Americans would agree that English is the world’s most important language and that anyone who wants to live and prosper in the United States has to learn English as quickly as possible.

The question is: How do we get there? Via a rigid constitutional amendment that imposes a one-size-fits-all program on all Colorado school districts? Or by giving parents the freedom to choose the transitional program that works best for their child and encouraging our schools to continue searching for the best educational methods?

In 1975, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1295, Colorado’s first bilingual-education bill. In 1981, it was substantially rewritten. Senate Bill 109 was then passed in the 2002 session. The goals of all three bills are important to keep in mind as the debate on this constitutional amendment intensifies.

The 1975 law directed the State Board of Education to “encourage experimentation and innovation in bilingual and bicultural programs” and “to gather … information on other successful programs existing in this state and other states.” It also contained a special section on parental and community involvement.

The 1981 law recognized “the need to provide for transitional programs to improve English language skills of these students,” and ordered that the design and function of the programs “should be the function of the districts.”

Senate Bill 109 requires that all students in bilingual-related programs be tested in English after three years and that their scores be included in that school’s accountability report. This puts heavy pressure on the schools to teach English as quickly as possible.

These goals – transitional programs in a flexible environment with both parental and local school district involvement – are critical because Colorado is a diverse state geographically, economically and culturally. We have 178 school districts with locally elected boards whose members are close to their constituents and know what works best for their regions.

Much has changed since that first bill was passed in 1975.

The just-released Milken Study ranks Colorado second nationally in high-tech. An understanding of other languages and cultures is critical to our ability to market our state’s high-tech products around the world.

Colorado’s population has become increasingly diverse, whether it’s the nursing home supervisor from Ghana, the photographer from Azerbaijan, the dermatologist from New Zealand, the Ethiopian helping a relative into a wheelchair at DIA, the young Polish woman at Office Depot who hopes to become a lawyer or the construction workers from Veracruz. These newcomers to Colorado are prospering taxpayers who are committed to our country and its ideals.

In large part, this is because we Americans offer newcomers a degree of opportunity and support that simply doesn’t exist elsewhere.

In part due to the original legislation, new teaching methods have evolved. For example, the Academia Ana Marie Sandoval opened a year ago in northwest Denver and already has a waiting list of 200 students. It is one of a growing number of public dual-language schools in Colorado, all of which would be eliminated if this amendment passes.

These concepts – local control, parental involvement, the flexibility to try new ideas – have now been challenged by Amendment 31, which would replace all existing programs with a nine-month (one-school-year) immersion process.

This is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

Amending the Colorado Constitution is a dramatic solution that should be reserved for those significant statewide problems that cannot be resolved by any other means. Here, however, the dispute is in Denver, not statewide. And it’s being resolved via a federal court order.

One of Colorado’s greatest strengths is its respect for local decision-making – in this case, the decisions of locally elected school boards. Why replace that with an inflexible, one-size-fits-all amendment? Why restrict 177 other school districts for an alleged “problem” in Denver?

In addition, this amendment would eliminate the freedom of parents to find a program that meets the needs of their children. Yes, some children are gifted in language and are already in short-term immersion programs. But learning a language can be arduous and intimidating, and could well take the three school years allowed under current law.

The amendment contains provisions for waivers so that parents could keep their children in English-education programs. The waivers are a fraud, however. The penalties that could be imposed on a school administrator who grants a waiver are so severe (a restriction on teaching or holding public office for five years) and the statute of limitations so long (10 years) that no administrator could afford the risk of granting a waiver.

The most conservative estimates from Arizona’s experience are that it would cost Colorado at least $25 million a year to make the transition to immersion and to implement the new tests. At a time when state agencies are facing 4 percent budget cuts, this is an unwarranted new expense.

In conclusion, this is a rigid solution for something that is not a statewide problem, an affront to our Colorado system of local control, and a denial of a parent’s freedom to choose the best programs for his or her child.

For more information on Amendment 31 opposition, contact Morgan Smith at [email protected].



Comments are closed.