Welcome back to the language wars.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court put a final nail in the coffin
of Arizona’s “official English” law – passed by voters in 1988.
But as one language battle was snuffed out, another was erupting.
English for the Children of Arizona, a group of Latino parents and
educators from Tucson and Glendale, has proposed an initiative for
the 2000 election that virtually would end bilingual education,
requiring that all students be placed in English-language classrooms.
The initiative, modeled upon one passed by California voters last
year, would allow children to remain in bilingual classes only if
parents requested a waiver.
Recently, Republic columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr., a former
doctoral student in education and substitute teacher, and Miguel
Montiel, an Arizona State University professor of public fffairs and
co-author of the book Debatable Diversity, discussed the issue.
RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.: Miguel, as you know, Arizona is kicking off
what will likely be a spirited debate over whether to eliminate
bilingual education or, at least, whether to give parents the option
of enrolling their children in it.
There is, in many quarters of an entrenched bilingual education
establishment, in schools of education like the one at ASU and among
veterans of the Chicano movement, some concern that replacing
bilingual education with a sheltered immersion program would hurt
limited English-speaking students, many of whom are Hispanic.
But shouldn’t these special interests be at least as concerned
about the frustration felt by many Hispanic parents who have been
unable to remove their children from bilingual programs – a
frustration that has, in California and Arizona, erupted into support
for these sorts of initiatives? Shouldn’t they be just as concerned
with the welfare of children languishing in bilingual programs for up
to eight or nine years in some cases and not learning English fast
enough? What consolation is it to the parents of a student enrolled
in bilingual education that the student can speak to Grandma in
Spanish if he doesn’t know English well enough to excel in high
school, score well on standardized tests and successfully apply to
MIGUEL MONTIEL: This anti-bilingual education initiative will
certainly be controversial. The initiative supporters’ claim that
children do not learn English because of bilingual education is
illogical. Arizona’s performance in funding inner-city schools and
its low ranking in almost every measure of children’s services are
more plausible explanations for the poor performance of our pupils.
We cannot attribute the poor performance of non-Hispanic children to
There are more profound motives behind this initiative that I will
raise later, but for now, it is sufficient to point out that it is
inspired and funded by a Californian and, if successful, will prove
divisive and detrimental. Arizona already went through a “spirited”
public debate with the Martin Luther King holiday.
If I may, however, I would like to respond to a few of your
assertions. First, attacking bilingual educators as a self-serving
“entrenched establishment” is a bit far-fetched. I have known them
to be dedicated, responsible professors (including non-Hispanics)
whose aspirations are toward improving the schools. This is not a
“Chicano” interest issue, but a pedagogical issue.
There is no dispute that Hispanic (and other immigrant) parents
want their children to learn English. It is not difficult to
understand, however, why some parents are frightened by bilingual
education when led to believe that it will hinder their children’s
success. Learning two languages is an advantage and a valued goal
among educated people.
Bilingual education is a complicated issue. There are various
approaches, good and bad programs, good and bad teachers, well and
poorly funded programs. Certainly we can make a case to improve
bilingual education, as we can for the educational system in general.
NAVARRETTE: I’d agree with you that knowing multiple languages is
a marketable asset. The real question is whether the public school
system is the proper mechanism to produce a bilingual or multilingual
populace. I’m not so sure it is.
I would also agree with you that it’s a stretch for opponents of
bilingual education to blame the program for everything that has gone
wrong, and continues to go wrong, for Latino students in public
schools. And I’ll agree that why some students learn and others
don’t is much too complicated a question to be dropped on the
doorstep of bilingual education.
My two main concerns are: delayed English acquisition and
bureaucratic/academic arrogance that results in a neglect of parental
First, it is, to use your word, completely “logical” to assume
that a student’s prolonged exposure to whatever bureaucratic slop
passes for “bilingual education” these days would hinder the
acquisition of English. This is even more likely without state
regulation, high standards or increased accountability, with pupils
kept in bilingual programs for a virtually unlimited length of time.
That’s too high a price to pay to keep students connected to their
language and culture so as to avoid the trauma that past generations
reportedly endured in Arizona public schools.
I’ve done countless interviews with Spanish-speaking parents who
are concerned that mijo or mija doesn’t know English well enough
despite the fact that they’ve been sending the kid to public school
for several years. The evidence also shows up in low verbal scores
on the Stanford 9 or later on the SAT. It shows up in the number of
Latino students who enter ASU and other colleges in need of remedial
help in English. Those are the real-life casualties of your little
My second concern deals with the arrogance with which academics
and educational bureaucrats deal with Latino parents who question
their methods. The proposed Arizona initiative would reverse the
power dynamic now in effect, whereby schools decide which kids are
conscripted into bilingual education and parents are powerless to get
them out (despite the existence of laws requiring that schools yield
to parental wishes).
You call it an “anti-bilingual education” initiative. But you
could just as easily label the status quo as “anti-parental choice.”
Also, if all the bilingual proponents you know are “dedicated” and
“responsible,” let me suggest you widen your circle of acquaintances.
You’ll find plenty of opportunists who support bilingual education in
part because it’s good for business in the form of lucrative
consulting contracts. And school districts are cashing in on federal
and state funds that they want to hold onto.
Finally, we agree again that there are various approaches and
examples of both good and bad programs, teachers, etc. I’m happy to
hear that you’re ready to lend your voice to those calling for reform
of bilingual education.
But who’s kidding whom? The only, and I mean only, reason that
you and others are suddenly willing to “mend it rather than end it”
is because the bilingual education establishment has a gun to its
head in the form of the proposed initiative.
MONTIEL: Let me make clear, lest there be a misunderstanding, I am
not a bilingual educator. I teach at the School of Public Affairs at
We learn best when we build from our experience. The minority
struggle is about validating the culture, history and language of
these children, thus building on their strengths. All of us learn
more effectively if we begin with what we know. Bilingual education
is one educational strategy among many. It does not follow that
educators don’t want children to learn English as quickly as
possible. They are following a set of learning principles that seem
to work if implemented properly.
There is no bilingual conspiracy. It is on this basis that we
should approach a dialogue with parents about how children learn.
Choice is important, but only if we know what we are choosing.
And just because we believe something does not make it true.
I wonder what type of responses you would have gotten if you had
taken a more open approach toward bilingual education with the
parents who were concerned that their children were not learning as
they thought they should. Do parents not want their children to
learn academic Spanish? I have done my share of interviews, and know
that parents have high aspirations for their children that include
their being literate and marketable in two languages.
There is no dispute that on many measures, many Latino kids do
poorly in school. What we need to understand is that the problems of
these kids are interrelated. If they have problems in school, they
also are likely to have problems in other areas of their lives –
drugs, teen pregnancy, delinquency.
We know that education works quite well in a setting where parents
are literate and affluent, where they read to their children, where
there are books, and where teachers hold high expectations. The same
applies for bilingual education.
Arguments that attack people’s character or that blame
bureaucracies play to the lowest passions and fears of citizens and
may be effective for getting people to vote for the initiative, but
they certainly will not lead to a better educated population.
Already the Supreme Court turned down the English-only initiative
that passed here in Arizona a few years back. The rhetoric was
effective, but it certainly did not do much to improve services or
race relations in Arizona.
NAVARRETTE: Your comment about “validating the culture, history
and language of these children” tells us a great deal about how we
got into this mess.
Public schools are supposed to teach. Period. They’re not
supposed to heal old wounds, preserve native tongues, alleviate
historical suffering or in any other way bend over backward to
validate any portion of poor Juanito’s existence, make him feel more
at home or improve his self-esteem. That was true for the Italians,
the Irish, the Germans and the Chinese. And it’s true for the
Teachers continually complain about not having enough hours in the
day or days in the year to do all that is expected of them. But now
a group of them – bilingual teachers – are more than willing to spend
even more of their valuable time making sure that Juanito knows about
Zapata and can also say “zapatos.” Even if they could do it, it
would seem something would have to give, something would have to
suffer. And it is.
Traditional learning, the three R’s and the acquisition of English
are taking a back seat to Culture Preservation 1A. So the kids learn
to make Mexican flags out of crepe paper, so what? That’s not
exactly a marketable skill.
No, there’s no “conspiracy” – just a three-pronged devil’s bargain
where schools get to profit, academics get to prosper and Chicano
activists get to pretend that they can succeed in an English-speaking
world without experiencing even the slightest bit of alienation from
their cultura. Everybody wins, except for those flag-making students
and their parents.
And as for those parents, I’d agree with you that many of them, if
given the choice, would prefer that their kids learn both languages.
But just as many of them might say that maintaining a student’s
Spanish should be done at home, not at school. I’d also suggest that
many would choose an emphasis on English above all else. As it
stands now, bilingual educators promise them a luxury, then deny them
But I’m glad that you’re OK with the idea of letting parents
choose. Fine. Let them choose. That’s what the proposed initiative
does. If you’re confident that they’ll choose bilingual education,
then you and the alarmists have nothing to worry about.
Finally, if you really want to “improve race relations” in
Arizona, you can start by treating minority parents with respect,
welcoming different points of views and demanding more from students
of all colors. Arizonans are tougher than you give them credit for
being. This debate won’t break them.
MONTIEL: The 21st century is upon us, and the ’60s are long gone.
I have been around many teachers and have yet to see what you
The other day, I visited a dual language classroom – youngsters
study part of the day in English and the other in Spanish. I admired
the ease with which they wrote their stories in English and Spanish
on the computer, the manner in which they discussed issues of social
justice and collectively challenged each other.
In this school, parents are encouraged to discuss the education of
their children with teachers; they participate in fund-raisers and
field trips. These are poor kids, but their spirit is rich.
What is occurring in this second-grade classroom is founded on
principles of learning from loving, intelligent teachers, not on
One of the challenges this generation faces is an influx of poor
people into this country. The initiative is one of a series of
negative strategies to deal with this issue. It is linked to the
assault on affirmative action, “English Only,” and other anti-
immigration and anti-minority policies. It is important to view this
initiative in its proper context.
Yes, indeed, I fear public policy founded on fear and race-
baiting. There is little that we can do to reason with people of bad
faith. However, we must be accountable to citizens who are concerned
with how their tax dollars are spent. They want all children to grow
up to be productive citizens, and have legitimate concerns about the
educational system, including bilingual education.
Let me agree with you about the need for standards and
accountability. Bilingual programs have been around for 30 years,
and their record of performance is mixed. There needs to be
oversight, monitoring and technical assistance to transform them from
remedial to enrichment programs. They also need to be more
It seems that the political sentiment is to limit bilingual
education for a shorter period, and perhaps this will be inevitable,
even though some experts agree that it takes eight years to develop
full bilingual skills. The central issue, however, is to ensure the
development of highly skilled teachers. I agree with you that
parents should be provided choice.
Bilingual education is not just for Latino children; all children
could profit from it. We all gain by properly educating all