California's answer to bilingual education could be a basic 'no'

California, home to 1.4 million students with limited English-speaking skills, is facing a major overhaul of bilingual education programs in coming months.

The State Board of Education this week scrapped an old policy that required school districts to seek permission to abolish bilingual education. And the state Legislature is mulling legislation that would give individual districts local control to choose their own method of teaching non-English speaking students.

But disgruntled voters may derail or at least alter the efforts of both bodies in June, when an initiative appears on the ballot requiring schoolchildren with limited English skills to be taught primarily in English. Polling indicates strong support for the measure statewide, including among immigrant and minority groups whose children are most affected.

This is a hot button issue nationally, but of particular concern in California where a large and varied immigrant population poses demanding educational and financial problems for school districts. California’s changing demographics have fueled a string of explosive voter-driven initiatives in recent years, including Proposition 187, the 1994 measure to cut government benefits and education to illegal immigrants, and Proposition 209, the 1996 measure banning affirmative action in state and local government.

Bilingual education programs teach children all subjects in their native language, gradually increasing their exposure to English. In California, schools that wish to teach non-English speaking children in a language other than their native tongue have had to seek a waiver before Thursday’s Board of Education vote.

Some districts with smaller percentages of non-English speaking students channel those students into “English As a Second Language” courses at the same time they are enrolled in traditional English-speaking classes.

California’s bilingual students are being taught in their primary (native) language for an average of five to seven years before transferring into all-English classes. Critics, many of them parents of the affected students, claim the students segregated into bilingual programs fall behind their English-speaking peers.

Under Proposition 227, known as “English For The Children,” non-English speaking students would spend one year in an English immersion class, then move into regular classes. Even though polling indicates widespread support for the initiative, even supporters question whether one year is enough.

Sheri Annis, spokeswoman for the anti-bilingual proposition, said she doubts the Board of Education’s decision to drop the waiver requirement will short-circuit public support for Proposition 227 because the practical effects of the change will be negligible.

“Only five districts out of more than 1,000 have applied for a waiver from the bilingual program before this ruling,” Annis said. “Districts have a financial incentive to continue bilingual. Each bilingual teacher gets a stipend of up to $ 5,000 a year.”

The force behind Proposition 227 is Silicon Valley businessman Ron Unz, a failed candidate for governor in 1994. He jumped on the issue after a group of Spanish-speaking parents picketed the Los Angeles school board two years ago and kept their children out of school until they were allowed to move into English-speaking classes. (In Texas, parents must approve their children’s placement in bilingual classes.)

“It allows parents to sue teachers directly (for speaking something other than English to students),” said California Teachers Association spokesman Bob Cherry, whose organization opposes the measure.

“We’ve proposed reasonable changes in bilingual education that would deliver more local control to local districts and teachers, and this initiative mandates a one-size fits all solution,” Cherry added.

Art Pedroza, a Proposition 227 supporter who lives and works in Orange County, says he’s uncomfortable with having to deal with bilingual education as a statewide initiative, adding, “In my heart, it’s a local issue.” But the initiative seeks to address what the state Legislature has been too mired in politics to do, he said.

And Pedroza cites his own childhood experience as an argument against the notion that it takes years to move non-English speaking students into mainstream classrooms taught in English.

“I didn’t speak English when I was enrolled in kindergarten, but my Mom made darn sure I learned,” Pedroza said. “Not only did she help with homework and spelling, but I was put in a program that was English only.

“I know from my personal experience that people can succeed, that Hispanic kids are just as smart as anyone else,” Pedroza said.

In a school district with a multi-ethnic population, the question becomes which language should the bilingual classes be taught in? Critics point out students whose primary language is, for example, Mandarin, being placed into bilingual classes taught in Spanish.

Tom Carrol, a fourth-grade teacher in Sacramento’s San Juan Unified School District, has children speaking six different languages in his classroom. The largest group of non-English speakers in his district is Hispanic, he said, but the second-largest group is Russian.

“I speak English,” Carol said. “I took a little quickie Russian course, but that’s it.”

“I’m required by law to make sure all the kids have equal exposure to the curriculum,” Carrol said. “The challenge to teach California history to someone who only speaks Russian is unbelievable. I have interpreters who come in twice a week for about 30 minutes each for Russian, Ukrainian and Spanish. They help somewhat, and the children help each other.”

There’s just not enough teachers, Carrol said.

“Then someone like Mr. Unz comes along and tells me I’m doing it all wrong,” Carrol said. “And if one of my Russian children did a fantastic job and I said ‘horsho’ (which means excellent) I could be sued. That’s insane.”



Comments are closed.