In quest of a common language for the bilingual education debate

Now, thanks to the crusading fervor of a California millionaire, we are in for a long debate over bilingual education.

This is good, because some students probably are kept in bilingual classes for too long a time, while others may need as much time as possible. An intelligent debate is warranted.

Whether we get that sane, constructive discussion, however, is questionable because bilingual education is a push-button issue that seems to polarize people and reduce arguments on both sides to simplistic mush.

The crusader, Ron Unz, financed successful referenda to wipe out bilingual education in California three years ago and in Arizona last year. He has started a similar effort in Colorado, and now he has shown up here, in a state with a history of immigration that goes back to 1620.

The first immigrants – the Bradford, Alden, Standish, Winthrop crowd – spoke English. The Native Americans did not insist that the newcomers learn various Indian dialects, so English, or some version of it, became our national language.

Our English is unlike the English English. As young men, my friends and I did what we thought were hilarious imitations of those elders who spoke English with foreign accents.

Mattapan was, for example, ”Mettehpan,” in Yiddish English, and East Boston was ”Eastadabos” in Italian English.

You might infer that these were not politically correct times.

Whatever the accent, though, the essential communication for Americans was and remains a form of English. If you want to get along in this country, you ought to learn English.

It is clear, however, that in every ethnic group there are some people who learn English quickly and others who have a very hard time with what is not the easiest language on the planet.

So, the basic idea of bilingual education is to teach newcomers from other countries English, yes, but to instruct them in math, history, science in their own language so that they will not fall far behind in school.

Critics who wish to junk this system or radically alter it counter that a better way is to immerse the kids for one school year in English, that to do otherwise is to overly protect them and, ultimately, do them a disservice.

Among those critics are folks like Unz, who argue that the offspring of earlier immigrant groups were forced to learn English and, therefore, succeeded in America.

This is a myopic and dangerous view of our history. It is simplistic revisionism. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of young men and women managed to succeed, but thousands of others did not. Is it possible that many of the less fortunate would have done better had they succeeded in school?

That seems to be a reasonable premise, and it leads to the next rhetorical questions. Did they not do well in school and end up dropping out because they didn’t understand what was going on? Would bilingual education have helped?

We can only guess at this point in time, but the answers would appear to be yes.

Critics of bilingual education can be simplistic, but so can supporters.

”There’s no way you can construe what Ron Unz is doing as anything less than antiimmigrant and antichildren,” said state Representative Jarrett Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat and one of three Latino reps.

Well, Unz has been both a liberal and a conservative, and I worry about converts. He also seems Nader-like in his crusading fervor and personality, and Ralphie is not on my dance card. But to jump to the conclusion that Unz is against immigrants and kids is a bit much.

He fought a California proposition that denied publicly funded benefits to illegal immigrants. The initiative passed, but a federal court later ruled that it was unconstitutional.

He told Globe reporter Scott Greenberger that when Hispanic parents in Los Angeles protested that the schools weren’t teaching their kids English, he drafted the ballot initiative to replace bilingual education with a year of English immersion.

That proposition passed with 61 percent of the vote, and though one would lose no money betting that a lot of immigrant-baiters and bigots supported it, so too did well-intentioned people, including immigrants, who felt, rightly or otherwise, that their kids were not being adequately educated.

It is also a safe assumption to suggest that Unz, whatever his personality quirks may be, has not set out to hate kids.

So let the debate begin on this crucial issue. One can guess at the conclusion, if the debate is fair and intelligent. We shall conclude that some kids might do better in a year of English immersion, others might do better in three years of bilingual education, and, yet others might need something in between those two solutions.

Here’s hoping that Unz and Barrios get to debate one-on-one, and that the debate is on the issues and in English, or at least in what passes for English in America.



Comments are closed.