Bias Charged in Meeting on Bilingual Education

Hearing: A state panel is accused of snubbing grouops that favor teaching children in their native tongues.

Amid accusations that it stacked the deck in inviting testimony, the Little Hoover Commission, the state’s government watchdog agency, on Tuesday conducted a tense public hearing that further fueled the hot debate over bilingual education.

Bilingual education advocates charged that the commission invited “leaders of the English-only community to trot out their biased views” but snubbed groups that favor teaching immigrant children in their native languages until they are fluent in English.

“You invited no advocate, no parent, no student, no bilingual community leader — no one with a firsthand knowledge and positive viewpoint on bilingual education,” Lucia Vega-Garcia of the California Assn. for Bilingual Education wrote to the commission. She released her statement at a news conference at a downtown state office building, where the daylong hearing was held. She and others also charged that the commission refused to amend the agenda after her group complained.

Little Hoover Commission staff member Kathleen Johnson defended the commission’s public hearing lineup as “very balanced” because it included three education officials with positive views of bilingual teaching. Calling the omission of such high-profile groups as Vega-Garcia’s an oversight, Johnson said all testimony would be accepted Tuesday and that every group that wants to make its views known to the commission will have an opportunity to do so.

Tuesday’s hearing was part of an effort to gather information for a report that the agency, known formally as the Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is preparing for the governor and Legislature, Johnson said. The report, expected in May, will make recommendations on how best to educate the estimated 1.7 million California youngsters who go to school speaking little or no English.

The debate over bilingual education has raged across the nation for the better part of two decades, often taking on racial, class and anti-immigrant overtones. The discussion has been particularly sharp in California, which has a rapidly growing immigrant population.

Essentially, the traditional bilingual approach calls for students who lack English fluency to be taught academic subjects in their native languages while they build English skills. The goal for such students is to transfer into regular programs within a few years, an approach that advocates say enables students to succeed academically and build self-esteem. Opponents argue that bilingual education is costly and ineffective and keeps students from learning English.

Since the state’s bilingual education law lapsed in 1987, school districts have been guided by state Department of Education interpretations of court cases and a more general federal law requiring only that students who do not speak English receive an equal education. Last fall Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a comprehensive bilingual education measure, citing costs and the restrictions it would have placed on local districts. The bill’s author, Sen. Henry J. Mello (D-Santa Cruz), signaled that he will try again when he introduced similar legislation recently.

Several members of the Little Hoover Commission, including Chairman Nathan Shapell, made it clear during the hearing that they agree with bilingual education’s opponents.

In his opening remarks, Shapell said the numbers of students whose native language is not English “place an overwhelming burden on classrooms in California.” Later, citing his own immigrant family’s ability to learn English without the help of special programs, Shapell said, “I don’t think you’re helping these children.”

Gloria Matta Tuchman, a first-grade teacher in Santa Ana and a tireless campaigner against bilingual education, told the commission that she believes immersing a student in English is a better approach.

“I can tell you from 29 years of firsthand experience of teaching limited-English students that transitional bilingual education is not the solution,” Tuchman said. “I feel that native-language teaching leads to frustration and confusion because many pupils are often as handicapped in the knowledge of their so-called mother tongue as they are in English.”

But bilingual education advocates argued that the program needs to be enhanced — with more funding, more qualified teachers and better ways to assess student achievement.

Sid Thompson, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, which uses a variety of pioneering programs to help its burgeoning numbers of immigrant children, testified that bilingual programs are the best way to go.

“If I had just one way (to reach these children) and if I had the resources, would I choose a bilingual education program?” The answer is yes,” Thompson said.



Comments are closed.