SPANISH

Total number LEP: 194,504

Number in primary language bilingual education program: 154,233

Percentage in bilingual education: 79%

ARMENIAN

Total number LEP: 2,902

Number in bilingual education program: 921

Percentage in bilingual education: 32%

CANTONESE

Total number LEP: 1,491

Number in bilingual education program: 680

Percentage in bilingual education: 46%

KOREAN

Total number LEP: 2,696

Number in bilingual education program: 894

Percentage in bilingual education: 33%

TAGALOG

Total number LEP: 1,341

Number in bilingual education program: 32

Percentage in bilingual education: 02.3%

RUSSIAN

Total number LEP: 754

Number in bilingual education program: 197

Percentage in bilingual education: 26%

VIETNAMESE

Total number LEP: 901

Number in bilingual education program: 11

Percentage in bilingual education: 01.2%

ALL OTHER

LANGUAGES

Total number LEP: 3,888

Number in bilingual education program: 0.0

Percentage in bilingual education: 0.0

In LAUSD, 79 % of Latino children are provided with primary language bilingual education, while six other language groups are provided with some bilingual education, and 3,888 students who speak one of about 80 languages spoken by immigrants, are provided with no bilingual education.

Thus in LAUSD, 79% of Latino children are in primary language bilingual education -- not 20% as Dr. Ramirez implies from his mixed bag state data.

The results of student assessments indicating that the services provided to English Learners whose native language is Spanish, are not helping these students to develop the English Language and content skills they need to become successful in school, clearly demonstrate that at LAUSD, Primary Language Bilingual Education Programs do not work.

Unz Statement:

Bilingual programs are impractical because we do not have the bilingual teachers or resources to address the needs of the over 120 primary language groups in California.

Ramirez Response:

It is not only practical, but advisable, to provide multilingual programs in schools and classroom where there are sufficient numbers of English Learners speaking the same primary language. Moreover, it does not cost anymore to provide a bilingual classroom than it does to provide a traditional English-Only classroom. Mr. Unz would have us "Throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez's contention that primary language bilingual education is practical, is ludicrous. As of December of 1997, California had a shortage of 15,000 bilingual educators ("LAUSD Looks For Mexican Teachers," La Opinion, Saturday, November 29, 1997)

So severe is the shortage of qualified bilingual education teachers, that last December, LAUSD along with other districts, launched a campaign to recruit Spanish speaking elementary teachers from nine states of Mexico to teach immigrant children in California including Los Angeles ("LAUSD Looks For Mexican Teachers," La Opinion, Saturday, November 29, 1997).

With increasing immigration from Latin American countries, the need for even more qualified teachers is soaring. It should be apparent to anyone that the teacher shortage problem will only get worse.

For this reason alone, how can Dr. Ramirez call bilingual education practical?

Ramirez response:

I strongly disagree with Mr. Unz's extremist statement. It is important to differentiate between schools with " small and scattered primary language populations" (e.g., Urdu) from those wherein there are substantial numbers of students speaking the same primary language (e.g. Spanish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, or Khmer). While I concur that it is impractical to provide a full bilingual program for "small and scattered primary language groups," as a teacher I am still responsible for providing meaningful instruction to each of my students. If my student is the only Urdu speaking student in my class or in my school and this student does not understand any English, do I know how to access other primary language resources to provide this student with equal access to my math lesson (e.g., another bilingual student, working with the parents to help the child at home, or working with a community based organization that has bilingual services)?

However, in classrooms and schools where there are substantial numbers of students who speak the same primary language it is practical to provide these students with equal access to the core curriculum in their primary language while they are in the process of learning English.

Netkin Comment:

>From Dr. Ramirez's above statement, it is necessary to assume that the Urdu student will be at a disadvantage and thus will not do as well in English acquisition and academics as his native Spanish speaking counterpart who has the "benefit" of primary language bilingual education. To assume otherwise, is to say that it doesn't make any difference if the child acquires English with or without primary language education.

The question comes up as to how those who are not receiving bilingual education fare against those who are. I asked LAUSD for standardized test data of the different ethnic groups who did not have the "benefit" of primary language bilingual education so that I could make a comparison. Incredibly, LAUSD does not know! But what we do know, is that out of all groups, Latino students who have been in bilingual education for years, scored the lowest on standardized tests when those tests are given in English "or" Spanish. So, are the groups that are not receiving bilingual education getting cheated, or are they the lucky ones?

Last year, LAUSD students were tested with the Stanford 9 exam. The "Below Average" results were generally not encouraging. But what is remarkable, is the fact that the children were tested with two national exam versions: the "Stanford 9" in English and the "Aprenda" exam in Spanish, which was used to test the majority of Latino children -- 122,451. (L.A. Daily News, "Below Average", 10/04/97).

By giving the national test in Spanish, the very idea that bilingual education is supposed to make Latino children proficient in English is totally defeated. Now why didn't they have versions of the test in other languages? LAUSD administrators apparently felt that the students in Spanish primary language bilingual education programs -- even those up to the 10th grade that had long before already made a transition to All-English -- didn't stand a chance to perform well if they took the exam in English.

Ramirez's response:

Research clearly shows that providing students with primary language instruction does not slow down their rate of English Language acquisition. (Ramirez, et. al., 1992) Stated another way, research indicates that English Learners do not develop English language skills any faster when provided an English-only program than when provided with a program that combines quality English language development with quality primary language content instruction. This research also shows that English Learners can clearly catch up to their English proficient peers in the content areas when provided access to the content in their primary language while they are learning English, even when they are tested in English. (Ramirez, et. al., 1992)

In contrast, limited-English proficient students who are provided with a quality English-Only program or one with very limited primary language literacy development do not catch up to their English-speaking peers, but continue to achieve at the bottom third on standardized achievement tests (approximately < 32 NCEs). In other words, the best one can hope for is that they do not fall further behind their English speaking peers. (Ramirez, 1992)

Netkin Comment:

While Dr. Ramirez relies on his own abstract research (Ramirez, et. al., 1992), I have chosen to do hands-on research using a large cross section of the subjects in question -- the 154,233 Latino students enrolled in primary language bilingual education programs in all of LAUSD's elementary schools.

Dr. Ramirez maintains that Latino children must be put into primary language bilingual education classes so they will not get behind in other subjects. Well the recent LAUSD administered Aprenda test results do not bear out that theory -- Latino students fell below their All-English counterparts in "ALL" subjects except reading in Spanish, and generally a whopping 61% of all Latino sixth grade students tested in Spanish scored below the national average in ALL subjects (L.A. Daily News, 10/04/97). These figures do not support the contention that Latino children in bilingual education programs are "keeping up" in all other subjects.

Ramirez's response:

Two major studies concluded that it does not cost any more to provide a bilingual classroom that it does to provide a traditional English-Only classroom. A study by Rand Corporation for Congress (Samulon, 1983) and one conducted by BW Associates for the California State Legislature (BW Associates, 1992) all found that over 80% of the cost to educate a child is reflected in staff. As most districts do not pay bilingual teachers more than non-bilingual teachers, and, as the cost of providing books and other learning materials for bilingual and traditional English-Only classrooms do not differ, both studies concluded that it does not cost any more to provide a bilingual classroom than it does for a traditional English-Only classroom

Netkin Comment:

Money isn't the issue. The issue is throwing out money on a 25 year experiment that has failed. The Unz initiative does not claim to reduce money spent on children's education. But if bilingual education doesn't work, money spent on it is money wasted. Any money saved, is money that can be spent more efficiently on all of California's children.

Unz Follow-up Response:

Since we cannot provide bilingual services to all of the over 120 primary language groups we should not provide it to anyone.

Ramirez Follow-up Response:

This is an absurd statement. We currently have a critical shortage of math and science teachers. Should we drop all math and science education from our schools?

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez is right. There is a critical shortage of math and science teachers -- "bilingual" math and science teachers that is. Thus, the problem of a shortage of basic bilingual education educators is compounded with the need for math and science bilingual educators.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume a shortage of all-English math and science teachers. There would be no choice but to make every effort to recruit them -- math and science teachers are essential. But there are alternative methods of teaching immigrant children to master English that do not require bilingual teachers e.g. sheltered English immersion.

Ramirez's response:

More pointedly, Mr. Unz's position is tantamount to saying, "Because there are not enough heart donors to meet the needs of all the patients in need of a heart transplant, we therefore should prohibit all heart transplants." As stated before, I agree that it is impractical to consider providing full multilingual services in situations where there are few and scattered primary language groups. However, in schools and districts where there are substantial numbers of the same primary language groups it is practical and reasonable.

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez heart transplant analogy fails to make his point. A better analogy would be "Because too many patients are rejecting hearts and dying, we had better scrap the failed procedure and utilize one that will not fail to match the heart to the patient."

Dr. Ramirez advocates providing the "benefit" of primary language bilingual education based on majority demographics. If bilingual education worked as well for Spanish LEP children as Dr. Ramirez says it does, the parents of LEP children who do not receive the "benefit" would be suing the school system for not providing bilingual education to their children -- as it is, they are content to see their children succeed without bilingual education.

Unz Statement:

In response to the question, how long have we had bilingual education?: "We have had bilingual education in this country for almost 30 years, as a result of the Lau decision."

Ramirez's Response:

This is not true. We have had public bilingual education programs in the United States since 1776. We tend to forget that not all of the colonists came from England. The early colonies provided schooling in German, French, Dutch, and Spanish. This practice continued into the 20th Century wherever large enclaves of these primary language speakers lived. In fact the German public schools thrived in the Mid-West until World War 2 when they were summarily closed. Anti-German sentiment forced many German Americans to disassociate themselves from their German heritage lest they be branded Un-American and suffer the same treatment as Japanese Americans.

Netkin Comment:

Although historically interesting, Dr. Ramirez's reference to foreign language education of yesteryear in America does not show that it was the door to English. The only point Dr. Ramirez makes is that foreign language education for those immigrants was nothing more than cultural accommodations -- nowhere does history point out that foreign language education led children to successfully learn English.

AN ANECDOTE: Some years ago when I was in Milwaukee on business, a business associate named Norton who lived in the area, invited me to have a homemade Polish dinner that evening at his elderly grandmother's farm located about 25 miles out of town. I was introduced to his grandmother and when I started to greet her in English I was interrupted by Norton and told that his grandmother spoke only Polish and could not speak English. When I asked Norton when his grandmother immigrated to America, he laughed and told me that his grandmother was born in the Milwaukee area and had never been to Poland -- as a youth, Norton's grandmother was schooled in Polish.

Ramirez's response:

An examination of the history of language policy in the United States, quickly reveals that English Only efforts are more concerned with issues of economic and political enfranchisement of some groups over others rather than pedagogy, e.g., English only business men over Cherokee Nation; White landowners over southern Blacks, and White settlers over Mexican residents in California. (Crawford, Hold Your Tongue, 1992).

Netkin Comment:

In Dr. Ramirez's above "examination of history," he has abandoned his heretofore debatable rationale of the merits of bilingual education and has resorted to attempting to impeach the supporters of the initiative by implying they are in a sinister political plot to extinguish the language of immigrants. Nothing is further from the truth! The "English for the Children" initiative is not an English-only initiative and does not seek to stifle the languages of immigrants. But, I leave it to the readers of this page to decide who has made a political issue of this debate.

Ramirez's response:

As an aside, the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence were, as a matter of course, consistently translated into the various non-English languages used in the Colonies to assure the full participation of all colonists. Attempts to have English declared as the "Official Language" (e.g., Benjamin Franklin) were soundly rejected by the Founding Fathers. They considered language a tool, whose use should be determined by the individual and not the State. They clearly expressed the belief that what defined an American was not the language they spoke, but their commitment to a democratic form of government. (Crawford, 1992)

Finally, the US Supreme Court clarified through the Lau decision that equal treatment does not guarantee equal access to educational opportunities. Each school district must provide evidence documenting the efficacy of whatever educational approaches are provided.

Netkin Comment:

Again Dr. Ramirez is giving interesting but irrelevant history and gets away from the focus of the bilingual education issue.

Dr. Ramirez is correct in his assessment of the Lau decision, but it does not follow that primary language bilingual education is necessarily an effective approach -- nor does it follow that sheltered English immersion is not an effective approach.

Unz Statement:

The Unz initiative is not anti-immigrant. I clearly opposed Prop 187.

Ramirez Response:

This is not true. The Unz initiative clearly targets immigrant parents and their children.

I find this statement to be at odds with the wording of the initiative. As filed and recorded by the State, this initiative specifically names immigrant parents and their children as the primary targets of this legislation. Parents who would like to have their child provided with some instruction in their primary language would be required to annually petition their school district for such services. Such services would only be provided if the parents were joined in their request by at least twenty other parents. As immigrant parents typically do not speak English, do not understand our political process, do not understand our school system, and are typically isolated in their communities, this initiative as proposed creates several substantive and significant barriers for immigrant parents seeking a meaningful education for their children. Such barriers targeted to a specific group can only be construed as being anti-immigrant.

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez does not make it clear what he means by "target," Of course the initiative targets immigrant children and their parents since these are the ones most in need of English literacy.

One could argue that since Dr. Ramirez favors the continuation of a pedagogy that has failed immigrants, it is he who is anti-immigrant.

The Unz initiative does not bar school administrators from speaking Spanish or any other language to parents and certainly the supporters of the initiative expect that parents be treated with the utmost dignity.

Dr. Ramirez buys into the belief that Latino parents are not sophisticated enough to "bear the burden" of having to meet with school officials to decide what's best for their children. Certainly, it will be easier to get waivers for children to switch to bilingual education, than it was for the Latino parents who pulled 80 of their children out of the Ninth Street Primary School in protest before the school finally approved switching their children to all English study.

Panel Moderator Statement:

"My grandparents were immigrants, they learned English without bilingual education and they were successful. Why do these groups need it?"

Stack Response:

First, it is a myth that all immigrant groups were successful.

While social language skills are quickly developed, e.g. on average within a year, the more demanding language skills needed for academic success requires at least 5 or more years to develop. (Ramirez, 1992; Collier, 1997) Earlier immigrants did not need to develop high level of academic skills to find a job. They could secure one with minimal social English language skills. Currently, immigrants must master complicated academic skills to find employment in today's job market. However, to do so requires a more sophisticated mastery of academic English language skills which require more time to develop. There is no easy or quick fix to develop such skills.

Netkin Comment:

Ms. Stack talks as if record numbers of LEP children who were recipients of primary language bilingual education, have mastered the English language and are going out into the world to high tech jobs. A truer scenario of the results of a system that has failed immigrant children can be seen at Jack-in-the-Box.

Ramirez Response:

Further, current immigrants are learning English at a faster rate than immigrants from prior generations. It used to take anywhere from three to four generations for the children of some of these immigrant groups (those entering prior to 1950's) to enter the economic, social, and political mainstream. There is substantial evidence that school failure or lack of school success was common, and that Italian, Irish, Polish, and Jewish children left school early and did not enter high school. Data suggest that until the 1950's, immigrant and many first generation children received little formal education. (e.g., Berrol, 1982; Bodnar, 1982; Fass, 1988; Perlmann, 1988) The availability of substantial employment opportunities for low skilled workers did not require much formal education. However, current trends in employment opportunities increasingly are demanding that workers come with ever more sophisticated skills and knowledge.

Netkin Comment:

Again Dr. Ramirez uses his mixed bag data to make an across-the-board statement that today's immigrants are acquiring English at a faster rate than immigrants from prior generations. He is generally right, but data suggests that the immigrants with the greatest language and academic achievements are those who did not receive primary language bilingual education.

Unz Statement:

Young children learn languages very easily so start them in English. Kindergartners do not do any substantive learning, they mostly color.

Stack Response:

Wrong. There are several misconceptions here clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of how children develop and learn.

First, research clearly demonstrates the importance of providing children with rich early learning opportunities to assure them of successful schooling later on. This research is the impetus for all of our Headstart and pre-school programs.

Second, research shows that while the younger a child is exposed to a second language they will develop almost native-like accents, whereas older learners will retain an accent. Older children (11-12 years) are more efficient learners of a second language than younger children. Because older children already know how to read, to study, know that there are rules of grammar, etc., they more quickly are able to understand and therefore acquire more efficiently these skills in a second language.

Third, research also shows that children do not become fully proficient in their primary language until they are about 12 years of age. So, on average, since it takes us about 12 years to become proficient in our first language, it is not unreasonable to expect that it would take five or more years to develop academic second language skills.

Netkin Comment:

Ms. Stack talks as if bilingual education is a proven success. She would be hard pressed to convince immigrant parents that: although immersion looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, that it "isn't" a duck. What's more, Ms. Stack believes that Latino immigrant parents are not sophisticated enough to have noticed that other language immigrant children, most of whom never received any kind of bilingual education whatsoever, are graduating high school and going on to succeed in college -- without having to catch up with remedial courses.

Ms. Stack makes two assumption that must be challenged.

First, she assumes that it is the duty of the public schools to preserve the child's native language. (My own parents who immigrated from Poland wanted me to retain my native Yiddish language, but they rightfully did not expect the public schools to accommodate their wishes).

Secondly, Ms. Stack assumes that a young child cannot start fresh with a new language and prefers instead for children to continue in their not-yet-developed native language until they are fully proficient which she says takes 12 years. She then ads five more years for them to become proficient in their second language (English). Thus, by Ms. Stack's method, the bilingual education recipients spend the first five years of their life in their native language, another seven years in the public schools becoming proficient in their native language, and finally, another five years becoming proficient in English. Ms. Stack, who keeps referring to "data clearly shows," is ignoring the end result of 25 years of bilingual education which has been producing a whole generation of students (principally Latino) who are socially promoted to graduation at which time they are not fully literate in either English or Spanish. Most of these graduates do not qualify for college unless they take r!

emedial courses in English to make up for what they didn't learn in the public schools.

Ms. Stack wants immigrant parents to buy her "research clearly indicates" theory. But while she quibbles over the method of instruction, immigrant parents are looking at the bottom line: they want their children to learn English fast and be able to speak it as well as any native American kid on the block.

Tuchman Statement:

Bilingual advocates simply reflect special interests.

Ramirez Response:

This is a myth, and intentionally misleading to the public.

Currently there is a severe shortage of teachers, exacerbated by the current class size reduction efforts. If bilingual education were to be prohibited, all of the bilingual teachers would still have their jobs, their teaching skills are badly needed.

Netkin Comment:

Right, but about 5,000 unqualified Spanish speaking teaching aides would be out of a job.

My wife and I are friends of a Latino family living up the block from us. Their oldest daughter, 21, is a graduate of Van Nuys high school and does not have a formal college education. Her English skills are poor and her Spanish skills are not much better -- She is a teaching aide!

Last year when my wife, who is a native Spanish speaker, and I went to observe a fifth grade bilingual class at Valerio Elementary School in Van Nuys, we saw for ourselves the trouble that LAUSD is in with its bilingual education program.

There were 29 students in the class, all Latino. Of these, six students were in the process of being redesignated to all English classes. The six were sitting at a corner table reading English under the instruction of the main teacher who was an accredited experienced teacher but was not bilingual. The other 23 students were being instructed completely in Spanish by a teaching assistant. I was told by the school's bilingual education coordinator that this teaching assistant did not have any teaching credentials at all, and further said that to be a bilingual teaching assistant, one only has to have a high school diploma and promise to attend college classes with the ultimate aim of getting a degree (My wife Ines who never attended college, told me later that while I was at the other end of the classroom observing the six students, the bilingual education coordinator suggested to her that she could be a teaching assistant).

There are 8541 (8364 in Spanish) bilingual classes in LAUSD alone. At least half of those classes require a Spanish speaking teaching aide at a cost of at least $100 million a year. And that's just LAUSD.

Spanish TAs are now required for Latino children from 1st to 5th grade minimum. The Unz initiative promises to redesignate children after one year. Except for some special cases, Spanish speaking TA's might only be needed for the first year. Therefore, the need for unqualified Spanish TA's will be cut by at least 80%. True that TA's will still be needed even for all English classes, but there will not be a built in shortage crises and the main teachers will be able to teach all of the students instead of just six as was the case during our visit.

At a debate on the "English for the Children Initiative" which my wife and I attended in Placentia on November 19, 1997, between Gloria Matta Tuchman and Dr. Rossier who are "for" the initiative and Steve Krashen and Jackie Rojas "against" the initiative, we found ourselves sitting among an organized group of teaching aides. These aides were clearly concerned about losing their jobs if the Unz initiative passed. Dr. Ramirez is kidding himself if he thinks that these teaching aids would be utilized in other ways. Teaching aides (Spanish translators) know their jobs are at stake!

Ramirez response

Second, with few exceptions, bilingual teachers receive the same salary as non-bilingual teachers.

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez is wrong. On April 11, 1996, the L.A. Times Orange County Edition reported that new salary rates were approved to attract more bilingual teachers "To recruit more bilingual teachers in areas such as math and science, the Santa Ana school board voted to give newly hired teachers credit for up to 15 years of teaching experience, which will mean an attractive jump in pay for some teachers. New teachers with 15 years' experience will be paid $5,000 to $9,000 a year more than previous hires, who were limited to credit for up to eight years of experience. A teacher with a master's degree, for example, would be hired at $53,000 a year rather than $44,000 under the old plan."

LAUSD pays its bilingual teachers an extra $5,000 a year. On July 31, 1995, the L.A. Times reported that some board members wanted to consider shortening the period of time non-fluent students spend in special classes to two or three years, from the four or five years it now commonly takes to move into English, and tying the $5,000 stipend the district already pays bilingual teachers, to student performance.

In spite of the facts showing the bilingual education money incentive, Dr. Ramirez continues to disseminate information to the contrary.

Ramirez response:

Third, state and federal monies for education all require stringent accountability, this function is fulfilled by directors of bilingual education. If bilingual education were to be prohibited, such administrators would still be needed to provide program oversight. State and federal funding emphasize the importance of improving instruction through on-going professional development. This function is fulfilled by resource teachers. If bilingual education programs were eliminated, these resource teachers would still be needed to fulfill this function. All of these personnel would be still be needed.

Finally, a RAND study in 1983 and the BW Associates study for the State Legislature in 1992 consistently found that providing special support services to English Learners does not cost any more than the cost to provide a traditional English only program.

Netkin Comment:

No argument here. But at least the money paid to traditional teachers and services will not by thrown down the drain.

Unz Statement:

Eighty percent of Latino parents want English-only instruction. This was the finding of the Parent Survey reported in the Los Angeles Times in July, 1997.

Ramirez Response:

This is blatant misrepresentation of the data for political purposes. Only 24% of the parents surveyed indicated that they wanted Only-English instruction for their children. Actually, 76% indicated that they wanted their children to have some or substantial use of Spanish for instruction. Because this initiative explicitly prohibits the use of any non-English language for instruction, it is inappropriate for Mr. Unz to include the percentage of parents indicating some use of primary language in his figures.

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez is not quite right. The poll asked these questions: "Which of the following do you most prefer for teaching students who speak limited English?"

1. Mostly English with some help in their native language. 57% answered yes.

2. Only in English as soon as they enroll in school. 26% answered yes.

3. Native language until they are ready to learn English. 17% answered yes.

Dr. Ramirez doesn't want to count the 57% "Mostly English" group because they want some help in their native language. But if we don't count them as favoring all English instruction, then we can't count them as favoring bilingual education either because that is "Mostly" native language instruction. This gray area would not have existed if the questions had been limited to only numbers 2 and 3, in which case there is no doubt that 83% would have opted for English only.

Unz Statement:

This initiative supports parents' rights.

Ramirez Statement:

This is not true. As written, this initiative represents a major restriction of the rights of parents to choose the type of education they would like for their children. This means that, in contrast to current practice and policy where parents are free to choose from a range of educational programs, this initiative only allows one educational program. This restriction applies to English-Only parents as well as language minority parents.

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez is echoing this scare tactic being disseminated by those who oppose the initiative. What the initiative's waiver will accomplish, is the reversal of the burden -- parents and/or school principals will have to request that the child be shifted from English classes to bilingual education classes instead of the other way around as it is now.

Dr. Ramirez joins the majority of bilingual education proponents who say that poorly educated parents who cannot communicate in English will be too intimidated to request a waiver. It is ironic that the majority of bilingual education opponents have been saying the same thing about getting waivers under the present system to remove and place a child from bilingual education to all English. It is also ironic that the staunch anti-immigrant extremists are calling for defeat of the Unz initiative because of the said waiver that gives parents the right to continue their children in bilingual education if they choose.

Unz Statement:

This initiative supports local control.

Ramirez Response:

This is not true. In contrast to current practice where Local School Boards are free to choose from a range of educational programs the one that best suits the needs of their local community, this initiative dictates to school boards a single educational program. This initiative represents a serious shift of power away from the local communities to the state who would have the responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the initiative.

Netkin Comment:

Dr. Ramirez wants local control for the school boards -- the same school boards whose policies on bilingual education have failed a generation of Latino students. It's time to take away some of that control and give it to the parents.

A stunning example of the abuse of local control occurred recently.

When school superintendent Dr. Ruben Zacarias was accused of trying to cover up LAUSD's failure to educate Latino children by sending letters to over 100,000 Latino parents to encourage them to opt their kids out of taking the English Stanford 9 test, he said that he merely wanted the parents to know their rights.

If LAUSD is so sensitive to parents knowing their rights, why hasn't the district ever sent a letter to these parents before informing them of their right to place their kids in all-English classes?

Is this the kind of local control that Dr. Ramirez wants?

CONCLUSION

Ramirez:

In sum, the proposed initiative seriously erodes local control and parental rights.

First, the proposed initiative dictates to local school boards a specific instructional approach. No flexibility is provided.

Netkin:

See above.

Ramirez

Second, it creates serious barriers to parents, limiting their options for educating their children. One example, the initiative would prohibit the use of any language other than English in grades k-5. Thus, as an English speaking parent I would not be able to request that my child receive any foreign language instruction in grades k-5.

Netkin:

Dr. Ramirez is wrong: Under Prop 227, native English children may be placed in double immersion classes once it is determined that their English proficiency meets the respective grade level requirements. To put children into foreign language classes before they were proficient in English, would defeat the purpose of the initiative in the first place.

ANECDOTE: My wife Ines and I decided to enroll Kathrina, our 3 _ year old daughter, in an all-Spanish preschool with the hopes that she would become fluent through immersion. We checked out Saint Elizibeth Parochial School in Van Nuys close to our house where we have often noted that the majority of the children are Hispanic.

We were quite surprised that all communications at the school with the children, 70 percent of whom are native Spanish speakers, was in English. We asked the principal how this was possible. She said, pointing to Kathrina, "that at this very young age the children pick up English like a sponge" -- she said that it wasn't even an issue.

We then went to the Panorama City Parks and Recreation Center where a friend of ours told us that only Latino kids attended and all the teachers were Latino. You guessed it, the head teacher told us the same thing using the same exact cliche: "the children pick up English like a sponge."

I then got out the San Fernando Valley Spanish yellow pages and started calling those preschools that advertised that Spanish was taught. After phoning about 20 preschools, many run by Latinos, and a preschool hotline, I was not able to find any all-Spanish preschools (albeit Spanish is taught at some preschools as a subject for a few hours a week for the benefit of non-Spanish speakers).

What we discovered, is that Latino children learn English in preschool within only months, speaking it almost as well as their native English speaking classmates. Unfortunately, when they are later enrolled in kindergarten and put into bilingual education programs, the English that they already learned is lost.

Ramirez:

The educational programs that would be allowed for grades 6 and above under this initiative also restrict student and parent rights. In grades > 6, only those students who demonstrate English language proficiency at 50% or above on a standardized measure would be eligible to receive instruction in a language other than English. Given the normal distribution of any skills, it is expected that half of all high school English-only students currently in foreign language classes would test below 50%. Thus about half of all students currently enrolled in foreign language classes would probably be forced to drop their class. Consequently if my English only speaking child tested at 49% on such a measure, he would not be allowed to take any foreign language classes, thereby reducing his chances to be accepted to the University of California or to any other university system with a foreign language entrance requirement.

Netkin:

The clause reads as follows: "Children who already know English: the child already possesses good English language skills, as measured by standardized tests of English vocabulary comprehension, reading, and writing, in which the child scores at or above the state average for his grade level or at or above the 5th grade average, whichever is lower."

Why would Dr. Ramirez want to enroll his son into a foreign language class if his son's English skills were below average. The university might also have an English language entrance requirement.

Ramirez:

Finally, the initiative would destroy current efforts to increase the collaboration between the home, school, and community to support the learning of children. The initiative would make teachers personally financially liable if they used a language other than English for instruction. Parents would be permitted to sue teachers or any other school employee if they used a language other than English. Needless to say, such a situation would not create a climate of trust and cooperation, but one of mistrust and isolation.

This initiative is clearly pedagogically unsound, it represents a regressive, repressive, and mean spirited attempt to limit local control, it interferes with a parent's rights, it is anti-immigrant, and it would make parents and teachers into adversaries.

Netkin:

Dr. Ramirez would have us believe that if the teacher utters even one word in a foreign language, that a lawsuit would immediately be launched. The initiative's wording is "...who willfully and repeatedly refuses to implement the terms..." It would not be unreasonable to take action against a teacher or school administrator who would willfully and repeatedly violate the will of the people.

Perhaps if California's school districts could have been sued for allowing children to reach adulthood that had been socially promoted and left English illiterate, California's schools might not be in the mess they're in now.

And finally, Dr. Ramirez interprets the people's demand for accountability as being "mean spirited."