Bilingual education dispute heats up

A decision by the state Board of Education to alter its bilingual education policy drew fire Friday from Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz, the author of the 1998 initiative designed to discourage —- if not eliminate —- bilingual education from public schools.

Proposition 227 required all California students be taught in English. The measure, however, makes bilingual programs available to parents who apply for waivers. Unz, the force behind Proposition 227, said the state board is undermining the law by adopting new regulations that allow school staff, rather than just parents, to seek the waivers.

The board unanimously adopted the new requirements at a meeting Tuesday, but the regulations won’t be official until trustees cast a final vote next month.

Unz said Friday that that new provision and one other that would eliminate a requirement that all English learners be taught exclusively in English the first 30 days of the school year, would essentially re-establish California’s system of bilingual education for 1.5 million immigrant students. He said he is prepared to sue to overturn the state’s decision.

“It looks like they’re backtracking rapidly,” Unz said of the board. “They are proposing regulations that completely violate Prop. 227 and, I suspect, are completely illegal.”

Unz said the move could funnel thousands of students back into bilingual classrooms, nullifying his effort to end bilingual education in California. He added that that the board is being pressured by Latino lawmakers to undermine the initiative overwhelmingly approved by voters nearly four years ago.

John Mockler, the state board’s executive director, defended the policy change, saying it’s a waste of time for students to spend 30 school days each year in a program that doesn’t fit their needs. He and other state officials say the heart of the dispute is linked to the vague language of the law.

“It’s our job to make sure the law is followed as it was written, but you have to remember that this is a difficult and passionate issue for people,” Mockler said. “I think Unz wishes that the initiative were written differently and the bilingual community wishes it wasn’t written at all.”

As with most laws, the one regulating bilingual education needs clarification through regulations, said Mockler. A set of rules was created when the law was first passed nearly four years ago. Now those rules are being mulled over and revised to relate to immigrant students.

Trustees will likely change the draft to make clear that the school cannot grant a waiver on its own, and a parent must come to school each year and apply for one, state officials said.

Unz may not be the only one heading to court to protest the action. Members of a group called the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said Friday they “have issues” with the board’s decision, but have not yet decided to file a lawsuit.

The state board has backed a policy that students be taught in English only for the first month of their beginning year, rather than the first month of every school year, even if they participate in a bilingual education program.

While critics say the annual first-30-days requirement can lead to embarrassment or even harassment of struggling students, Unz, who supports the annual evaluation, said it helps parents decide whether their child is ready for English immersion.

Opponents of bilingual education say the program alienates many students from their peers and hinders their academic potential. Supporters say bilingual education is essential for many English language learners.

About 12 percent of California’s 1.5 million students struggling to learn English are enrolled in bilingual programs where they are taught in their native language until the third or fifth grade, according to state statistics.

Contact staff writer Bradley Weaver at (909) 676-4315, Ext. 2625, or [email protected].



Comments are closed.