BILINGUAL PLAN ASSAILED : CRITICS SAY PROPOSAL COATS OLD PROBLEMS WITH COSMETIC CHANGES.

Byline: Kimberly Kindy Daily News Staff Writer

A proposed new bilingual master plan for the Los Angeles Unified School District calls for a reduction in the time students spend in bilingual programs - but doesn't budge on its controversial native language teaching approach, which was the cornerstone of the LAUSD's old plan.

The 208-page document, Master Plan for English Learners, will be reviewed for the first time today by the Board of Education at a 4:30 p.m. public hearing.

The draft plan, written over the past six months by 15 committees, is already under attack by critics of bilingual education who say it represents only cosmetic changes in the way L.A. Unified deals with its 300,000 limited-English-proficient students.

``This reform is a sham,'' said Sally Peterson, a district teacher in Sun Valley and president of Learning English Advocates Drive.

``They've made themselves look really good on paper,'' she said. ``They are really good at setting up commissions and writing reports, but this is just a lot of rhetoric. There is nothing new here.

``(Teaching in the) native language is still their thrust.''

The district historically has emphasized providing primary instruction in their native language to non-English-speaking students, along with simultaneous instruction in English.

The average time it takes L.A. Unified students to transition out of that bilingual program to an English-only classroom is five to six years.

District bilingual officials say native language remains the focus of their plan because they believe it works.

They argue that the plan has undergone a substantial overhaul in the areas that needed change, and say the proposal will result in improved student learning.

``It's not just cosmetic. It represents more than one year's work and there are a lot of new features,'' said Jessie Franco, assistant superintendent, language acquisition and bilingual development branch. ``But we didn't throw off the old and say, `This is no good.' ''

Public comment at today's hearing will be limited to 20 speakers. As of 5 p.m. Wednesday, three slots remained available. People interested in speaking should call [phone] before noon today.

Written public comments also will be accepted at the meeting, or can be sent to district headquarters.

A date for final board action has not yet been scheduled.

The district staff will develop implementation plans and provide staff development next school year with full implementation of the new master plan slated for the 1997-1998 school year.

Franco said the plan is more ``user friendly'' and provides incentives for schools to accelerate students' transition into English-only classrooms.

Among these are a $2.5 million to $3 million incentive fund from which bonuses would be paid to schools that speed up the transition. The details of how the money would be doled out have not yet been developed, but other districts already have used such incentives.

Even critics of the plan agreed that the incentives were a good idea, noting that in the past there was financial incentive for holding kids back in bilingual classes.

Schools receive extra funding to provide bilingual programs, and certificated bilingual teachers in the district receive a $5,000 annual stipend. The current cost to the district is $20 million.

``This is a good thing, it evens things out and provides incentives on both sides of the issue,'' said Jorge Amselle, editor of ``The Failure of Bilingual Education,'' a book published and distributed this week by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Equal Opportunity.

Board of Education member David Tokofsky agrees that there is a conflict of interest in having bilingual teachers and officials evaluate their own programs.

``We need to hire an external evaluator who can measure whether or not the programs are working,'' said Tokofsky. ``We need to move away from the feelings people have about the programs and evaluate what should be done based upon the data.''

Other changes made to the plan that focus on accelerating the transition rate include setting guidelines for how long the transition should take.

If a student comes into the district in kindergarten, the redesignation to an English-only classroom should take no more than five years. If they come to the district in middle or high school it should take three years, the plan says.

These guidelines come from Superintendent Sid Thompson's 1995 Call to Action, a list of five-year district goals. Beginning next school year each campus will issue to the public report cards that list the rate at which they redesignate students and principals and their administrators will be evaluated on the progress.

``There is much clearer delineation of how quickly students should transition into fluent English within certain periods of time,'' said board member Jeff Horton, chairman of the board's instruction and curriculum committee that oversaw the project. ``It wasn't clearly spelled out before and now it's a goal in the document.''

Just what will happen if schools fail to reach the goal has not been determined, district staff say.

The plan also allows for some flexibility in redesignating students who continue to fail to reach the required score on the standardized test that is given to measure a student's English competency.

Students who have remained in bilingual education for seven or more years, but have failed to score in at least the 37th percentile, will be allowed to move out of the program if they can score between the 31st and 36th for two consecutive years, and if they are doing well in their classroom work.

``There may be students who are doing really well in school but for some reason they don't meet the test criteria,'' said Toni Marsnik, an administrator in the bilingual education office. ``This will give a little flexibility for redesignation and allows the teacher to look at the student's progress over time.''