| |
May/June 1998
On June 2, California voters will decide whether to eliminate bilingual
education in their state. Proposition 227, also known as the "English for the
Children" initiative or the Unz initiative after the name of its chief sponsor,
proposes replacing current bilingual programs with a maximum of one year of
"sheltered English immersion" (see "Models of Language Instruction"). In
this case, parents would have to explicitly ask for their children to be placed
in native-language programs.
If Proposition 227 passes, it could lead to a seismic shift in educating the
nation's largest population of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students. With
1.4 million LEP students in the state, California is home to nearly half of the
nation's population of young English learners. In March 1998, the state board
of education gave school districts local control of decisions about educating
LEP students. However, if Proposition 227 passes, it would override any other
provisions.
In an effort to advance the dialogue about how best to educate students who do
not speak English, the Harvard Education Letter asked some key supporters and
opponents of the California ballot initiative to share their perspectives:
RON K. UNZ
Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Republican candidate
in California's 1994 gubernatorial primary, and chief sponsor of Proposition
227.
"The current system of bilingual education
just doesn't work. It may or may not work in theory, but it simply doesn't
work in practice. As far as I can tell, it's never worked anywhere on a
large scale in the United States in the last 30 years. The statistics are
dreadful. Right now in the state of California, a quarter of all the children
in public school don't know English. Of the children who start a given school
year not knowing English, by the end of that school year approximately 95
percent still don't know English. Assuming that the purpose of bilingual
education is to make sure that children can read and write English, it doesn't
seem to do a very good job. Of all the immigrant groups in California, Latino
children have the highest dropout rate, the lowest test scores, and the
lowest rate of admission to college. So if bilingual education is a good
thing, why are the people who are given the most of it doing the
worst?"
MIKE HONDA
Democratic assemblyman in the California legislature,
former high school teacher and principal.
"This proposition is instructionally unsound
and untenable. It's an untested experiment. Each local school district should
have the freedom to decide how to teach their limited-English-proficient
(LEP) children. The Unz initiative says: "Thou shalt teach only one
way." The school districts will have no authority and the teachers
will be mandated to one methodology. Unz says that most LEP youngsters are
failing. But when you look at the 1.4 million students who are
limited-English-speaking,
only 30 percent are receiving some sort of native-language instruction.
Seventy percent are receiving English-only instruction. If you say the LEP
population is failing, then its important to realize that the majority of
LEP students are in English-only programs. This is what Proposition 227
wantsfailure. Trying to solve a complex issue through the simplistic initiative
process leaves things up to a lot of rhetoric, promises, and intent. The
real picture is that we don't have enough qualified teachers to teach
youngsters
who have language needs. And we don't put enough money behind teacher
training."
ROSALIE PEDALINO PORTER
Director of the READ Institute in Amherst, MA,
a national organization that helps school districts implement English-language
programs. She coordinated the bilingual education programs in Newton, MA,
for 10 years.
"This initiative is an attempt to correct
a situation in California that has been counterproductive for too many years.
The scale is tipped too far in the direction of native-language instruction
that goes on for five to seven years for a lot of children. To finally have
a preference for English-language programs would turn things around in a
very important way. However, I don't believe that the one-year limit is
a good element of the initiative. I think two years would have been much
better. For 11 years, the California legislature has not been able to pass
a bill clarifying what should be done for language-minority children. Finally,
the Unz initiative comes along and citizens are going to be able to vote
on what kind of education they think will serve these children best. It
needn't have come to this, but one of the reasons it has is the insistence
by the state's Department of Education on enforcing native-language programs,
even after the bilingual education law expired. Certainly policy should
be made by law and edict of education department officials. But when these
people abdicate their responsibility, then somebody like Ron Unz comes along
and says, `Let's get the people to vote on this.' Bilingual programs don't
produce better results. Is it worth the effort and the money to put kids
into separate programs for five to seven years to accomplish the same results
as when kids are mainstreamed within three to four years?"
MARY T. CAZABON
Researcher and director of bilingual education
programs for Cambridge, MA, public schools.
"From my personal experience of over 20 years
in bilingual education, I would never make the recommendation that the only
way to teach English-language learners is to give them only one year of
English immersion. I believe that education for limited-English-proficient
students is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Efforts should focus on the
best ways of serving students rather than recommending an overly simplistic
formula that dictates one year of specialized instruction. We need first
to ensure that all our students receive exemplary teaching. Then, we need
to define what type of program fits their needs and what their parents want
for them. That could even include a one-year immersion experience in English.
But the key is to have a variety of viable options open to parents and
students."
CHRISTINE ROSSELL
Professor of political science at Boston University,
and author of Bilingual Education in Massachusetts: The Emperor Has No
Clothes.
"When I look at the empirical research on
the subject, it shows that bilingual education is a little bit worse than
the regular classroom and a little bit worse than a structured-immersion
classroom, which is what the Unz initiative proposes. I've gone into classrooms
where, after three years of bilingual instruction, the teacher is still
teaching in Spanish--the kids never really get to English. If you limit them
to one year, then the danger of this happening is minimal. Research shows
that kids get stuck in structured-immersion programs, too. The harm of being
in a self-contained classroom consisting just of LEP kids would seem to
be less if they're being taught in English than if they are being taught
in their native tongue. Except that you can imagine how in U.S. schools,
where newcomers arrive every day of the year, including the last, that these
kids could get slowed down by the newcomers if they are there for more than
a year. Although there's no research suggesting that one year is sufficient,
it's common sense. Remember, most immigrant children go immediately into
a regular classroom and they do better than those in bilingual education.
The limit in the Unz initiative is not on special help--they can receive that
their whole school career--the limit is on being in a self-contained, segregated
classroom of only LEP children. Of course there needs to be more good research.
But if you wait for research before you do anything, it could be the 22nd
century. I think you have to go with a certain amount of common sense. American
teachers will help a kid who doesn't know English. They're not going to
give him Fs."
KENJI HAKUTA
Professor of education at Stanford University,
and author of Mirror of Language: The Debate on
Bilingualism.
"The Unz initiative goes against what we know
about bilingual education programs. If you compare bilingual programs with
English-only programs, kids in bilingual programs show better outcomes.
Granted, it's not a huge difference, but it's measurable by even fairly
crude research methods. What bothers me the most about the Unz initiative
is the very reckless use of information, as well as open abuse of it. The
figure of a 95 percent failure rate in bilingual education is based on very
loose use of information. For example, those numbers don't take into account
such things as this being a highly mobile population. There's really no
research that says that the majority of kids will learn English in one year.
Also, the Unz initiative is not written in a way to address academic content;
it's all geared to English acquisition. This initiative certainly would
put kids on hold for a year. Although many bilingual programs are undoubtedly
poorly implemented, there are also many well-implemented ones that have
had tremendous success in helping LEP students both learn English and advance
academically. Despite these successes, bilingual education is not a panacea
that will fix all the inequities that language-minority children come into
school with--social inequities that have to do with immigration, poverty and
so forth. Language of instruction is only one of the many factors involved
in good schooling. Other factors include well-trained teachers, a balanced
curriculum, systematic student assessment, parent involvement, and a supportive
school climate, to name a few."
ROBERT L. FRENCH
Superintendent of the Orange County Unified School
District, which eliminated all bilingual classrooms for 1,400 students in
September 1997 after obtaining a waiver from the California State Board
of Education.
"We sought a waiver because we were getting
more and more students in bilingual education and fewer and fewer were
successfully
leaving. In addition, 4th graders going into the total English program were
not doing very well. Some bilingual education programs work if you have
outstanding teachers, quality materials, and an educationally sound program.
The question is: "Is there enough time spent on English skills?" We designed a program that we think is better. We bring in bilingual aides
who rotate from classroom to classroom to make sure the students understand
what is being said. Teachers in kindergarten and first grade are saying
that students who cannot speak a word of English in September are speaking
some English after three weeks. Our program doesn't meet the Unz initiative.
I believe it's a poor piece of legislation. You have to do it the Unz way.
I'm not for it or against it, but we think our program is
better."
WALDEMAR ROJAS
Superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School
District, where 43% of the 19,000 LEP students are enrolled in bilingual
education classrooms. He is the first Latino president of the Council of
Great City Schools.
"Proposition 227 is a one-size-fits-all approach,
and one size doesn't fit all. We don't need an initiative or a legislative
agenda to tell us how to teach our children. This initiative is devoid of
research, of statistics, and of logic. Because of the shortage of bilingual
teachers, many students are already in English-only programs--only 30 percent
of California LEP students are in bilingual programs. If there is any place
where there is failure, it is much more in the English-only model than the
bilingual model. This initiative would reinstate the least effective model.
It's just not doable by most kids. Some kids will learn some English, of
course. They'll know playground English, but let them go in and try to read
a biology textbook with that and see how well they perform. This initiative
sets us back 30 years. We think it's absolutely in violation of Lau v.
Nichols (the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision) and it makes a mockery
of public education. We believe we can get this defeated because it doesn't
make any sense, but otherwise we'll go in showing the research and ask for
a restraining order."
|
|
