After taking on affirmative action and illegal immigrants, California voters soon may get a chance to tackle their next hot-button issue: bilingual education. Palo Alto businessman and former gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz is the writer of a controversial initiative entitled "English for our Children. The "English for our Children" initiative is currently being planned to be on the next ballot in 1998 for the voters of California. Both sides of the issue are preparing themselves for the battle and debates that will lead up to election day.
With over half the necessary signatures needed to qualify for the June 1998 ballot, California voters will be asked to decide the fate of bilingual education. This initiative if passed would immediately move California's non-English proficient students out of their native-language class system of "Bilingual Education," into intensive programs of "sheltered English immersion" according to Unz. The bill would allow bilingual education as an option for these students, but their parents would have to specifically request it for their children. The initiative would also allocate $50 millon per year for ten year to fund adult English literacy programs.
Ron Unz's considers the states current bilingual system as "dismal failure'" turning out tens of thousands of students each year who cannot function in an English-language culture.Unz would like nearly all school educational instructions to take place in English. Unz's says that most non-English speaking children would spend their first year in a shelters english immersion where they would be taught in English at a much slower pace. Which in turn would build the students fundamental skills in English and then help them to transition to a regular class room. He cites data from The National Educational Institute, that at the current rate with bilingual education, only five percent of limited English proficient students move into regular English language classes each year.
So far Unz's initiative seems to gaining support. At this month's United Teachers of Los Angeles(UTLA) meeting, teachers turned in 600 union signatures well over the 500 necessary a referendum to endorse the "English for our Children" initiative. UTLA is California's largest teacher union, and their support of the initiative is being viewed as a major victory for Unz. In 1987 The UTLA voted 78% in favor of eliminating bilingual education through their collective bargaining process, but were unable to achieve it within the existing law. In continued support of the initiative by teachers, Fernando Vega a past city councilman and School board member supports "English for our Children. Mr Vega has also been recruited by the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992 to lead the regional drive among Latino voters.
During the 1970's Mr Vega played a key role in establishing a bilingual education programs in the state of California. However he know feels that the system is a failure and should be ended. " There is no shame in admitting that you once supported a program which you nope see doesn't work in practice." Vega feels that the Latino community should not see this initiative a anti-Latino, but for them as a opportunity for them to get ahead and learn the language they will need for the future. He and Ron Unz are trying to stress that this not a another act of discrimination against the Latino communities. They do not want to make this a us versus them debate and are trying to distance themselves to comparing this initiative to Propositions 187 and 209. To prove this point Unz sites that by having UTLA's support, that the teachers were among one of the strongest opponents of these controversial propositions, and their support will help demonstrate that the initiative stand on its own two feet. Unz himself also claims that he that he was a opponent to prop.187.
In a recent survey by the Los Angeles Times, latino voters seem to be listening to Unz and show support for "English for our Children." The LA Times poll shows that 83% of Los Angeles Latinos favor English-language classes for all children as soon as they begin school. With only 17% supporting the current system of native-language instructions under the bilingual system. The poll was based on interviews conducted in Spanish and English with 750 adult residents of the county. Another survey by the Center of Equal Opportunity showed that Latinos overwhelmingly rate English as the top educational goal for their children. By a 4-1 margin Latino parents want their children to learn English as soon as possible rather than learning Spanish before English.
However, not every one is in support of the initiative. The Center for Bilingual Education feels that the current system might have some problems but should not be abandoned. The center agree that latinos want their children to learn English, but if the relive that the initiative would be a sink or swim program for their kids, that you would see a shift in the direction against the bill. The center also quotes there own poll that states that 86.3% of registered Latino voters favor bilingual education according to the Southwest Voters Research Institute 1996 California Latino Issues Poll. Other signs of support for the current system was the protest and numerous law suits against the Orange Unified School District when the dismantled their bilingual education system this school year.
Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres was quoted as saying at a recent event in a Latino function "Bilingual Education has never been given a chance to work in California. This is all about Latinos, its another attack on the Latino community." He and many other officials see the initiative as just another attack by the white male voters on the Latino community. They see the measure as an attack on minorities and find it to be discriminating. Latino leaders see it as next in line of a group of propositions to hurt the Latino community. Critics of the bill say the theory behind the current system of bilingual education is correct. Students should be transitioned into English language classes over several years while they study academic subjects in their home language. The argue that the system should be improved, not scrapped.
This fight will not be over soon and groups on both sides of the issue are not afraid to spend money to get their view across to the voters. The groups are planning a wide scale campaign costing as much as $3.5 million. Supporters and opponents both agree that the measure would essentially end bilingual education in California, and probably spark a move to do the same nationwide. We will all hear a lot more on this controversial initiative and will have to wait for the results until the June 98 elections.
Dandy, E. (1991) Communications:Breaking Down the Barriers. Austin. University of Texas Press.
DeStephano, J. (1973) Language, Society and Education. Worthington, Oh.
Shuy, R. (1965) Social Dialects and language Learning. Champaign, Ill.; National Council of Teachers of English.
Taylor, H. (1989) Standard English:A Controversy. NY:Peter Lang.
Gunnison, R. (1997, January 29). Bill to Ban Bilingual Education;San Francisco Chronicle pp, A15.