Education group earns respect

Champions of limited-English students have made real progress

PITTSBURG — A year ago, Pro Committee For Education couldn’t even get permission to gather at a small elementary school in Pittsburg.

Today the vociferous group, which champions the rights of limited-English speaking students, is getting the red carpet treatment from state politicians and Latino organizations.

Carlos Munoz, the co-chair of Pro Committee, said he’s amazed at how much stature his group has achieved in a mere 12 months.

“I didn’t expect our group to come this far,” he said. “We’ve always envisioned ourselves as a group that would go far, but I’m surprised that we’ve actually progressed this far this fast.”

Since it formed in the spring of 1998, Pro Committee has grown from 20 members to more than 100. Moreover, state legislators have started to ask for input from the group.

Pro Committee’s quantum leap from grass-roots organization to a highly respected mouthpiece for limited-English speaking students was mainly spurred by two events.

One was the June 1998 passage of Proposition 227, which called for English immersion classes to replace bilingual instruction.

The second was a series of four complaints that Pro Committee has filed since January. The grievances contend that Pittsburg Unified has not offered enough support to non-English speaking students in the wake of 227.

The complaints have also grabbed the attention of Latino organizations and legislators.

“When I look back, it’s hard to believe we’re now promoting state bills that will help our children,” Munoz said.

It wasn’t always that way. Munoz said he recalled when site administrators at Foothill Elementary School last year turned down Pro Committee’s request to reserve a classroom for an evening meeting.

At the time, Munoz’s organization simply wanted to discuss the possible impact of 227.

“We were told that we’d be in the way of the custodians who were trying to clean the place,” Munoz said. “But we only had five parents who wanted to meet. Besides, we have rights,” he said.

And Munoz says limited-English speaking students have rights, too, which are outlined in the four complaints. Three of the grievances were filed at the state level, while the other was filed with the federal Office Of Civil Rights.

None of the complaints have been resolved.

Details of the complaints vary, but the common thread is that Pittsburg’s limited-English speaking students are floundering in the classroom because of the way the district handled Proposition 227.

“When we started this struggle, we did it for our children,” Munoz said. “We weren’t fighting for any political or economical interests. Our only interest was to see that our children not fall behind in school.”

The irony is that Pro Committee, once vehemently opposed Proposition 227, now demands that the district adhere to the new law.

The group maintains that the initiative — though ill-conceived — still allows for bilingual instruction in districts with a large number of limited-English speaking students. Pittsburg Unified has 1,700 students who fall into that category.

Sal Belleci, a Pittsburg school board member, said he respects Pro Committee’s opinions but believes the district has done nothing illegal.

“Our program follows the spirit and intent of the law,” he said. “And if we are found lacking in any particular area, we’ll do whatever is necessary to meet the state’s criteria of the law. I think people have to remember that some of the state’s guidelines on the implementation of 227 are ambiguous at best.”

Asked if he sees Pro Committee as an adversary, Belleci shrugged.

“I don’t think Pro Committee is an annoyance,” he said. “I don’t see us in a fight with them and personally, I’m not at odds with anyone. The group has their beliefs and I welcome their efforts. I think we both want to do what we feel is right for the kids.”

For Pro Committee, that included testifying on behalf of SB 1037 last week.

The bill would require the formation of a language equity advisory committee in some districts. The committees would advise school boards and administrators on what impact certain policies would have on limited-English speaking students.

Before the passage of Prop. 227, districts with a large contingent of limited-English speaking students had bilingual advisory committees to provide input. But when Prop. 227 passed in June, most bilingual advisory committees either disbanded or were left in limbo.

As a result, advocates for limited-English speaking students suddenly found themselves without an official, bureaucratic voice in the decision-making process.

Munoz said he expects SB 1037 to restore that voice if it passes the Assembly. Most likely, it will be up for a vote within the next two months.

“Right now, we feel the district doesn’t want our input,” he said. “I wouldn’t even say we’re being discriminated against. I’d say we’re being completely ignored. But if the district keeps ignoring us, whatever program it tries to implement is going to fail.”

That’s not how Gabe Alvarado, a principal at Pittsburg’s Parkside Elementary, sees it.

His school has a total of 252 limited-English speaking students — and most of them seem to be performing well in school, he said.

“Whether Pro Committee has helped or not, I don’t know,” Alvarado said. “As far as my school is concerned, I haven’t really seen any impact that they’ve been responsible for. Most of our kids have been taken care of at this school site because most of our teachers here are bilingual, which is nice.”



Comments are closed.