Prop. 203 workable as school policy, weak as 'law'
Regardless of its fate, Proposition 203, which largely abolishes bilingual education, has performed one public service: getting liberals and the education establishment to acknowledge the value of parental choice. The opposition campaign is grounded in the claim that 203 denies parental choice. In reality, the existing system gives schools more meaningful choices than parents about how to educate non-English speaking kids. And one of the choices is rarely the kind of intensive immersion instruction 203 contemplates. Federal and state laws require that schools have special programs for students with limited English proficiency. In Arizona, Spanish is the native language for about 85 percent of them. Schools can offer these children bilingual education, in which subjects other than English can be taught in Spanish. Or English as a Second Language, in which instruction is suppose to be primarily in English, but Spanish can be used as often as thought helpful. Two-thirds of Arizona's LEP students are in English as a Second Language programs. The theory behind both approaches is that using Spanish brings students along in other subjects while they learn English. In practice, students are neither becoming proficient in English nor keeping pace in other subjects. There were approximately 133,000 Arizona students in LEP programs last year. Only about 7,300 of them, or 5.5 percent, tested proficient at the end of the year. The success rate was even worse for K-6 kids in bilingual education, an age at which learning English should be easier. And the few who became English proficient took, on average, four to five years to achieve it. Proposition 203 requires that students who are not proficient in English be placed in what it calls "sheltered English immersion classrooms." The goal, although not a requirement, is to make students sufficiently proficient in English within a year to transition to mainstream classrooms. That requires intensive English instruction even if it comes at the expense of progress in other subject areas, which is the main difference between what Proposition 203 contemplates and most of the current English as a Second Language programs. Under the existing system, parents can either decline to have their child participate in the school district's LEP programs or request an individual program as an alternative. Under 203, parents can also request an alternative, particularly for children older than 10. The difference is that under the existing system, parents have to ask for intensive English instruction; under 203, parents have to ask not to receive it. The problem with Proposition 203 is that it is an education policy masquerading as a law. Proposition 203 defines "sheltered English immersion" as one in which textbooks and instructional materials are in English and "nearly all classroom instruction is in English." But in terms of what actually happens in the classroom to enable students to learn English within a year, it merely refers to the "standard definition of 'sheltered English' . . . found in educational literature." Laws should not require thumbing through academic textbooks to discern their meaning. Despite offering only vague guidance about how sheltered English immersion differs from English as a Second Language, Proposition 203 holds school board members and administrators "personally liable" for purposely failing to implement it. This trend toward personal liability for public officials is for those who believe that the problem with government is that we have too many capable people managing it and, therefore, we need to chase them off. As a critique of the existing system and a statement of education policy, Proposition 203 has some merit. But as a law, it is deficient. Reach Robb at Bob.Robb@ArizonaRepublic.com or (602) 444-8472. His column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. |