Communication Gap
Editorial
Some Houston Independent School District trustees and members of the city's Hispanic community seem to be talking two very different languages with regard to a controversial proposal to establish a district bilingual education policy. So, it is wise that the school board today is taking a step back from a preliminary vote on the proposal. The community as a whole, and the district's students in particular, needs more time and more open dialogue on this fundamental issue, without the rancor and recalcitrance that have characterized such debates in other parts of the country. The various sides need to talk to, not past, one another. That so far seems not to have been the case. The proposal, developed over months of research and study by board trustees Gabriel Vasquez and Jeff Shadwick, was to have been offered for a first vote today but now will be presented to the board merely as an informational report by the Vasquez-Shadwick "subcommittee." On its face, the policy sets out reasonable "beliefs and visions" and general guidelines under which the various bilingual programs in the district would operate in a more coordinated and more defined goal-oriented fashion. Under the proposal, the district's 58,000 students with limited English proficiency would be moved more quickly into English-speaking classes, the benchmark being as soon as they can demonstrate proficiency in reading. The goal of true English proficiency should be shared by all. (In fact, the goal of multilingualism on the part of all HISD students should be a shared one, too.) "I don't picture this as a radical change," Shadwick told Chronicle education writer Melanie Markley. "The multilingual department is already bound by law concerning how limited-English- proficient students are to be treated and educated. All this really does is tell the department that it is the sense of the community, the board, that English reading proficiency is an imperative, and it needs to be focused upon." But is it really the "sense of the community," as Shadwick contends, when the details of the proposal are vetted? At least some elements of the Hispanic community, including some respected organizations and leaders, are concerned that the move is "an advocacy vehicle for the English-only movement." State Sen. Mario Gallegos Jr. and state Reps. Jessica Farrar and Joe Moreno, all Houston Democrats, signed a letter asking that the item be removed from the board agenda. "This thing on the surface looks good, but it's so full of distortion and innuendo it's unbelievable," said Gallegos, whose mother, Olga Gallegos, is a school trustee. An analysis by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund expressed similar concerns. And at least one legal expert who was involved in the California Proposition 227 anti-bilingual education issue has echoed the sentiment. Strict focus on English literacy "sacrifices quality English at the altar of quick acquisition of superficial skills," wrote San Francisco attorney Peter D. Roos in a letter to Gallegos. "Secondly, the emphasis on transition rather than learning tends in practice to put pressure on schools to remove a child before he is able to fully compete with his English peers." Those are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed fully and openly by the board. Some proponents of the bilingual proposal say they will stand firm and that they have been methodical, fair and open about the development of the policy document. Critics disagree, of course, saying the authors have not taken sufficient input nor given sufficient detail about how and what the subcommittee has been developing. That alone is a clear sign that much more dialogue is in order. Some critics, vowing also to stand firm, say they are not interested in what they see as a tainted proposal and "will not have it in this community" under any circumstances. Proponents object, of course, saying that the policy document is not receiving a fair hearing and is being distorted for political reasons. Add all that to the case for more discussion. Bilingual education is an extremely complex, emotional and, yes, political issue. Unfortunately, too many people are looking for clear, easy answers to the problems surrounding it. But expecting that answers exist in such simplicity only tends to polarize people. Board proponents say the need for reform in bilingual education is clear and urgent, and the evidence, including the continued high drop-out rate, seems to support that case. When faced with such problems, doing nothing is bad. But doing the wrong thing is equally bad, and process is at least half the issue. How reforms are brought about can be as important as the detail of the reforms themselves. Before the preliminary vote was called off, proponents seemed to have the votes to carry the issue forward, but ramming it down people's throats without adequately addressing their concerns is not a good political move. HISD in recent years has gained a rightful nationwide reputation as a meaningful and positive reform district. So let a more open, honest and calm dialogue go forward now. And, by the way, "listening" as well as speaking is a helpful skill. |