In California, a movement to end bilingual education is gathering steam. The tiny city of Orange was one of the first to stake its position on the linguistic battlefield.

In June of last year, the Orange school district made a controversial proposal to eliminate bilingual education from their schools. In September, after much heated debate and courtroom battle, a U.S. federal judge ruled that the school district could implement an “English-immersion” program–dubbed “English-only” by opponents–to replace the existing bilingual education classes currently offered to non-English speaking children of immigrants.

The push to eliminate bilingual classes is not confined to Orange. Since last year, four school districts in California have waivered out of the bilingual education program in California. Riding the tide of stricter immigration policies and the end of affirmative action, the movement to end bilingual education has become the new hot topic in California.

Currently, there are about 1.4 million limited English proficient (LEP) students in California. Of those, 30 percent are being taught in bilingual education classrooms.

Since its inception 30 years ago, the idea of educating LEP students in their native languages and English has been controversial. The logic behind bilingual education is that the use of the native language actually facilitates the learning of English while keeping students proficient in other subjects such as math and social studies.

The debate has now been brought to the attention of the entire country in the form of a new, unprecedented legislative initiative.

The English for the Children Initiative, co-authored by millionaire businessman and former California gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz and first-grade LEP teacher Gloria Matta Tuchman, calls for an end to bilingual education. The initiative proposes a California state law that would make it mandatory for LEP students to be educated by way of “English immersion.”

Under the proposed English immersion system, children would enter special classes for a period of approximately one year, receiving instruction almost entirely in English, with the exception of a half-hour-long preview/review period every day in the child’s native language. After a year of immersion, the child would then be integrated into a regular classroom with English-speaking students.

Bilingual education classes are currently conducted mostly in the child’s native language, with a minimum requirement of half an hour of English instruction a day. Schools normally offer bilingual education classes through the third year.

Advocates of the initiative claim that bilingual education has failed children who are trying to learn English. Matta Tuchman, 56, a longtime campaigner against bilingual education, said: “Children are being trapped in their native languages. They go home and they speak their native language. If they hear it at home, and they come to school and hear their native language in school all day, when are they ever going to learn English?”

Culture clashes

Learning English, however, is not the only issue. While the primary goal of bilingual education is to teach English, there are other core concepts and subjects that LEP students must also learn to keep up with students in regular classes. It is in this area that bilingual education advocates say English immersion is lacking.

“We want them to learn the language, but also to have the same educational opportunities as the native English-speaking students. In those classrooms, students will be learning how to read and write and code. And the LEP students [in English immersion] will be primarily learning vocabulary. So is that really equitable? Are they really learning the same thing?” asks Celso Rodriguez, 48, a veteran LEP teacher in the city of Orange.

Jaime Zapata, director of legislative and public affairs for the National Association for Bilingual Education, agrees: “English immersion is an experiment with some very dangerous likely outcomes. The LEP kids are going to have their education sacrificed in that there is no research whatsoever out there that proves that children can learn English in one year. What bilingual education does is guarantee that they don’t fall behind in their education while they’re learning English.”

Culture and self-esteem are among other issues to consider, say bilingual education advocates. The retention of culture through ion is always high in her class, and the children seem at ease in both Chinese and English.

Speaking from her own personal experience as an immigrant, Liu said: “It’s important for children to have the language support. When you come to this country and you go into a totally English class all of a sudden, you feel completely helpless.” Her goal is to make the children feel as comfortable as possible during the learning process, she said.

Even advocates, however, admit that bilingual education is in need of reform.

About half of the 50 U.S. states have bilingual education programs. Federal appropriations for the programs for fiscal year 1998 total 199 million dollars. However, California, which has one of the biggest programs, allocated an additional 319 million dollars for its program last year.

Californians will have a chance to vote on the English for the Children Initiative in June 1998. At that time, bilingual advocates and opponents all over the nation will watch to see where trend-setting California will take them.



Comments are closed.