Rewording of language initiative sought

Some assert penalty unclear

Lawyers for some parents and teachers will ask the state Supreme Judicial Court today to order state officials to revise a one-sentence summary on the November ballot initiative to change bilingual education to include the fact that teachers can be sued if they fail to carry out the new law.

”The public should know this is a punitive sledgehammer approach” said Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association.

The initiative would mandate a one-year English immersion program.

But Secretary of State William Galvin said yesterday that a summary of the proposed law, including the penalties teachers and other educators may face if they don’t adhere to English immersion, will appear on the ballot next to the one-sentence statements that tell voters what would happen if they vote yes or no.

A booklet also will be sent to voters in October that also outlines the initiative’s impact.

State law dictates that such ”yes” or ”no” statements be limited to one sentence, remain neutral and should fairly represent what the proposed law will do, said Galvin, who drafted the ballot question along with state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly.

”The purpose of this one-sentence statement is strictly to tell the voter the effect of voting yes or no,” said Galvin. ”By no means is it meant to be a comprehensive explanation to the voter.”

But in a suit filed yesterday with the state’s highest court, parents and teachers argued that the statements on the ballot are misleading if they do not specifically tell voters that teachers and school committee members can be personally sued and suspended from the public schools for up to five years for not implementing the English-only approach to bilingual education.

Many voters, they said, do not read the more lengthy summaries on the ballot.

”You’ve got to tell the voters exactly what the effect of the initiative is,” said Roger Rice, an attorney representing parents and teachers. ”Many people feel that suing teachers and taking away their jobs is not the way to reform the education system. Through this law, we will threaten teachers for using their judgment in the classroom. It’s an unprecendented and significant change. Voters need to know that.”

Conversely, leaders in favor of the ballot initiative partially financed by California millionaire Ron Unz also complained, saying the ballot question was too brief. ”I was trying to add more to it, to make it more descriptive,” said Lincoln Tamayo, who heads Unz’s Massachusetts campaign.

If passed, the ballot measure would overhaul the state’s bilingual education programs, replacing them with one-year English immersion, with some exceptions. Currently, limited-English students spend up to three years in bilingual education, learning most subjects in their primary language. Similar ballot initiatives have passed in Arizona and California.

These are the ”yes” or ”no” statements as they now appear on the November ballot:

”A Yes Vote would require that, with limited exceptions, all public school children must be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English language classrooms.”

”A No Vote would make no changes in English language education in public schools. ”

Leaders from the Massachusetts Campaign for Fairness to Children and Teachers, who oppose the ballot initiative, acknowledged yesterday that they hope changing the wording will defeat it.



Comments are closed.