BYE BYE BILINGUAL: Bilingual Education

Wednesday, December 13, 2000

Does bilingual education, teaching non-English speaking students academic subjects in their native language while they learn English, help students or hold them back? Should we use the English immersion method instead? Are the recent bans on bilingual education in California and Arizona a mistake or the beginnings of a national trend?

Recorded on Wednesday, December 13, 2000

Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today, Bilingual Education. Picture the tens of millions of American school children at lunchtime. Here's what might be considered a typical American lunch, peanut butter and jelly sandwich. My own favorite in days gone by, Hostess cupcakes. Children of recent immigrants, however, often bring different kinds of food to the lunchroom. Chinese children, pork bun, Asian pear. Mexican children, burrito, a piece of papaya. And even as children often bring to the lunchroom, food proper to their parents' homeland, so, of course, they often speak the language proper to their parents' homeland. Chinese, Spanish and dozens of others, which brings us to bilingual education.

The teaching of children, over time, often many years, in their native language while they slowly learn English. Does bilingual education actually help children adapt to English or does it hold them back? Should they be placed in English immersion classes instead?

With us today, two guests, Ron Unz is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has backed two initiatives, both successful, one in California, one in Arizona, to end bilingual education. Now Unz is taking his campaign, English for the children, to the rest of the country. Patricia Gàndara favors bilingual education. She is a Professor of Education at the University of California at Davis.

Title: Speaking in Tongues

Peter Robinson: In 1998, Californians enacted Proposition 227 putting an end to bilingual education in this state. The New York Times, writing this past summer on the results of Prop 227, I quote, "Two years after Californians voted to end bilingual education and force a million Spanish-speaking students to immerse themselves in English as if it were a cold bath, those students are improving in reading and other subjects at often striking rates." Delaine Eastin, California's own Superintendent of Public Instruction, I quote, "Some people are claiming based on no systematic study and a few rough numbers that the program," that would be the program mon--mandated by Prop 227, "is a success but we are not nearly at the point where we can say that." Who's right? The New York Times or California's own Superintendent of Public Instruction? Patricia?

Patricia Gàndara: Well I think the Superintendent of Public Instruction was certainly much more circumspect in the way she looked at the data and I think The New York Times was very--actually irresponsible in the way they looked at the data.

Peter Robinson: So you're closer to, we're not there yet. We can't--we have to...

Patricia Gàndara: We're not...

Peter Robinson: ...be really careful about what we claim.

Patricia Gàndara: ...not only are we not there yet, I think that the data seem to show a different picture and we can talk about that.

Peter Robinson: Ron, who's right?

Ron Unz: Well, since Delaine Eastin, the Superintendent have been a vehement opponent of the initiative, obviously it wouldn't be very likely that she would admit that she was totally wrong on the issue. The test scores of many of these students have doubled in less than two years. Now it's a question of whether doubling of test scores is viewed as significant enough to indicate the success of the program. I say doubling test scores is significant.

Peter Robinson: I'm just asking you, so The New York Times is right?

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Peter Robinson: The news is good and solidly good...

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Peter Robinson: The notion of an explosion is you could ex--explode somewhere near...

[Talking at same time]

Peter Robinson: ...and unambiguously good. Okay. Now, what is bilingual education? Ron, what is the nu--what--what is bilingual education?

Ron Unz: Well what we call bilingual education, in most cases and it varies considerably from area to area, refers to native language instruction. In other words, a program in which children, young immigrant children, who don't know English very well are taught for years, sometimes for many years, significantly or almost entirely in their native language. In other words, a reasonable description of bilingual programs would be Spanish only or Spanish almost only instruction. It's been...

[Talking at same time]

Peter Robinson: So the term bilingual is a misnomer actually?

Ron Unz: Well it depends. I mean, again, it's the term people use and it refers to programs in which almost all the instruction is not in English.

Peter Robinson: Patricia, first of all, would you buy that characterization?

Patricia Gàndara: No, not at all.

Peter Robinson: No. Well how would you describe bilingual education then?

Patricia Gàndara: A lot of different things go into the rubric of bilingual education as--as he points out. There's a whole variation of programs out there. But every study, major study, national study, that has been done that has looked at what goes on in this breadth of programs into bilingual education, has concluded that most, overwhelmingly, most of the instruction is actually in English and that only a minority of the instruction, in spite of what some of us might think would be the better way to go, is in the native language.

Peter Robinson: Nevertheless, the fundamental idea is to take people, students, who do not speak--speak English or do not speak English in any way that would be considered fluent and give them at least some instruction in their own native tongue. That--that, at least--that much, at least is fair to say.

Patricia Gàndara: It's to use both languages, both languages as tools in instructing children who do not understand English.

Peter Robinson: And what is the educational theory underlying that approach?

Patricia Gàndara: There's really so--th--there's a--a very strong foundation in second language acquisition that we build from. The idea, one, that learning builds on learning so that if a child knows something in any language, the child knows that and it's a good idea then to build on what the child already knows rather than to go back to ground zero. The fact that learning transfers, anything you know in English, you already know in any other language. All you need is new language labels to--to activate that learning. And primarily I think the programming--programming is based on the notion that time is a critical variable and you don't want to lose time instructing children until they can learn the second language.

Peter Robinson: So--so the idea would be if you have a body of immigrant children or children who are raised by immigrants who don't speak English at home, and you bring them into school where English on--is the only language of instruction, the kids lose time in the academic subject areas because they're struggling to learn English. That's the fundamental idea.

Patricia Gàndara: Precisely.

Peter Robinson: And that's what bilingual education attempts to avoid?

Patricia Gàndara: And the children can be taught a lot of things in their primary language as they're learning English.

Peter Robinson: Okay. Now...

Peter Robinson: Let's turn to California and Ron Unz' Proposition 227 as a case study.

Title: The Unz-Certainty Principle

Peter Robinson: Why did you do it? What was wrong with bilingual education as practiced in California?

Ron Unz: My personal interest in the issue derives from my background in that I come from a little bit of an immigrant background myself. My mother was born in Los Angeles but grew up not speaking a word of English. She learned English...

Peter Robinson: She spoke...

Ron Unz: She spoke Yiddish. Her family was from Eastern Europe. And she learned English very quickly and very easily as a young child. So when I first heard about bilingual education, probably when I was in junior high or so, it seemed very strange to me. In other words, it didn't seem to make much sense not to teach children English as soon as they started school. I occasionally read about these bilingual programs when I was in junior high, when I was in high school, when I was in college and it seemed all of those years, the programs weren't working well. They weren't successful but they seemed to be growing in size.

Peter Robinson: What was the objective evidence that it wasn't working as intended or it wasn't doing the kids any good?

Ron Unz: Well I think most of the articles I read described the programs and seemed to indicate the programs weren't working. In other words, typically was news stories or opinion pieces that indicated apparently that the programs weren't working. And so that really forced my own personal opinion on the matter and the matter of everybody else saying, including a lot of immigrant friends of mine.

Peter Robinson: Okay, take us to--we're in California. It's 1998, Unz here sitting down at a table to draft Prop 227. That is to say it hasn't been enacted yet. He has this strong impression. There is a newspaper on television, it is in the air that bilingual education ain't working. That's wrong in the first place?

Patricia Gàndara: Yes that's absolutely wrong.

Peter Robinson: How do you counter it? What--what--what...

Patricia Gàndara: Well...

Peter Robinson: ...statistics...

Patricia Gàndara: ...I have to assume--oh I--I have a lot of statistics and I can certainly give you those but I have to assume that his impression that the program doesn't work derives from the notion that immigrant students and students who--who are--students who do not speak English well enough to access the curriculum in the school, which are not all immigrants, by the way, don't do well in our schools. And so I think he then goes from that to the conclusion that bilingual education was a failure. Unfortunately, at the time that he drafted this, seventy percent of all children in California schools were in English only programs. They were not in bilingual programs. So these children who he saw not doing well in our schools were not the products, in large part, of bilingual programs.

Peter Robinson: Can I--hold--hold--let me--let me just ask you a prior question because the--the--Ron raised a point from his own experience which is the experience of huge numbers of Americans, that is to say, they themselves, their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents, came to this country speaking a language other than English. They went through a school system that in, I would warrant a majority of cases, but certainly a huge number of cases, just expected the immigrant children to learn English. And they did. So what was wrong with that? It just seems that on the--the--the--he is making a basic appeal to common sense and to the American experience that you are somehow attempting to override or refute.

Patricia Gàndara: Thank you very much for asking that because when Ron's mother came to this country from a very different background, by the way, than most of the children who are coming to us right now come from. When his mother came to this country, maybe half or about fifty percent of people in the high school age group, actually didn't graduated from high school. It was not a necessity. And many, many immigrants, most immigrants who do not speak English simply exited the system and they went to work in a labor market in which there were many jobs that one could do without having to have fluent English. That is no longer the case. Today we cannot expect children to come here and make it in this society without getting a full education. Exiting the system is not an option. His mother was successful. Most immigrants who came to this country in that cohort of individuals were not successful in our schools and we do have the data to show that.

Ron Unz: I'm afraid, factually, you're really totally wrong on most of what you've been saying. For example, in California, the vast, vast majority of young Hispanic children who didn't know English were in native language or entered programs. It was probably close to eighty percent. The distinction that has to be made is that in California...

Peter Robinson: You just--you just don't accept that fa--by the way, we cannot settle statistical disagreements here...

Patricia Gàndara: But we--but we can look at the data...

Peter Robinson: ...but you can, at least...

Patricia Gàndara: ...collected by the state. And the data collected by the state show that's not true.

Ron Unz: Here's the point of confusion. Eighty percent of the immigrant students in California schools, by immigrant students, I mean students who are classified as not knowing English very well, whether they were born here to immigrant families or themselves came here, are Hispanic. The other twenty percent speak a variety of other languages, a hundred and forty other languages actually. Of all the immigrant students in California, the non-Hispanic immigrant students, virtually none of them get what we call bilingual education. They're all put into English immersion oriented classes almost immediately. The Hispanic immigrant students, on the other hand, are put in Spanish language classes. It's interesting that of all the...

Peter Robinson: Can I just add--is that because it's simply too difficult for the State of California schools to set up, you may have two children, here...

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Peter Robinson: ...Vietnamese...

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Peter Robinson: ...or somebody here speaking Mandarin and somebody else speaking Canton--and you just--you just can't set up separate programs.

Ron Unz: That's certainly...

[Talking at same time]

Peter Robinson: That what's going on?

Ron Unz: That's certainly one of the reasons but the point about it is that of all the immigrant groups in California, the one immigrant group, Spanish speaking immigrant children, that receives bilingual instruction, does the worst in school. They have the highest dropout rates and the lowest test scores and the lowest rate of admission to college. Now I'm not saying that proves anything but if the one group that gets bilingual education does so much worse than the hundred and thirty-nine groups that don't get bilingual education, it indicates what the trim line is.

Peter Robinson: What did Prop 227...

Peter Robinson: Let's look at the specifics of the proposition that ended bilingual education in California.

Title: The Spanish Prisoners

Peter Robinson: What did Prop 227 say? Can you summarize it briefly?

Ron Unz: Essentially what 227 did was to say that under normal circumstances, young immigrant children when they start school, if they don't already know English, should be placed in intensive one-year, sheltered Eng--English immersion program to teach them English as quickly as possible. Once they've learned enough English to do right there in school, they should be mainstreamed into a regular class.

Peter Robinson: Okay. And one further question about the--the early days of Prop 227, if the failure was so blatant...

Ron Unz: Sure.

Peter Robinson: ...why didn't the state legislature do something about it? Why did you have to have recourse to a balloted initiative?

Ron Unz: Well, again, the issue is very controversial because you have a very well organized group that might be called representatives of the bilingual education industry. You have all the bilingual education teachers. You have all the bilingual education academics. You have the bilingual education coordinators, the bilingual education administrators...

[Talking at same time]

Ron Unz: ...the bilingual education textbook manufacturers. They live off this program and obviously for a vi--wide variety of different reasons, they're very reluctant to admit the failure of that program.

Peter Robinson: Prop 227, di--did you oppose it at the time?

Patricia Gàndara: Oh certainly, yeah. Certainly.

Peter Robinson: Could--by the way, do you grant that--I mean, it would seem to me that even if one opposed Prop 227, there's a little something in what Ron says. That is to say, state money was disbursed to bilingual education teachers. It was their livelihood after all that was being threatened. Do you grant that...

Patricia Gàndara: No, I do not grant that. In fact, I--I really want to address that because he's said this many times. There is none of us--if bilingual education disappeared tomorrow, it has nothing to do with my livelihood, nor does it have anything to do with the livelihood of all those teachers out there. We have a teacher shortage in this state. Do you think that there is one well-credentialed teacher who the state is going to turn their back on and say, you no longer have a job because we're not doing bilingual education? No, there is--nobody in this state is dependent upon bilingual education for a job or to further their own careers. Even the textbook industry, oftentimes, does these textbooks at a loss because they don't sell enough of these textbooks to really be a big part of their market. They would just as soon be doing English-only textbooks.

Peter Robinson: Now, again, I can't--we simply can't settle questions of facts. This is not a--a trial court where--which I'm forced to settle questions of fact. It's television. You get to assert what you want to assert. What did you think would happen, back in 1998, if Prop 227 was enacted, to the kids?

Patricia Gàndara: Okay. One of the things that we worried about a lot was that--was that parents would lose voice in--in this matter. That parents would not have much of a say because of a kind of very strict language in the--in the proposition. To some extent, that hasn't played out as--quite as much as I thought that it--that it would happen. But what--I guess, what I worried about most is what kind of instruction were those children going to get in this year of structured English immersion which was not specified at all in the proposition. And when--when this passed, most teachers threw up their hands and said, now what do I do? There was really no...

Peter Robinson: We turn now to the results of the ban on bilingual education in California.

Title: Bye-Bye Bilingual

Peter Robinson: How do you assess the situation with non-English speaking kids two years after Prop 227 was enacted?

Patricia Gàndara Well I suppose that primary...

Peter Robinson: By the way, we're talking about roughly a million students who...

Patricia Gàndara: Yes.

Peter Robinson: ...are--which is about a quarter of the school-age population in California. Is that acc--roughly accurate?

[Talking at same time]

Patricia Gàndara: It's about a million and a half students who are on limited English. It's about a million who are--a little bit more than that who are in this program.

[Talking at same time]

Peter Robinson: Oh who are in the program.

Patricia Gàndara: Who are--who are in this structured immersion now.

Peter Robinson: Okay. So it's a huge number in absolute terms and it's also a very large proportion...

Patricia Gàndara: Yes.

Peter Robinson: ...of the California...

Patricia Gàndara: Absolutely, yes.

Peter Robinson: ...kids. And what are you finding?

Patricia Gàndara: And what we have seen is a--in--at least in the initial implementation of this a fair amount of chaos precisely because people did not know what to do. And people who had programs that were working well, were told stop, desist, do something else but we can't tell you what that is. So we've seen an--an increasing inconsistency...

Peter Robinson: Increasing, okay, so...

Patricia Gàndara: Increasing...

Peter Robinson: ...chaos has not shaken out.

Patricia Gàndara: Increasing...

Peter Robinson: ...and you'd expect...

Patricia Gàndara: ...inconsistency in what children are receiving in the classroom because we did not spell out at the beginning what this was supposed to look like.

Ron Unz: Let's just take a very simple case, very simple case. Two districts and that was actually part of the focus of The New York Times' story that got their attention. There was the Oceanside Unified School District down near San Diego, medium-sized district, with a large, poor immigrant Latino population. Right next to it was the Vista Unified School District, roughly the same size, same demography. The Oceanside District was run by the man who founded the California Association of Bilingual Educators. He was ex-bilingual teacher. He was a vehement opponent of the initiative but when it passed, he said, the law is the law. The law has to be obeyed. He colimit--he completely eliminated all of his bilingual programs. He probably had the strictest compliance with the initiative of any district in the state. He was immediately attacked by the bilingual advocates. They said a student's education would be destroyed. They protested. His test scores doubled in less than two years. They went up more rapidly than virtually any other school district in the state. By contrast, the Vista District right next door, was described by bilingual advocates as having some of the best bilingual programs in the state. They worked very hard to ignore the initiative, to circumvent it, to keep their students in bilingual education. Vista was about the only school district that I'm aware of in the State of California where immigrant test scores last year went down rather than up.

Patricia Gàndara: I am so pleased...

Peter Robinson: Very powerful anecdotal story.

Patricia Gàndara: ...I am so pleased that this was raised. Shortly after that story came out in The New York Times, the State Department of Education announced that oops, they had made a mistake in the calculations of the data. And that, in fact, the--the highest scoring portion of the students in the Vista schools had not been included in those te--those data calculations precisely because they were considered to have been reclassified. They put them back and I--I'm going...

Peter Robinson: Right.

Patricia Gàndara: ...I'm going to go onto that in a moment.

Peter Robinson: Okay.

Patricia Gàndara: They put those--those kids back into the calculations and found a very different picture. The picture that they found after recalculating these was that, in half of the cases, the children from Vista had outperformed the children from Oceanside in math. And in the comparisons between reading at Oceanside and reading at Vista, Oceanside did indeed outperform Vista by a couple of points but that's precisely what one would expect when you are teaching children initially in Spanish.

Peter Robinson: Your take on it as it sorts out, once the data has been correctly recalculated is that it proves...

Patricia Gàndara: There's one other piece of data I need to mention to you.

Peter Robinson: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Patricia Gàndara: Okay. And that is that, when this campaign got underway in California, Mr. Unz' chief complaint about bilingual education was that it was a failure because ninety-five percent of the children were not being reclassified as English speakers, that they were remaining stuck in this...

Peter Robinson: Right...

Patricia Gàndara: ...you know, this...

Peter Robinson: Right.

Patricia Gàndara: ...never-ending position...

Peter Robinson: Right, right.

Patricia Gàndara: ...of being LEP. The Vista School District has--has a--twice the rate of reclassification that the Oceanside School District does. Oceanside School District's reclassification of children from LEP status to English speaker has been declining every year since the passage of 227.

Peter Robinson: So your position is that the--not merely that the data are too ambiguous for him to make his point...

Patricia Gàndara: It's not the full picture.

Peter Robinson: ...on the contrary, the data prove the opposite point...

[Talking at same time]

Patricia Gàndara: Well certainly his point that if--if you want to call bilingual education a failure because it doesn't reclassify students then certainly you would have to say that Oceanside is failing in the face of Vista's much better record...

Peter Robinson: You have ten seconds to respond to that because I want to move onto another point.

Ron Unz: That's an awful lot to respond to. Again...

Peter Robinson: Is this news to you?

Ron Unz: Of course not.

Peter Robinson: Okay.

Ron Unz: Of course not. What happened when Vista's numbers turned out to be very bad, Vista then claimed all their data was wrong. They claimed their own test scores were wrong. And, since then, they've claimed that they have to recalculate their test scores. What was used were the publicly posted test scores coming from Vista. But it's not just Vista. San Jose Unified which was the one school district in the State of California legally exempt from Proposition 227 because of court order, just down the road, major school district, they've shown virtually no improvement in their immigrant test scores in the last two years. Dead flat line. Now, in terms of the reclassification rate, again, you have it entirely mixed up. The reclassification rate...

[Talking at same time]

Ron Unz: It's a very simple issue.

Peter Robinson: Good.

Ron Unz: The supporters of bilingual education have always claimed that the only way to evaluate the program, since they don't want to test the students in bilingual programs and they've been very reluctant to ever test the students, is through the reclassification rate. I've been the first to say, reclassification is nonsense. The only people who use it are bilingual advocates as a measure of value. On the other hand, if their own measure of success or failure shows that their program has a ninety-five percent annual failure rate in teaching English, which it does, then even if I don't accept the validity of reclassification, if they accept it and if it shows a ninety-five percent failure rate, then it shows the lack of success of their program.

Peter Robinson: Okay. Let's move off statistics…

Peter Robinson: Last topic, the future of the campaign against bilingual education.

Title: If You Can Make It There...

Peter Robinson: You just passed Prop 203, was that it, in Arizona...

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Peter Robinson: ...which ended bilingual education in Arizona. Where else are you taking this campaign?

Ron Unz: Well probably the next stop is actually New York. In fact, there's been a tremendous...

Peter Robinson: City, state, both?

Ron Unz: Well New York State really--I mean, virtually all the immigrant children in New York who don't know English are in New York City. So New York City's the key target. New York City actually has the initiative process whereas New York State doesn't.

Peter Robinson: Right.

Ron Unz: And there's a very large group of people there who want to get rid of bilingual education in New York. Since New York is traditionally the immigrant center of the United States, since it's the media center, a very large city, with a very large immigrant population, I think that will play a huge role in nationalizing the whole issue.

Peter Robinson: Unz has been there. He's going back. It's only an airplane ride away and, as you point out, he has nothing else to do with his life now except devote himself to this cause. What is your advice...

Patricia Gàndara: My advice...

Peter Robinson: ...to the people of New York as Unz comes?

Patricia Gàndara: Okay. My advice to the people of New York is please look carefully at the data. In California, where we've had many, many reforms, test scores are going up for everybody but they are going up slower for children who are in these programs. That are...

Peter Robinson: You mean his English immersion programs?

Patricia Gàndara: Yes. In California, the gap is getting bigger between English speakers and English learners. We are headed in the wrong direction.

Peter Robinson: You are two literate people who are--who both have enough background to read statis--how is it that you can come up with--again, I say it for the tenth time, we can't settle the statistical disparities on this show but how is it that they exist in so glaring a way?

Ron Unz: Well let me say, on my side, virtually every journalist who's examined this information, New York Times, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, everyone has looked at the data and supported my conclusion.

Peter Robinson: And your statistics come from where?

Patricia Gàndara: And what I'm saying...

Peter Robinson: You're not making them up?

Patricia Gàndara: ...is I am--no, I am...

Ron Unz: Of course, she's making them up.

Peter Robinson: No, no, no, go ahead.

Patricia Gàndara: No, what I'm saying is I am doing and reading the literature and reading the studies. Mr. Unz has told you that he started reading about this is magazines and newspapers when he was in junior high school. There's a big difference.

Peter Robinson: Okay. It's television. Let's end up the show here with predictions. What I want to know is, has the Unz movement already crested or will it succeed further? You're going to--you succeeded with the--with an initiative in Arizona. You're going to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, am I naming states that you also have your eyes on?

Ron Unz: Probably (?) Colorado.

Peter Robinson: Colorado?

Ron Unz: Right.

Peter Robinson: Okay. So am I fair to...

Ron Unz: A few other states here and there maybe.

Peter Robinson: A few other states here and there.

Ron Unz: I mean, I really want to...

Peter Robinson: What I want to...

Ron Unz: Sure.

Peter Robinson: ...know. Make a prediction, make a prediction. Four years from now, when they get through this entire next presidential ter--administration, four years from now, will it just be California and Arizona who have ended bilingual education or will more--now I'm asking a practical, political matter, which way do you think the momentum lies? Patricia?

Patricia Gàndara: I think it's probably going to take four years until the data are really out there and people understand what has happened in California and what will be happening in Arizona before they will begin to some to their senses and say, this doesn't make a lot of sense.

Peter Robinson: But the data will slow Unz down and eventually reverse him?

Patricia Gàndara: Eventually.

Peter Robinson: Ron?

Ron Unz: Seems to me doubling test scores is a pretty good thing. The bottom line is within four years, I expect certainly bilingual education will be gone, possibly on a national level, possibly mostly state...

Peter Robinson: You think the federal government will cease...

[Talking at same time]

Ron Unz: I would think...

[Talking at same time]

Ron Unz: ...until every year the new test scores persuade congress to do something. Obviously moving forward in a few of these large states would be very useful. And the only--the--the supporters of bilingual...

Peter Robinson: This is your last sentence...

Ron Unz: ...supporters of bilingual for all these years, all the professors of bilingual education ethnic studies will be viewed as the crackpot witch doctors that they really are.

Peter Robinson: Oh that--I'm trying to end this show but you can't--I can't let you call her a crackpot witch doctor without letting Patricia come back. Give me one line to put him away.

Patricia Gàndara: He's wrong. The test scores...

Peter Robinson: That's enough.

Patricia Gàndara: The test scores are not doubling for English learners.

Peter Robinson: Patricia and Ron, thank you...

Ron Unz: I disagree.

Peter Robinson: ...very much. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Peter Robinson: I had the feeling that our guests disagreed even more strongly at the end of the show then at the beginning. And bilingual education is only one of the issues arising out of cultural diversity in our schools. For example, what's an even trade? Piece of papaya for Hostess cupcakes. I'm Peter Robinson. Thanks for joining us.