Bilingual ed fight requires forceful participation
Some news reports have claimed that the passage of California's Proposition 227 in 1998 and Arizona's Proposition 203 this month means the elimination of bilingual education in both states. I hope that's not what the voters of Arizona thought they were getting when they approved Proposition 203, because nothing can be further from the truth. Yes, the law now provides for all students to be in English immersion - unless they want to qualify for a waiver to be in an English-as-a-Second-Language program or in bilingual education. In fact, the proposition actually requires bilingual education in certain circumstances. One section of the law specifically states that any school where 20 or more students receive waivers for bilingual education must provide bilingual education. That's why California is expected to increase its bilingual education enrollment to nearly 200,000 students next year. Some proponents of Proposition 203 have referred to the law's waiver section as "loopholes" intended to affect only a few unusual cases. As California's numbers would suggest, they are not loopholes. They are provisions in the law specifically intended to give some parents an alternative to immersion programs and have no restrictions as to the number of students who may qualify for such waivers. Instead, the restrictions that do appear refer to age and knowledge of English. Parents do not need loopholes or excuses to obtain waivers. They need only the approval of school boards and principals who are willing to respect parental requests and grant them when students are qualified -nothing more and nothing less. Who qualifies for waivers allowing participation in bilingual education programs? The two broadest categories are these: all students who are 10 years of age or older and all students who are under 10 years of age and have a "working knowledge of English." Why then did so many thousands of us fight Proposition 203? We fought it for three critically important reasons: First, we believe that students forced into immersion programs will learn English and other subjects more slowly and less effectively than they otherwise would have. Secondly, we believe that the proposition encourages politicians to base educational policy on ideology rather than sound research and objective data. And finally, we believe that the law undermines the rights of all parents, but especially those of language minority students and of Native Americans seeking to preserve their linguistic heritage without having to depend on the whims of an administrator. The battle now shifts to local districts. Parents need to demand that school boards and individual principals make waivers available, that the standards for "working knowledge of English" be reasonable and attainable "in a period not normally intended to exceed one year," and perhaps - as some proponents of 203 have asserted - in substantially shorter periods. Those of us who have children currently participating in bilingual education programs must understand the new reality. Arizona school districts will abide by the law, at least until it is overturned or invalidated by a subsequent initiative, and parents can no longer expect bilingual education to be easily available. It will now require their active and forceful participation. Those who are not able to exert enough political clout to ensure the availability of waivers will be denied justice and their children will be saddled with a cruel and unnecessary educational burden. Let us hope that such injustices - some already reported - are few and far between. Salvador Gabaldon is co-chair of the Arizona Language Education Council. |