Lawyer says wording of bilingual education initiative still misleading
Associated Press
PHOENIX---Wording of an analysis of Proposition 203, a ballot initiative to
end bilingual education in Arizona, is still misleading, said lawyer for a
civil-rights organization battling the initiative.
A panel of judges from the state Supreme Court had ruled Aug. 18 that the
first paragraph of the analysis in the official voter guide should be either
deleted or revised because it was inaccurate.
According to a lawsuit filed by the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the
paragraph wrongly suggested that all Arizona students learning English are
in bilingual education programs when in fact only 33 percent are.
"As far as I'm concerned, this initiative should come with a skull and
crossbones," said Hector Villagra, a lawyer for the Mexican America Legal
Defense and Educational Fund. With the court order, the analysis that voters
are going to see "will be a little more accurate but it's still inaccurate."
State Election Director Jessica Funkhouser told The Arizona Republic that
she chose to delete the first paragraph from the analysis because there
wasn't enough time to rewrite it before it went to the printer.
"What matters is that we are going to give the parents a choice to either
throw out bilingual education in Arizona public schools or to keep it," said
Maria Mendoza, co-chairwoman of English for the Children, the group
supporting the initiative.
The analysis was written by a bipartisan panel of state legislators. The
lawsuit claims the analysis overstates the rights parents would have if the
initiative passes. The lawsuit also said that the analysis suggests all
parents will be able to apply for waivers from the English immersion program
when waivers would be limited to children with special education needs.
The lawsuit also claimed the analysis wrongly suggests that parents who
obtain waivers would have their children placed in bilingual education or
other programs when no such guarantee exists. |