This November the voters could be facing one of Colorado’s most divisive, and possibly destructive, ballot issues in our state’s history.

Linda Chavez of Washington, D.C., and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., are pushing a statewide petition effort to obtain the minimum number of voters’ signatures to place an English-immersion initiative on November’s ballot.

This English-immersion initiative is a clone of California’s Proposition 227 and would, by design, dismantle this state’s bilingual education programs.

If you are approached and solicited by an English-immersion supporter, deny them your signature for these reasons:

English immersion is not a new concept. English immersion was alive and well in schools throughout America’s Southwest up until the mid-1970s. I know, I personally experienced English immersion as a Spanish-speaking grade schooler back in the early ’60s. Did it work? I survived but apparently many of my Spanish-speaking classmates did not.

According to early research gathered by Chicano author George I. Sanchez, Spanish-speaking children failed miserably in classrooms where the teacher was a monolingual English speaker. In 1934, for example, he noted that in New Mexico during the 1932-33 school year there was a total of 24,810 Spanish-speaking children enrolled in the first two years of elementary school of the state public school system. Yet at the same time only 548 were enrolled in the 12th grade.

My first day in first grade was a nightmare that I will never forget. I distinctly remember the low sobbing cries emitted by some of my new classmates when our mothers left us in the classroom. When our teacher, Mrs. Brown, turned and began to instruct us in English the low sobbing cries turned into a frenzied and chaotic chorus of high-pitched screaming.

No, we have seen English immersion and it didn’t work in the ’30s or the ’60s, and it definitely shouldn’t be reintroduced as a new concept in 2000. This statewide initiative would strip communities of local control. School districts from Alamosa to Greeley have developed their own systems to address the issue of educating Spanish-speaking students. A cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all English immersion program that hasn’t been battle-tested in a Latino dominant school system should not replace those models that were designed and implemented by local school boards. Spanish-speaking parents did not request this initiative. Where are the Spanish-speaking families that this initiative will supposedly serve? I read three newspapers every morning and I have yet to scan an article about angry Spanish-speaking parents demanding that their local school district implement English immersion for the good of their children. It hasn’t happened, and unless such a movement is orchestrated by English immersion proponents, it isn’t going to happen. English immersion is a misnomer. In order for English immersion to succeed, total immersion must occur. Tancredo and Chavez want voters to believe that after a full day of English-only instruction Latino students will return to an English-speaking neighborhood and re-enter a household where English is the dominant language heard. The reality is that after a full day of English-only instruction the Latino student will return to a household where Spanish will still be the dominant language. Not only will the child interact with Spanish-speaking family members but he also will be bombarded with visual and audio media in Spanish. For true immersion to occur, Chavez and Tancredo may have to invent a way to transplant Spanish-speaking families from Denver’s west and north side to Highlands Ranch and Cherry Creek.Jorge Amaya is executive director of the Northern Colorado Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Compass is designed to provide a platform for members of communities that are often under-represented in The Post’s opinion pages. Members of the Compass panel are selected each spring.



Comments are closed.