Initiative to Cut Bilingual Classes Qualifies for Ballot

An initiative seeking to essentially dismantle bilingual education has qualified for a state vote in June, California elections officials announced Tuesday, clearing the way for a campaign likely to generate national debate.

Also securing a spot on the ballot was an initiative that would require unions to obtain annual permission from members to use their dues in political campaigns. Union leaders call the measure, backed by Gov. Pete Wilson, a significant threat to their political clout.

If it passes, it could strip organized labor, a traditional Democratic ally, of millions of dollars in campaign money.

The “English for the children” measure–also known as the Unz initiative after sponsor Ron K. Unz, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur–would end most native-language teaching programs in public schools for students not fluent in English.

Critics say the measure would be calamitous for a school system already straining to serve 1.4 million students who read, write or speak limited English. Some predict that it could fuel ethnic tensions in a manner reminiscent of Propositions 187 and 209, which sought to cut benefits to illegal immigrants and end state-sponsored affirmative action, respectively.

Most schoolchildren targeted by the Unz measure speak Spanish as their primary language.

Unz hailed news of the impending vote.

“Our initiative has the potential for being tremendously unifying in the state of California,” he said, “a vote which crosses party lines, which crosses ideological lines and which crosses lines of ethnicity.

“The object of our initiative is a very simple idea: that little immigrant children should be sent to school and taught English, which I think most people would not think controversial public policy.”

The initiative is co-sponsored by Gloria Matta Tuchman, a Santa Ana first-grade teacher and longtime English-only activist of Mexican descent.

Of more than 700,000 signatures Unz submitted in November, Secretary of State Bill Jones found that at least 510,796 were from registered voters. The measure needed 433,269 to qualify.

The chief strategist for the No on Unz campaign, political consultant Richie Ross of Sacramento, said he was not surprised at the news. Unz, a millionaire, had hired professional signature gatherers.

While some Latino groups have attacked the initiative as fueling ethnic rifts, Ross said the key issue is control of classroom curriculum. He called the initiative a “state-centralized, one-size-fits-all” policy out of step with the electorate.

“If you have a successful [bilingual] program today, Ron Unz’s initiative outlaws it,” Ross said. “He basically says this shall be the way it is done for all schools. That’s just not where the public is moving these days.”

The initiative calls for virtually all classroom instruction to be in English, and for children with limited English skills to receive about a year of specialized help–known as “English immersion”–before moving into mainstream classes.

Unz has said his proposal for a year of immersion is based not on educational research–most of which he calls suspect–but common sense. He cites the success of his ally, Matta Tuchman, in teaching English to her students without using their native language.

Current state policy, based on a law that expired 10 years ago, calls for most students to receive native-language instruction as they are learning English. But that policy has long been crippled by a severe shortage of certified bilingual teachers, and many school districts have exemptions to the rules.

Surveys by the Los Angeles Times and Field polls show that the initiative is starting with strong voter support. Opponents say opinions will turn around when details of the measure are publicized.

The state Republican Party endorsed the initiative in September, though Wilson and the party’s likely nominee to replace him, California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, have not taken public positions on it.

Many education groups oppose the measure, including the California Teachers Assn., the California School Boards Assn. and the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Trustees.

“This is the meanest and stupidest initiative I’ve ever seen,” said Jeff Horton, a Los Angeles Unified trustee, after the board’s vote on the matter this month. “Nearly half of our students are limited English speakers. It’s impossible to write an initiative that will dictate to all of the thousand districts in all of California how to teach.”

The other measure qualifying for the June 2 ballot would require union leaders to obtain annual approval from their rank and file before using union dues to finance political campaigns.

The measure also would ban corporations and employers from using funds collected from employees for political purposes. Contributions from foreign sources also would be banned.

But unions, which usually back Democrats in partisan races, stand out as the principal target of the initiative’s proponents, including Wilson, honorary chairman of the campaign for the measure.

Many working Americans, he said, are denied political choice. “That is because,” he said, “as members of labor unions, a portion of their dues are routinely spent by the union bosses for political purposes without their consent or even their knowledge. . . . That’s just plain wrong and un-American.”

Opponents, however, say Wilson and other backers misrepresent union practices and are supporting an unnecessary measure in order to silence unions while helping Republican candidates and causes such as school vouchers.

If approved, the measure would require the state Fair Political Practices Commission to craft an authorization form to be signed by union members before their dues could be used. Union officials are concerned that the commission, controlled by Wilson appointees, might dawdle for months before producing that form.

Such delays could effectively eliminate unions as players in the November 1998 election, which includes key contests for governor, U.S. Senate and much of the Legislature.

Jim Lewis, communications director for the State Building and Construction Trades Council, a union umbrella group, said use of dues for political campaigns already is approved “democratically, probably far more so than business or industry [political action committees], in which stockholders have no say whatever.”

Upon joining a union, Lewis said, a worker is asked if a portion of dues can be used for political purposes. The worker can opt out then or any time later, depending on how he or she feels about the candidate the union backs, he said.

But Jim Righeimer, one of the authors of the initiative, said workers “are never told of that option.” And if unions are already operating democratically, “they shouldn’t worry about our initiative,” he said.

Both measures will be given proposition numbers next month, state elections officials say.

Times staff writer Max Vanzi contributed to this story.



Comments are closed.