Pleading case for keeping bilingual education Jos Luis Santos
Twenty-eight days until Election Day, and the fate of bilingual education rests in your hands. I urge you to look to the experts on Proposition 203. How was Proposition 203 conceived, and by whom? Ron Unz, the California magnate who spearheaded the anti- bilingual education movement in California, brought his campaign to Arizona when he preyed upon and successfully persuaded Mary Mendoza of Tucson and Margaret Garcia of Glendale to file the "Application for Initiative." The California millionaire provided the template used to complete the application, set up the headquarters for the campaign and stocked it with hard cash. It was a seamless process akin to a corporation entering a neighborhood community overnight and setting up shop unbeknownst to the community. The financier persuaded the two anti-bilingual education promoters to write into the initiative application a section that denies parents the right to choose bilingual education, and outlaws it altogether. Clearly, the two disciples were puppeteered into writing a much more pernicious initiative. The inclusion of the expanded, damaging section was a case in "lessons learned" from California. In fact, it is a strategic section that attempts to eliminate bilingual education once and for all. That is enough of Proposition 203's genesis. How are we going to vote in Arizona? The voters should be aware that there are opposing views on the proposition. Non-experts in education hold one view, and experts in education hold another. Their views are diametrically opposed. The non-experts gave birth to the proposition absent any evidence. The experts are trying desperately to present the facts to the voters. Unz leads the cast of non-experts under the guise of "Arizona for the Children." The pseudonym group is deliberately providing voters with misinformation. Unz is not an Arizona resident. He is not an educator. He is not an expert. Yet the campaign that is being waged has managed to put into action a masterful strategy that is deceitful, much more destructive than its predecessor in California and as cancerous as its clone in Colorado. The strategy was effective in California and has the potential to be more effective in Arizona. The premise of the proposition is that immersion is a technique that is superior to bilingual education. The campaign asks you to accept Unz's premise based on a single report from Oceanside, Calif. The report is hardly any evidence for immersion. It is devoid of any testable facts. Obtaining Arizona residency requires more proof than the proof provided by Unz and others. Moreover, educational experts have already debunked this sole "proof," citing various confounding factors and various untruths. The Arizona Language Education Council leads the cast of experts in Arizona. The group is a non-profit association dedicated to educating the public regarding education of language-minority children in Arizona. They are parents, teachers, business people, tribal leaders, community volunteers and researchers. Specifically, the group is interested in the academic success of children learning English and other languages in our state. Researchers in Arizona and in the education field, particularly in the language-acquisition area, are experts. They devote their entire lives to researching the best pedagogical techniques. They conduct empirical studies that yield testable results. They challenge each other and continuously advance the knowledge base in this area. Most important, they have reached almost unanimous consensus on how best to transition non-English monolingual students to English proficiency. They are the most qualified individuals to speak to language- acquisition methods and their effectiveness. They are the experts. In Arizona, the experts have pointed the voters directly to the evidence that bilingual education programs are successfully producing English-literate students. According to the Arizona Department of Education, students in bilingual education programs consistently outperformed their English-only counterparts for the past three academic years in English reading on the Stanford 9 test. I implore you to re-evaluate your position on Proposition 203 if you currently support the measure. I urge you to look toward educational researchers who have almost unanimously agreed that well- implemented bilingual education programs produce English-literate students. They are the experts. Make a sound and educated decision by considering what the experts have to say. Sound decision-making requires you to look to the evidence. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Proposition 203. Moreover, the fact that an entire research community on bilingual education has reached near consensus is astonishing. Experts agree! I contend, and so should sensible people of Arizona, that we should look to educational researchers who spend their lives advancing an educational knowledge base for our children. Voters and legislators should seek expert advice when shaping Arizona's educational policies. Jos Luis Santos is a Ph.D. candidate at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. His column appears on Tuesdays. E-mail: jsantos@tucsoncitizen.com. |