Restricting bilingual education a public policy failure
Three years ago, in the June 1998 primary election, 61 percent of the California electorate approved Proposition 227, a ballot initiative intended to restrict bilingual education in the public schools and replace it with English immersion. An exit poll conducted by CNN/Los Angeles Times estimated that 63 percent of Latino voters opposed the initiative. School districts are required under federal law to provide special language instruction services for students with limited English proficiency so they can learn English and also recoup academic deficits they may incur while learning the language. Proposition 227 did not alter federal law requirements stemming from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for public schools to take "appropriate action" to overcome language minority students' barriers to equal access to the curriculum due to lack of English proficiency. Proposition 227 went into force beginning with the 1998-1999 school year. The law regulates education for 1.4 million students who are classified as limited English proficient, termed English language learners (ELLs). ELLs comprise 25 percent of California's total student population. Eighty-two percent of these students are native Spanish speakers. We are now in the third year of implementation of Proposition 227. A number of editorials and commentaries have been published recently proclaiming Proposition 227 and English immersion a resounding success. However, the public is largely unaware that many university researchers, educators, parents and community leaders do not agree with these editorial opinions regarding Proposition 227's impact. In fact, educators and professional organizations with expertise in programs for educating language minority students have declared Proposition 227 a public policy failure. Proposition 227's objective was to end the practice of using languages other than English, predominantly Spanish, as a medium of instruction in public schools. Proponents claimed that bilingual education was retarding students' English language learning and therefore causing academic failure and increased school dropout rates, especially among Latinos. The media rarely informed the public that respectable, controlled scientific studies consistently show that well-implemented bilingual programs are effective. Accounts of bilingual education's successes appeared infrequently in the media, which focused on the politics of educating immigrant students as a "wedge issue" in the primary election campaign. Proposition 227's impact on local control and decision-making power of Latino parents in choosing how best to educate their children was lost amid strong jingoistic rhetoric about the importance of English and assimilation of immigrants into mainstream American culture. In truth, bilingual education was never the problem, so eliminating it as a means of educating our growing language minority population has not led to a solution. Most analyses of the bilingual education controversy in the media fail to point out the fact that only 15 percent of all Latino students were ever enrolled in a bilingual program. Yet, voters were led to believe that dismantling bilingual programs would be the solution to the educational problems facing Latino youth. In a comprehensive study of the SAT-9 test results, Professor Kenji Hakuta and his colleagues at Stanford University found that reports attributing score increases to implementation of Proposition 227 by politicians and the press are baseless and that it is "misleading" to use SAT-9 data to evaluate the impact of the law. Only 18 percent of the ELLs in California schools moved from bilingual classrooms into English immersion following passage of Proposition 227. However, SAT-9 scores increased at the same rate for all students, including those in bilingual programs and those who never had bilingual education. Hakuta found several school reform factors that could account for test score improvements for all California's students, as were evidenced in the overall test results. Proposition 227 has made bilingual education a scapegoat for fears about immigration and society's ambivalence about our growing cultural diversity. It is disingenuous and irresponsible to declare the anti-bilingual education policy a success based on inadequate assessment and misleading information. We must consider factual evidence and expert opinions in evaluating its broader educational and societal consequences. Policy-makers, together with educators, parents and community leaders, must reassess the impact of Proposition 227 and garner the courage to repudiate a law that limits the educational opportunities of thousands of our most disadvantaged students in our public schools.
Mora is associate professor of teacher education at San Diego State University. |