Legislature must lead way in bilingual ed reform

Massachusetts, once the recognized leader in bilingual education, is behind the curve in efforts to keep pace with the educational needs of its growing immigrant population.

As the Spanish-speaking population booms in communities such as Springfield and Holyoke, the numbers show Hispanic students are performing poorly on standardized tests and are at greater risk of dropping out of school.

The current law allowing non-English speaking students to be taught in their native languages before being funneled to regular classes ? while not the only culprit for the troubling trends ? isn’t working.

It is clear that changes in Massachusetts’ 31-year-old bilingual education law are long overdue. That’s why we applaud the House of Representatives for Tuesday’s overwhelming passage of a bill that revamps the bilingual education program law ? even if the action was spurred by the threat of a November ballot initiative that calls for the elimination of bilingual education programs.

We hope voters will reject the Nov. 5 ballot question. As we’ve argued before, government by referendum doesn’t lead to better government. The compromise and give-and-take that is part of the political process in crafting a piece of legislation ? done by people whose job it is to gather information from sometimes conflicting quarters ? is far superior to putting a question before the electorate.

Never mind that the English immersion ballot initiative, financed by Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz, is a bad idea. While it might appear attractive on paper, there is no magic bullet that will enable children to leap over the hurdles they face because they weren’t born into an English-speaking family.

A recent report by the Harvard University Civil Rights Project disputed claims that the Unz initiative has benefited non-English speakers in California. “Prevailing research indicates that the claims of success regarding the Unz Initiative in California are overstated,” the report said, adding that “because one year of instruction is not enough time for children to attain English proficiency, one-year English immersion programs should not be imposed on all schools.”

Adoption of bilingual education reform legislation, like the plan co-sponsored by Rep. Peter J. Larkin, D-Pittsfield, and Sen. Robert A. Antonioni, D-Leominster ? makes a lot more sense.

The House bill, which is headed to the Senate next, would allow districts to choose from a range of methods for teaching immigrant students. It would create a three-year limit on students participating in bilingual programs; it would require students to take annual English tests and it would mandate that teachers be certified to teach bilingual education.

The bill would also require districts to involve parents in creating bilingual programs. It would also allow the state Department of Education to monitor students’ progress in learning English and let the state declare districts “underperforming” if they don’t boost the skills of students with limited English.

The House bill affects about 40,000 students statewide and more than 5,000 students in Western Massachusetts. Springfield, for example, most recently had 2,778 students in bilingual education; Holyoke had 1,951.

We hope the Senate won’t waste any time in debating this important measure. The House legislation may need some fine-tuning, but lawmakers on Beacon Hill can’t fail this important and growing constituency. If Hispanics continue to perform poorly in school ? or drop out altogether ? they will face a lifetime of low-paying, low-skilled jobs. And that is a curse they should not have to endure.



Comments are closed.