent of regional costs for capacity issues that aren't ours. The capacity issues literally stem and come out of our partnering town. And unfortunately, the way the legislation is written, we're stuck in that marriage.

We can not get out of that marriage. By governance, there's only two methodologies that you can vote down on a referendum and that's either by popular vote -- well, when you're outvoted almost four to one as John said, in the town of Middlebury, we voted out of nine out of ten referendums, three to one against, and we still lose the referendum.

So, the issue at hand is, in my estimation, it's nice to see that we're going to work together as towns, but it isn't a town issue. It's a legislative issue. The state of Connecticut created the regional districts and we're not alone. There are 19 districts in the state of Connecticut of which, if you do an analysis on the high low populations by percentage, regions one, five, six, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 all have significant population disparities.

From my perspective as a resident of the town and not a town officer, I believe that the legislation has to be looked at. We haven't looked at changing regional school district legislation since its inception, back 40 years ago. It hasn't changed an iota. If anything, we've toughened the ability to separate within a region after a few years back, between Prospect and Beacon Falls, had gone through a similar situation and were trying to deregionalize.

What the state legislature did was they toughened the laws on us. I mean, the reality is that if you want to deregionalize under the regulations today, the town that initiates deregionalization has the onus of all the costs. That's significant. That's inhibitive to any town wanting to separate. Our issue isn't education.

Our issue is the disparity and what we feel, and I do as a resident of the town of Middlebury, is that I think the state ought to look at the formula. Look at what the cities receive in terms of capital dollars from the state of Connecticut. We started out many years ago and I'm not sure -- Mike, 10 years ago what were we receiving from the state and what are we receiving today? Do you know off the top of your head? You don't. But it's significant.

The money that we were hit coming into the region was drained from us to go to the urban centers and we do understand that the issue there is significant, also. So, I guess that's what I have to say and thank you very much. If you have any questions?

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Any questions? No. Thank you for your time.

BILL BILOTTI: Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Ana Gonzales? Ana here? Followed by Herminio Planas. Did I get that right? Close enough?

ANA GONZALES-BATISTA: Good afternoon, Representative Staples and members of the Education Committee. My name is Ana Gonzales-Batista. I live in the town of Chesire and I'm employed by the Bridgeport Board of Education. I've been teaching English to speakers of other languages for the past 17 years.

I'm here today to convince you to vote against HB 6751, AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TEST EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS. I oppose this bill that would limit the exemptions from the Connecticut Mastery Test and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test for limited English proficient students.

If this bill becomes law, this would require students who enrolled in a program of bilingual education or English as a Second Language to take these tests after 10 months instead of the 30 months currently allowed by law.

I have three compelling reasons for urging you to oppose raised HB 6751. First of all, this bill is not in the best interest of our society. Second, my arguments are based on solid research by experts on second language acquisition. Third, my 17 years of teaching second language acquisition has given me a lot of opportunity to closely observe the time frame in which students transition from their native language to English.

This bill is not in the best interest of our society because we are expecting foreign students who move into a new country to equally complete academically with their native peers in reading, writing and mathematics. An example that comes to mind is a student who arrived from Africa last year.

Upon registration, I met with his family and a translator. I referred to the male as a female, because he was dressed as a female. At that point, I was informed that he had always lived in a camp, had never worn clothing and did not know the difference upon what was appropriate.

Serving our students is not just about acquiring a language. It includes introducing them to the American culture. It is very important to remember that acquiring a second language in most cases, is typically not achieved within a year.

Requiring students to take the CMT or CAPT after a year in our country would be a task that is daunting and overwhelming. Students who have poor academic experiences in schools do not become productive citizens.

My second reason is supported by extensive research by Jim Cummings and other experts related to second language acquisition. Many people have the misconception that just because students are communicating orally with their peers and participating in classroom discussions, that they are proficient in English.

This is what Cummings refers to as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills. BICS. It is a rudimentary conversational language. Cummings' other level of language proficiency is called Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency. CALP.

Research indicates that it takes five to seven years to develop CALP. Many second language learners who take the Connecticut State Mastery test have not yet fully developed the cognitive areas. Yet, they are expected to be as successful as a student who has always lived in this country. As a result, this has led to experiences of frustration, academic failure and low self-esteem. I'm almost finished. Thank you.

My last reason for opposing HB 6751 is based on 17 years of teaching second language acquisition. Students need to spend time on reading, writing and math, and yet they are spending too much time preparing or being administered a test that does not measure the amount of English they've acquired within a year.

To summarize the three reasons why I'm asking you not to support raised HB 6751 is because it's not in the best interests of our children or their future as active and contributing members of our society. Secondly, research supports that it takes many years to acquire a second language and lastly, I'm speaking to you as a veteran teacher with a great deal of first hand experience.

I've also just provided you with an example of a persuasive essay. This is the kind of essay that eighth graders are required to write on a Connecticut Mastery test. And can you imagine you or your family emigrating to Russia, Japan or any other country where language other than English is spoken, and being asked to write such an essay as what I've just provided you with? Are there any questions?

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? No. Thank you for your testimony. Herminio Planas followed by Sara Batalla.

HERMINIO PLANAS: Good afternoon, Representative Staples and members of the Education Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. For the record, my name is Herminio Planas. I am an alumnus of Bridgeport public schools bilingual program. Currently, I'm a bilingual educator and a math research coordinator at Elias Howe school, one of Bridgeport's nationally recognized Title One schools.

I come before you to ask for your support in amending the current bilingual law by supporting HB 6889, titled AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION. I will also ask you to oppose SB 292, SB 449 and HB 6751 as they will not provide English language learners with an equal opportunity for education.

I came to Connecticut from Puerto Rico 15 years ago. My parents, unaware of bilingual education programs, enrolled me in a main stream school. Since I did not speak English, I began failing every subject. Being a former honor student in Puerto Rico, this was very frustrating.

As months passed and the year progressed, I developed anxiety over my inability to produce quality school work like I once used to. My love and enjoyment for school was nearly nonexistent. After some research, my parents discovered the bilingual program. This was a program that will work with an individual's linguistic strength in order to teach them English language skills.

Several years later, I entered the mainstream -- I'm sorry -- I entered a main stream class and graduating from Central High School, 23rd in a class of 350 with a grade average of 90 percent. Now, I stand before you with three college degrees. One of which is a six year degree in Bilingual Education and with many honors and recognitions.

The latest, 2001 National Title One Distinguished Graduate for the State of Connecticut. The best part about all of this is that I'm proficient in two languages. In Spanish and in English. I have two brothers who are teachers, one sister who is a nurse, a cousin who is an engineer and another who is an English teacher in Puerto Rico. They all have one thing in common. They're all graduates of the bilingual program.

So, when I learned about the new bilingual law last year, I was disillusioned to discover that in your endeavor to better a program that proved to be successful for my family and me, you were creating an inferior one. Yet, by passing HB 6889, you have the opportunity to help continue and improve a program that has been proven to work.

This bill fosters the linguistics strength of students in order to mold a better individual. One who is proficient in two languages. First, it changes the current time limit from 30 months to 30 consecutive months. Given the high mobility rates of students in bilingual programs, this change is important in order to assure the students spend ample time learning English before being mainstreamed.

Secondly, this bill extends the time for bilingual teachers to get certification. It also provides for emergency certifications while bilingual teachers complete their certification requirements. Thirdly, I'm opposed to the clause in the bill that will allow districts to allow non-bilingual speakers to teach bilingual classes.

This will be against the notion of supporting the student's first language ability, to teach language skills in the second language. Furthermore, I would also question the ability for non-bilingual teacher to communicate effectively with a student who does not speak English.

Fourth, HB 6889 change the exemption provision for Connecticut Mastery testing. Currently, the CMT and CAPT exams are given to bilingual students to test their language proficiency. Yet, these tests have not been formally field tested as language proficiency exams. In fact, these tests were not designed to test proficiency in the language. They were designed to test mastery of math, reading and writing skills.

Testing for the level of mastery is not the same as testing for language proficiency. Similarly, students should not have to take the CMT and CAPT tests when they are not linguisticly prepared. Finally, this bill will allow high school students to have bilingual programs.

High school students who are not proficient in English deserve a fair opportunity to learn. High school is a critical stage in anyone's life. Bilingual high school students deserve to have the best preparation to enter college. Providing English as a Second Language, English as language classes is not enough preparation for our students.

These classes are -- this class make up a small portion of the day and currently, are cramming sessions, involving all subjects. Students currently wander from class to class trying to decipher what the teacher is saying. Some of them are failing. Others have been thinking about dropping out.

This is not the type of education high school students need and deserve. They need bilingual classes where they can learn English as well as other subjects supervised by teachers that are trained to teach English language learners.

In conclusion, as an alumnus of the bilingual program, and a bilingual educator, I support HB 6889. It provides the amendments to the current bilingual law that are needed for English language learners to receive equal access to educational opportunities.

The current bilingual law must be amended in order to provide the best education possible for our children. You have the bill to do it. On behalf of all bilingual students in our city, we hope that you help us in passing HB 6889. Thank you for the opportunity and honor to address you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Representative Beals.

REP. BEALS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Were you put in an ESL class when you came?

HERMINIO PLANAS: I -- ESL was a component of the bilingual program. I was pulled out for about an hour when I was in the bilingual program.

REP. BEALS: And the rest of the time you were mainstreamed?

HERMINIO PLANAS: The rest of the time I was in a bilingual class with a bilingual teacher.

REP. BEALS: Oh, I thought you said that you were put into a mainstream school when you --

HERMINIO PLANAS: When I entered school for the first time, when I first came from Puerto Rico, I was in a fully bilingual class, yes. With no ESL whatsoever. I took a -- I'm sorry. A mainstream class with --

REP. BEALS: Yes, that's what I thought you had said.

HERMINIO PLANAS: I did, yes.

REP. BEALS: So, my question is, were you given ESL classes at that time?

HERMINIO PLANAS: At that time, no. I was not.

REP. BEALS: And your parents were not informed of the existence of ESL and bilingual programs in the school system?

HERMINIO PLANAS: We came to Bridgeport. We had no relatives here. We didn't know -- I came the first -- I came from Puerto Rico the first day of school when school just started, so my parents wanted me to be in school. They placed me in the school that was closest to my area and --

REP. BEALS: The school did not advise them that there were other options?

HERMINIO PLANAS: They gave me a test and I was -- I passed the test. They gave me a proficiency exam and I passed the proficiency exam with a 75 percent. So, I was practically a mainstream.

REP. BEALS: Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any more questions? Thank you. No more questions. (mike off)

SARA BATALLA: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Representative Staples for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of bilingual education. I'm here to support raised HB 6889 especially as pertaining to students with special needs.

My name is Sara Batalla. I live in Bridgeport, Connecticut and I'm employed within the public school system, there. I'm the daughter of the late Cesar Batalla, a community leader and long time defender of bilingual education. My father committed himself to the continuance of quality bilingual programs for the children of the community.

As a bilingual special education teacher, I can attest to the difficulties student encounter in order to become proficient in another language. The process of transitioning from one language into another is a critical step for a student and could prove detrimental if rushed.

In many instances, children develop conversational English at a rapid pace. However, this is not correlated with the academic language necessary for the students to be productive in an all English speaking classroom. Current research has indicated that the ability of non-English and limited English proficient students depends on the learner's cognitive style, formal schooling in their first language and other background factors.

Various studies show that students whose language is not English, should be instructed in their native language first. If students are not adequately prepared in their own language, they will not develop proficiency in English. As a teacher and concerned citizen, I thank you for your assistance and I urge you to please support this bill. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Questions? Yes, Representative Reinoso.

REP. REINOSO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be very brief. I'd like to start off -- this is a very special moment, Mr. Chairman. It's only going to take only one minute. It's a moment of kind of an emotional moment for me. I've known you since you were a freshman in high school.

I'm very pleased to see you exercising your constitutional rights and your civic involvement through the ASPEDA program and all the programs you participated. But, also I want to extend my congratulations to you and your family in memory of our friend, Cesar Battala, who fought for this issue for a long, long time. Thank you for coming to testify to the House.

SARA BATALLA: Thank you.

REP. REINOSO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAPLES: Any more questions? Okay, Carmen Roman. Is Carmen here? Marisol Macaro? (mike off)

SHEILA MCKAY: Good afternoon, members of the Committee, Representative Staples. For the record, my name is Sheila McKay. I'm here representing the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education and you have written testimony in front of you.

I'm speaking specifically today on three pieces of legislation. AN ACT CONCERNING HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAMS, AN ACT CONCERNING CHILDREN PLACES IN ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION PROGRAMS, and AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TEST EXEMPTIONS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS and STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS FOR NO NEXUS CHILDREN.

Specifically to the high school exit exams, CABE opposes this piece of legislation. Testing alone cannot be the sole measure as to whether a student has mastered a course of work and to that effort, the State Department of Education has done some work specific to a position statement on measuring success and there are a few statements from that, that I'll draw your eye to, particularly.

Specifically, that performance measures come in many shapes and sizes, I guess, is the way to sum up what they do say, and also that there is no one assessment, state or local, that should be the sole basis for promotion, graduation or other important decisions based on the education of a student.

Also, having had the opportunity to sit here to listen to many speakers this morning, I wanted to mention one phrase that CEA speaker mentioned. Teacher testing is done basically as a diagnostic tool, so I would like to call that as a point of view and also found it interesting what Milford is doing in terms of the performance appraisals that they're going for.

The other two bills that we have here before us, the incarceration program, the alternative to incarceration programs. Having these students placed under the umbrella of DCF is appropriate for where these students are in their lives and also now specifically in part, the no nexus part of this special education bill.

These are students that have been placed in these districts by no legal, local authority. These are state placements or court placements and to that degree, to have their services picked up by state costs and no financial burden placed on the towns. That's it.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? Is this your first time testifying before this Committee?

SHEILA MCKAY: Well, I was here late, late, late on evening a couple of months ago.

REP. STAPLES: I guess you'll get off easy today, but it's nice to see you. Thank you for coming. (mike off)

SUSAN AMENDOLA: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Amendola. I am a high school ESL teacher in Connecticut and I have my Master's degree in the fields of English as a Second Language and Bilingual Education. I am honored to find myself before you, today.

I am here today with my colleague, Margaret York, Marge, also an ESL teacher to testify in favor of the deletion of the last sentence in raised HB 6889. This one sentence is commonly referred to as the less than 30 month rule and it denies access to a bilingual program for high school students for whom English is not their dominant language and who do not know any English at the time of their enrollment in high school and who have less than 30 months to graduate before the time they enrolled.

There are no exceptions to this rule and it virtually eliminates bilingual education for almost all 10th, 11th and 12th graders. Even is student has special needs requiring a bilingual program and a bilingual program already exists in a student's school, the student is prohibited from attending.

There is no professional research in the field of second language acquisition which support the unilateral implementation of the less than 30 month rule for high school students. First of all, we know that students learn differently. Educational instruction which is appropriate for one child and which would enable that child to receive equal educational opportunities, may be quite inappropriate for another child.

Furthermore, the Lau versus Nichols Supreme Court decision in 1974 declared that, quote, "identical education does not constitute equal education", unquote. In the vernacular, one size does not fit all. Secondly, at the high school level, the content taught is often very abstract, technical and complex.

Students must learn academic English which is very different from social English. They are expected to learn how to think, read and write critically in math, science, history, English literature, in a very, very short time. This is actually equivalent to doing graduate work at a university in a second language.

Whether we agree or disagree with the professional research, we cannot dismiss it when we are planning or designing programs for limited English proficient students. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 guarantees to each limited English proficient student, quote "appropriate", unquote, education.

Castaneda versus Pickard, 1981, interprets the EEOA and defines the word "appropriate". Castaneda versus Pickard also provides specific criteria for evaluating whether or not a program is appropriate -- I'm moving on here -- by using three criteria.

One of these criteria refers to the adequacy of the educational theory on which the program is based. The Castaneda versus Pickard case has been used since 1981 by the courts and the Office for Civil Rights, to evaluate whether a student is receiving an appropriate education.

So, whether we like it or not, we do have to take into consideration all the professional research regarding bilingual education and second language acquisition as well as consult various experts in the field, if we are in the business of educating limited English proficient students, and want to design and implement effective programs for them.

Furthermore, both California and Arizona education law have an English only rule, but for students over the age of 10, California and Arizona law give their schools flexibility to exercise their informed belief about what's best for the student. This means that students over the age of 10 could enter bilingual programs in California and Arizona, if their parents request it and it is in the best interest of the child's educational needs.

The education and acculturation of all children in our public schools is extremely important to all of us. Your substantial record of interest, concern and hard work on behalf of Connecticut's children is well documented and our earnest appeal today is for your support to rectify what we believe is a legislative oversight that will have major, negative consequences for our youth.

We have national, state and local support. We have national support from the League of United Latin American Citizens. From the Mexican America Legal Defense and Educational Fund and from Multi-Cultural Education Training and Advocacy, Inc. We have state-wide support from the Connecticut Association of Public School ESOL Administrators and from the Public Association of Bilingual Education Administrators.

Locally, we have the support of the Stamford, Connecticut branch of the NAACP and letters of support from citizens and over 100 students signatures which were collected in a single day. Included in your packet are letters from META, CAPSEA, PABEA, and the NAACP. Also included are letters from citizens and a petition signed by limited English proficient high school students.

We need your help and all I can say is, just please delete the last sentence in raised HB 6889, Section 2-D. Just to be clear about it, that particular sentence states, quote, "If an eligible student enrolls in a secondary school when the student has fewer than 30 months remaining before graduation, the local or regional board of education shall assign the student to an English as a Second Language Program, and may provide intensive services to the student to enable the student to speak, write and comprehend English by the time the student graduates and to meet the course requirements for graduation." Now, we're not trying to say here that -- basically different strokes for different folks.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Representative Currey.

REP. CURRY: I'd just like to comment that in section B, the last sentence is deleted in this bill. Just so you know that --

SUSAN AMENDOLA: Yes, I know, but we need to pass the bill, make sure it gets deleted. So, I just want to make sure you forget to do that.

REP. CURREY: So, you support the bill as it's written?

SUSAN AMENDOLA: Yes. We support the bill.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Any more questions or comments? No. Thank you. Sara -- I think I said, Oyola Beauman. Did I get that close enough? Followed by Ganimete.

SARA V. OYOLA-BOWMON: Good afternoon. My name is Sara Oyola-Bowmon and I'm the bilingual education supervisor for the Waterbury Public Schools. I am here -- I will be reading a letter on behalf of the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. David Snead. Dr. Snead was planning to attend today's hearings, but he was unable due to a death in the family on his side of the state.

I'm just going to quote his -- read his letter and then I will clarify a few issues. Dear Committee members, as Superintendent of Waterbury Public Schools, I am opposed to the following House and Senate bills that are on your agenda for the Public Hearing to be held Monday, March 19, 2001.

SB 292. The Waterbury School District strongly opposes the SB 292 proposing to eliminate bilingual education. The new Public Act, 99-211 has demanded for these students to be exited from the bilingual program after three years. Research clearly shows over and over that children can learn a second language at the same time that they develop their academic proficiency in their native language, therefore becoming bilingual.

Bilingualism is an advantage, not a disability. Parents must be given the opportunity to choose an effective bilingual program for their children and districts must provide these programs to eligible students. Please do not be mislead against bilingual education. Bilingual education is a necessity for America and more resources need to be allocated to this program.

SB 449. We are in support of allowing school districts to offer dual language programs where all children will have the right to learn two languages, becoming fully bilingual. However, these programs should be given the necessary resources for effective implementation and they should be a choice for parents, not a mandate.

That is why we reject the bill as it is proposed. Incentives should be available for school districts to provide dual language programs. HB 6751. The Waterbury School District strongly opposes to limit the exemptions from the CMT and CAPT tests to one year. It is very difficult for students who have not mastered the English language to take tests that require academic grade level knowledge in English.

These students in the second and third years of acquiring English as a Second Language, do not yet have the academic language and literacy skills in English to demonstrate their true academic achievement. These students need to -- more resources to become more proficient in English, not more testing at an earlier time.

We also believe that the local school districts should determine when students are ready to take these standardized tests. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opposition to these bills. Very truly yours, David Snead, Ph.D.

I would like to in regards to HB 6889, we are strongly support of the proposed changes in the bilingual education program. We will -- I will not go into details, though the Superintendent didn't have a chance to comment on that. He -- via phone, expressed he's in total support of this HB 6889.

I also would like to clarify in relation to the dual language bill, the Superintendent and Waterbury public schools are not -- we are not against dual language programs. We're very convinced they are working for our children. However, coming from Waterbury you, in the different bills, the Superintendent states "needed resources". The dual language program will not be a success if the needed long-term resources and the excellent teaching staff will not be able to be hired.

I will also would like to thank you, first of all, for the opportunity and I also would like to introduce Ganimete Myhotiu. She's next in your list and she's the Coordinator of the Refugee Program in Waterbury and also is assisting in the emergency grant and she's representing the Albanian community in Waterbury, the Albanian community are demanding bilingual education versus ESL. So, she has first hand stories for you. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: (mike off)

GANIMETE MYHOTIU: My name is Ganimete Myhotiu.

REP. STAPLES: (mike off)

GANIMETE MYHOTIU: Good afternoon, everybody. This is an honor to be part of an institutional mentality, what I called, especially being a refugee from Kosovia where the institutional life was destroyed, deliberately 20 years ago and slowly I witnessed that as of my student years.

When I arrived in Waterbury as a refugee in June, '99, the first thing that I learned about the debate that was going on was the controversial debate about the bilingual education. And then I was trying to find the reasons why the Albanian community --

(Gap in testimony changing from tape 3b to 4a)

GANIMETE MYHOTIU: -- in Waterbury, and so working for International Institute gave me an opportunity to have a bigger picture of how the emigrational issues, work. I just understood that two years ago that America is during the last year, accepting 800,000 immigrants.

Among them, in addition to this 800,000, 100,000 refugees and because I belong to this underprivileged group of citizens of the world, I was very curious to know why the Albanian community was in Waterbury and then I discovered the economical link on why this community was there. But, what is surprising is this community is not according to the numbers what are shown in the paper. This community is much bigger.

Just because this community is under counted population. We have Albanians, ethnic Albanians in Waterbury that come from Kosovo, from Macedonia, from Albania, from Greece, from Italy. And all this number is very confusing how we're going to serve this people. We usually base our judgement on language services based on the country of origin, but we don't know what ethnic group these people are and what language they speak.

So, on behalf of this -- my community, I would really like to articulate this message that serving population in the native language when they are newcomers in this country, is the key for their success in the future and I deeply believe in this, that connection through native language is the only way to really make them fully proficient in English language and in terms to concerning to the CAPT testing, whatever brings them to the pressure, students that we have in high school are very pressured on these demands for accountability based on the requirements of this society.

The emotional baggage that these students have with them are much bigger than the Connecticut requirements to a certain time and limits that are designed for this society. I do think that by not having into account their specific circumstances we're losing a great human capacity and potential.

So, I would really want to give them extra time and not reduce the time from three years to one year. This is my message from Waterbury on behalf of Albanian community and as a Refugee Program Coordinator.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? No. Thank you. Agnes Dubow.

AGNES DUBOW: Good afternoon. My name is Agnes Dubow and I want to thank you, Representative Staples for the hearing and all the other members of the Education Committee. I'm here to support HB 6889. I am from Irish and Italian heritage. A "gringa", but was lucky enough to have parents who supported me going to Spain for a summer and Mexico for a semester so I could learn to speak Spanish.

This ability has helped me in all of my employment, including teaching pre-school, coordinating childcare INFO line and the Early Childhood Council for the United Way and my current position as Coordinator for the Elias Howe Family Resource Center in Bridgeport.

As Coordinator of the Center, I personally experience the great influx of families that continue to come from Central and South America, Bosnia, Serbia, Viet Nam, the Middle East as well as the Caribbean. These families have shared their wealth of culture and traditions with us.

Their children need to have a balanced bilingual program so they can continue their academic progress and their successes started in their native countries which allow them to become our future leaders in our community. I support the consecutive 30 month limit for participation in bilingual education.

As an early childhood educator, I know that each child is unique and learns differently. In addition, kindergarten needs to be excluded from this limit as we all know kindergarten children are still developing social and fine motor skills and should not need to focus on language acquisition at their age.

Our Family Resource Center is a busy place, providing supports and services to many families. Our attendance registers over 700 adults every month and our English classes which have students from 12 different countries continue to have a waiting list of over 40 people.

Yet, we have difficulty finding qualified, supportive, bilingual educational staff, so that the bilingual community -- that we will have bilingual community leaders in the future. Please support the HB 6889. Muchas gracious.

SEN. STAPLES: Thank you very much. You did a great job today bringing up the troops, too. Willie Matos.

Followed by Marina Lesnick.

WILLIE MATOS: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Willie Matos. I am the Chairman of the Puerto Rican Coalition which is a Civil Rights organization and also, I'm the Chairman of ASPIRA of Connecticut, Incorporated which is a youth development organization. I am speaking to you today in support of HB 6889. I will not go into all the details that other speakers have gone through. I think that they have done a tremendous job, especially our students, in highlighting why we need to have a comprehensive bilingual education law.

I would like for you to consider other reasons why bilingual education is so important and particular important to the United States of America. I am a Spanish speaking and English speaking American from Puerto Rico. And please allow me to define America the way I define it and the way I define Americans and the way I was taught to define American in the Bridgeport school system.

America, to me, is all that land that exists between Hudson Bay and -- in Canada and Terre Del Fuaego in Argentina. Within that land span, there are a number of countries that exist, the United States being one of them.

There are two major languages in America, the America that I describe. One is English and one is Spanish. A bilingual program in the United States, comprehensive bilingual program, does much to recognize that fact. It is I guess a political reason for supporting bilingual programs. Being a Puerto Rican I am a colonial subject of the United States of America.

As a colonial subject, I believe that I am covered by the provisions of the United Nations concerning peoples that have not yet fully achieved sovereignty and self-determination. Pertaining to the safeguarding of their language and their culture, a comprehensive bilingual program would also recognize that fact.

But we need to ask ourselves, after having said all that, why is bilingualism important for the United States? What advantages are there? And I'll just speak about the commercial advantages. There are, in Latin America, at least 350 million people who speak Spanish. This is -- these are all potential customers of the United States of America.

Enabled to compete effectively, in the world market place and in the global economy, we need citizens in this country who understand both the language and the culture that impacts and effects those markets. In able for us to compete effectively, I repeat, we need to have people that understand the language and the culture, and business leaders will tell you that.

Now, I wanted to make just a couple of comments on Senator Bozek's comments. One of the things that he said, he seemed to be insinuating that those that fail in school are only the children that are involved in bilingual education programs. We know that not to be the case. We know that there are many children who fail in school who do not attend bilingual programs and who are all English speaking.

That talks bad about our educational system in general and not so much about the bilingual program. He also stated that using our tax dollars for bilingual education was a waste of those tax dollars. I assure you that he wasn't speaking about my tax dollars, as a taxpayer or the tax dollars of all of the Latin American people in the state of Connecticut who pay taxes every year.

I speak before you with some personal experience. When I came to this country from Puerto Rico, I was 11 years old. I spoke no English and there were no bilingual programs, then. Because of that I was failed for that particular year because I spoke limited English. That retarded my education. It wasn't until I was an old man that I obtained a bachelor's degree, but you could probably clearly understand that the impact that that had not only on my personal development but also on my earning ability.

So, I felt -- I feel that that retarded me in both ways and I still feel hurt by that and that is one of the reasons why I am a strong advocate of bilingual education. I'd like to commend the Committee for allowing the children to speak ahead of turn, and I would also like to suggest that that be extended also to parents and ordinary people that come before this Committee.

And I am going to be proposing legislation to that effect to impact not only the Education Committee but all committees because I believe that it's disrespectful to the citizens and it doesn't help to encourage participation in the Democratic process. Thank you again.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? No. Thank you. Marina Lesnick? Mirta Guadeloupe? Okay. Okay, you're coming. Got it. Are you Mirta?

ANNA MARIA OLEZZA: Good afternoon. My name is Anna Maria Olezza --

REP. STAPLES: Oh, Maria, I'm sorry.

ANNA MARIA OLEZZA: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you when you called. I'm grateful to the opportunity to speak to you, today. I'm the Coordinator of the Bilingual Bicultural Department for Hartford Public Schools and a professor of Education at the University of Connecticut.

I'm here to support proposed HB 6889, and I strongly oppose proposed SB 292. There are two over arching questions that research has answered for us in the past two decades. In response to the fairly unsophisticated questions, does bilingual education work? The research shows clearly that successful bilingual education programs have been implemented around the world and students do not lag behind in their academic skills in the majority language in spite of spending instructional time in the minority language.

In response to the question, will greater amounts of English instruction, time on task, result in greater academic achievement in their second language? The research data fails to show any positive correlation between the amount of English instruction in a program, and student outcomes.

A federally funded longitudinal study conducted by Virginia Collier and Wayne Thomas and presented at NAVE last month, has examined two million student records from 16 districts across the nation from rural, urban and suburban settings.

The results reported indicate that the amount of formal schooling in the native language that students have received is the strongest predictor of how rapidly they will catch up, academically in the second language. This factor is stronger predictor than social economic status or the extent to which parents may or may not speak English.

This study does not stand alone as evidence of the effectiveness of bilingual education. It's credibility is compounded by the fact that the findings are consistent with predictions derived from theoretical propositions and reaffirmed by case studies of successful bilingual and tri-lingual programs that have been implemented in widely different social linguistic and geographical contexts.

Social and educational policy decisions depend on other considerations than those derived by research, alone. However, policy makers need to rationalize their decisions in terms of what is the best interest of the children and the society at large.

Honorable members of the Educational Committee, access to quality education must be available to all students who attend Connecticut schools. All students need to have the requisite skills that will enable them to fully participate in a democratic society and meet the new state standards.

Furthermore, English language learners need instructional programs that recognize the centrality of language and the importance of bilingualism and biliteracy in the 21st century. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Could those of you who are still waiting to testify please raise your hands just so I know how many are still here. One, two, three, four, five. Okay, why don't you just come up in the front row, there and just come one at a time. The list is hard to -- there's a lot of people who have come and gone, so I'd rather just each of you just come up in order and tell us who you are and testify. Go right ahead.

CAROL SHAPIRO BERSEN: Good afternoon, members of the Education Committee. My name is Carol Shapiro Bersen. I'm an assistant coordinator and Title Seven Dual Resource Language Resource Specialist for the Hartford Public Schools Title Seven Dual Language Enrichment Program.

I'm here to express my support, with certain considerations, for SB 449, AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS. Through a Title Seven grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Hartford public schools has initiated a dual language program at Maria Sanchez and M.D. Fox elementary schools.

This is the first year and a planning year of a five year grant. We have seen the benefits of the dual language program through the piloting of two classrooms at the kindergarten level at each school. We have been very satisfied with the progress that our language minority and language majority students have made in two languages, English and Spanish.

Benefits include developing high levels of proficiency in student's first language and in a second language. Focus on high academic performance in both languages and developing positive cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors.

Dual language programs give equal status to both languages. The program is an additive versus subtractive in nature since each group of students gets to add a second language to the repitoire. Research proves that combination of native language instruction together with English instruction is the best model.

Since dual language programs develop both languages, they are effective. There are, however, certain considerations that need to be addressed in order for dual language programs to be successful. I recommend that SB 449 take these into account. These include sufficient time to implement the program. Support, including additional funding to implement the program and choice to implement the program.

Additional funding will be needed since all staff, both bilingual and monolingual implementing a dual language program must have appropriate professional development, particularly in the areas of dual language research and theory, second language development, including instructional strategies and cooperative learning.

This is critical since all academic experiences include both language minority and language majority students. Materials must be available in both languages for all subject areas. An opportunity for a planning year and our pilot should be offered, there needs to be sufficient students from both groups in a classroom in order to serve as language models.

This may be difficult if there are relatively small numbers of students requiring a bilingual program at a school. Transients, attrition and newcomers present specific challenges for dual language programs. They need to be planned for. Newcomers in upper grades may not be able to enter a dual language program, since fellow students will have developed high levels of proficiency in both languages.

All parents may not want their children in a dual language program for certain reasons. Research for dual language programs clearly demonstrates that these programs are successful. I reiterate my support for SB 449, AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS, with the considerations I have just presented. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill. I also have copies of the testimony that I presented, for you.

REP. STAPLES: Okay, that's be great. Why don't you give that to our staff. Thank you very much for coming. Please, come on up. Just introduce yourself for the record.

FERNANDO MUNZ: Certainly. Good afternoon, Representative Staples, members of the Education Committee. For the record, my name is Fernando Munz. I'm Deputy Director of ASPIRA of Connecticut, the only state-wide Latino youth education agency in the state and I'm representing the Board, staff and over 1,200 volunteers and students that serve in our programs.

I'm here in reference specifically to raised HB 6889. I'd like to preface my written comments very quickly by saying that something that Senator Bozek and several others have brought up, is legislation at the Federal level and also at the state level that looks at children's education and two words, when you look at Brown versus Board of Education, the EEOA of 1974, Lowe versus Nichols, two words that continuously come up are "appropriate" and "equitable", in terms of children's education and certainly our own state constitution guarantees and equal education for all of our children.

We believe that raised HB 6889 AN ACT CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION begins to do that and fully support many of its provisions. Specifically we would call attention to Section One, sub-section Two, paragraph C that provides for the continuous increase in the use of English leading to use of English for more than half of the instructional time by the end of the first year.

We would encourage the Committee to consider not having such harsh deadlines as children learn at different rates and sometimes these rates are not equal. Secondly, in section two, paragraph B, the state -- that state's districts shall provide a bilingual educational program, a dual language program or an English as a Second Language program.

We would highly encourage the Committee to eliminate any such language from the final bill that would allow individual districts to substitute dual language and English as a Second Language programs, in place of comprehensive bilingual education. It should be noted that English as a Second Language commonly known as ESL, is only one component of an effective bilingual program.

Furthermore, dual language programs are not appropriate for all children and should be viewed as only part of a comprehensive approach. We support the language in the bill that limits the time eligible students may spend in bilingual education to 30 consecutive months.

Furthermore, we support the kindergarten exemption as children in kindergarten are learning so many other social and cognitive skills that counting the year as part of the 30 months would be a disservice to them and to their families.

In Section 2-E, we support the deletion of references to English language immersion programs as these programs are often counter-productive and do not provide students with the support they need in meeting basic academic subject areas as they learn English.

And I can tell you from my own personal experience as an eight year old arriving in Milford, Connecticut, from Puerto Rico that English language immersion is not only traumatic, but can only seriously retard the progress that children make in their academic subjects.

I spent grades two, three and four in mostly language immersion and finally, with some small ESL help, I spent grades five, six, seven and eight trying to catch up, academically. In Section two, paragraph G, sub-section three, establishing requirements for emergency certificates for prospective bilingual education teachers, we strongly support this provision as it allows prospective teachers to be meeting our children's needs while preparing to pass the required certification examinations,

We strongly oppose language in Section four, paragraph A, that suggest districts may hire other certified teachers to fill vacancies in bilingual education programs. Such language may result in untrained or otherwise unqualified teachers being placed in bilingual education programs.

The results could be potentially detrimental to students of said programs as they will not be provided with the same quality of education afforded to other students whose teachers have received specific trainings in the methodology of bilingual education and language development.

I'll close and I won't go into the full detail of our written testimony as you have in it record, by saying that yearly, ASPIRA of Connecticut provides testimony on the issue of bilingual education and we have yet to really hear this Committee and other committees talk about fully funding bilingual education as a comprehensive process.

It should be noted in testimony by previous speakers such as Dr. Saledo of Bridgeport and others that the overwhelming research in the area suggest that bilingual education is just like any other educational intervention, when fully funded, well designed and well staffed, it can be a very appropriate and efficient way to educate children.

Unfortunately, many of the interventions that have been funded in the past in Connecticut, do not fully fund and fully support these children. We strongly encourage the Committee to pass HB 6889 and strongly consider the above as you weigh these difficult issues. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? No. Thank you. Okay, next? Go right ahead. Anybody can come up. We're not -- we're just following whatever order you choose to follow, now.

EVA DIAZ: My name is Eva Diaz and I am speaking on behalf of two organizations. The first one is PABEA, the Professional Association of Bilingual Education Administrators and the second one is CAPSEA, Connecticut Association of Public Schools ESL Administrators.

We have a three page statement which I'm not going to read but I will leave with you. However, I want to first of all, say that we were involved with the law of 99-211, and presently we are strongly supporting HB 6889 which is aimed at improving on that law.

We support SB 449 with reservation because for one, the definition -- there's a statement that says that there's bilingual education eliminating bilingual education for dual language and dual language is a form of bilingual education.

I personally coordinate a dual language program in New Haven, Connecticut and it is a mammoth task which requires a lot of time and a lot of preparation, so mandating it is a very difficult thing to do because we have to have the support of our parents and the also working with the teachers on getting this started, it's a very arduous task and very expensive, too.

We've been able to do it because of a Federal grant but if we were going to do it in many schools, it would require a lot of monies. PABEA does not support any of the following raised bills. HB 6751, AN ACT CONCERNING MASTERY TEST EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED PROFICIENT STUDENTS which would reduce the number of years of exemption from three years to one year, for all the reasons that have been stated here, today.

Also, we do not support SB 292, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS which would eliminate the mandate of bilingual education and I would like to know that there was mention of the (inaudible) conservative agenda which behind the English only movement is really hiding and an anti-immigrant movement.

When we see reading or math failing across the country, we never see testimonies on eliminating math or reading. Therefore, also, I would like to point out that I was part of a group of people from New Haven who presented at the NAVIC conference in Phoenix, Arizona, just this February 22nd, and we saw a lot of research from Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier which actually states that these programs in California with these new English only laws are not really working at all. Very good statistics.

There was a statement made today about dual language not being appropriate for all students. I've been working in a program that has special education students and students with learning difficulties and I would say that this is very appropriate for all students. But, again with the reservation that it requires a lot of time and money. And on behalf of PABEA and CAPSEA, I thank you for this opportunity to make this presentation and I will leave a copy with you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Questions? No. Thank you.

LILIANA MINAYA ROWE: Good afternoon. My name is Liliana Minaya Rowe. I am a professor of Education at the University of Connecticut. In the past 21 years, I have trained teachers and administrators of bilingual programs and of schools with large numbers of English language learners in Connecticut.

I have also directed about 50 research projects in the field of bilingual education. Honorable members of the Education Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak to you today. I am against the passage of proposed SB 292, as this bill removes the mandates for bilingual education. If passed, this bill will eliminate access to quality schooling for English language learners.

Very briefly, current research, I have a three page statement and I'm just going to skim through it. Current research and practice in the U.S. and in the other countries supports bilingual schooling. The research of my doctoral students and my own research conducted in bilingual programs in Connecticut validate many of the research findings at the national level.

Bilingual education is an enriching phenonimon. Socially, cognitivily, linguistically, rich, poor, any race, minority, majority. Furthermore, when bilinguals are compared with monolinguals on different kinds of scales, bilinguals are superior. Students who go through a well implemented bilingual program, not only leave it speaking, reading and writing in two languages, but also do well in academics when they are mainstreaming the all English program.

In other words, we do not need to wait until we learn English before we learn everything that needs to be learned in school. The two languages of the bilingual person are interdependent. They do not need to compete. Limited spaces and resources -- we don't need to have two heads to speak two languages. The knowledge and skills learned in one language transfer to the other language.

They do not have to be relearned once you read, you read. Once you are educated, you are educated. And I want to correct the senator from New Britain when he pointed to the work of (indiscernible) into the negative effects of bilingualism. As a matter of fact, 50 years ago we learned of the positive effects of bilingualism.

Exactly a misinterpreted, that research. I am against proposed SB 449 as this bill is intended for districts to have the option of either transitional bilingual education or dual language programs. It is possible to have both languages to co-exist in Connecticut, but one cannot supplant the other.

I am against proposed HB 6551 as this lowers the exemption period from 30 months to 10 months. As has been stated throughout these hearings, the -- it takes anywhere from three to seven years to master the academic uses of English.

I support proposed HB 6889 and I have a few friendly suggestions and I would like to close that -- in closing my testimony, allow me to point out that we need to consider as somebody said just recently, the increase in the allocations for funding, particularly with the focus on teacher development.

The recent census reports of the tremendous growth of limited English proficient students in the country. While the school enrollment across the nation grew by 13.6 percent from 1989 to 2000, limited English proficient students enrollment increased by 104 percent during the same period.

The situation in Connecticut mirrors the national level and while the U.S. Congress and the foreign service spend millions of dollars to promote the teaching of foreign languages deemed vital to national security, economic competitiveness and scientific inquiry, we are talking about laws that require native speakers of those tongues to abandon them as quickly as possible.

Do not cut into the treasury of language and cultural knowledge that should be nurtured and promoted. The Connecticut school population represents a wide range of the cultural and linguistic resources projected as needed in our global economy. The state should utilize them. Perhaps some day, to be American or become Americanized, we'll no longer need to be monolingual. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Any questions? No. Thank you. No questions. Thank you.

CARMEN INGLESIAS: Good afternoon. My name is Carmen Inglesias. I am a dual language resource teacher from Maria Sanchez and M.D. Fox. I strongly support SB 449, AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL LANGUAGE. I have seen the benefits of the dual language program to the piloting of two classrooms at the kindergarten level at each school.

The program gives equal status to both languages. Research proves that a combination of native language and instruction together with English instruction, is the best model. Teacher and parents have concerns to be addressed by the legislation on dual language for this program to be successful.

We must take into consideration the funding, support and time. Time to implement the program. Everyone is not able to meet the challenge of learning two languages. That is why we must leave the door open to other programs. We do support SB 449 if you take into consideration our concerns. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Go ahead.

YVETTE DEFEO: Good afternoon, Representative Staples and members of the Education Committee. First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to express our views regarding bilingual education. For the record, my name is Yvette DeFeo and I'm Director of Bilingual Education Services for the Bridgeport Public School System.

I am here today to support proposed HB 6889 which amends the current public law 99-211. My position today represents the views of the Bridgeport public school system along with its' parents, students, teachers and the community. We support the change that limits the time eligible students may spend in bilingual education to 30 consecutive months.

Furthermore, we fully support not counting kindergarten in these 30 months. Research shows that successful acquisition of a second language cannot occur until the student has been given the opportunity to establish a foundation in his or her native language. Therefore, counting kindergarten as part of the 30 month time limit will not be in the best interest of the student's educational growth and development.

The deferral route to certification will no longer be in effect as of July, 2001. Presently, we have a shortage of bilingual teachers and there's a tremendous need for extending the time frame of the deferral and or providing an emergency certificate for those candidates who have not passed the required state examinations, but are sorely needed for teaching in classrooms.

We strongly oppose not allowing secondary students with less than 30 months for graduation to be offered the opportunity to receive bilingual education services. The removal of this mandate will provide the student the opportunity to receive a quality education that will meet their needs in their primary language.

Finally, English language learners should be tested on the CMT only if they have completed 30 consecutive months in bilingual education. Testing should be developed to assess the oral and academic gains of students on a yearly basis. We support testing at the appropriate time and with the use of the appropriate assessments.

In closing, it is our hope that the educational welfare of our students will be foremost on your minds as you consider these complex issues. I thank you very much for your attention and consideration.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much. Questions?

NORMA JONES: Good evening. Good evening. My name is -- glad to have the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm the PTO president of Maria Sanchez school and also a parent of a child that is in the dual language enrichment program. I'm here to ask for your support. I greatly support the dual language enrichment program but I have concern in the way the new law will be implemented. Please look at how our concern for our children and take them into consideration.

My son, Qualeeg, I don't see he has no problem in translating with two languages and I think it would be of great help to all the children based on communication in school. He's getting along at an easy pace, translating with his Spanish speaking classmates and I see -- I don't have no problem with dual language and I'm asking for your support and I hope you will support it because you know communication is the biggest factor in the school. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you very much.

VERNICE J. WINSTON DUKE: Good afternoon. I say good afternoon because my testimony says, good morning. It's been a long day. But a fruitful one. I've learned a lot from a lot of the testimony. My name -- good afternoon. My name is Vernice J. Winston Duke and I've been a teacher in the Hartford school system for the past 17 years.

I'm currently a kindergarten teacher at Moylan Amigos Dual Language Program in Hartford, Connecticut. The program has been in existence for almost three years. Honorable members of the Education Committee, it's a privilege to discuss one of the many bilingual program designs, Dual Language, with you. I am in support of dual language programs as one of the many bilingual education options that can be offered to majority English speakers and minority, Spanish, Italian, Vietnamese etcetera, language speakers.

Dual language programs provide an opportunity for students to share their native language and culture in a positive and in an esteem building way. Dual language programs regard minority, Spanish, Italian, Vietnamese, etcetera and the majority language, English, in equal esteem. Children are encouraged to share their cultural gifts with each other.

Their native language is reinforced and transference to their second language is facilitated by the first language competence. Peers are encouraged to respect each other's culture. Parents of minority and majority students as a result of the dual language programs, have become invested in bilingual education and second language acquisition.

Dual language programs are ideal for students who have strong oral language skills in their native language. Students with limited skills in their native language may have great difficulty performing in two languages, simultaneously.

Successful dual language programs need a 50 percent population of native and non-native speakers. The research suggests that equal numbers of both groups enhance the success of the program. Unless models for both languages are present, dual language designs are not recommended as bilingual education -- as a bilingual education design for second language learners.

Students in the Moylan Amigos program are making progress in their native language and their second language. We have trained our staff to understand the needs of second language learners and how to present a second language in comprehensible way.

And I'd like to add as an aside, that the dual language program that I'm currently involved in, I'm the kindergarten teacher in that program, has been successful because it's had a lot of support from the parents, a lot of teacher initiative and it's been a grass-roots effort and one of the things that's made it successful is that we've educated the parents as we go along about what the issues are and giving them the choice.

I do not support eliminating bilingual education and putting dual language in its' place because it's a particular bilingual design and it doesn't work for all children. If you do not have a strong base in native language you have a lot of difficulty doing two languages simultaneously.

And I think that it's important for the Committee to realize that the research indicates that you have to have the population for it and to make it a mandate across the state that we do dual language programs when the population is not there to provide the models is very difficult.

So, I hope that you would consider that as a Committee and thank you for the opportunity to share my view with you and if any of you would like to visit our program, we are more than welcome and thank you again.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. I believe you are the last witness, today. Are you testifying?

VICTOR RIVERA: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Victor Rivera and I'm a parent at Barnum School in Bridgeport and we currently have there a bilingual program in Bridgeport and I'm here to support the bill, HB 6889. I would like to talk to you about my experience with bilingual and my job and my community. As is many bilingual education for our student because they are future leaders in a community.

There are many people from Latin America countries that have the need for learning English and other to have success in our country. Esoteric shows the number of Latinos in this country continues to increase. Also, my own childrens do not need bilingual education. I seen the necessary in my community in my own personal experience I asking you to please support HB 6889. Thank you.

REP. STAPLES: Thank you. Since there's nobody else to testify, this hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon the Public Hearing was adjourned)