Lawyer says wording of bilingual education initiative still misleading

PHOENIX—Wording of an analysis of Proposition 203, a ballot initiative to end bilingual education in Arizona, is still misleading, said lawyer for a civil-rights organization battling the initiative.

A panel of judges from the state Supreme Court had ruled Aug. 18 that the first paragraph of the analysis in the official voter guide should be either deleted or revised because it was inaccurate.

According to a lawsuit filed by the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the paragraph wrongly suggested that all Arizona students learning English are in bilingual education programs when in fact only 33 percent are.

“As far as I’m concerned, this initiative should come with a skull and crossbones,” said Hector Villagra, a lawyer for the Mexican America Legal Defense and Educational Fund. With the court order, the analysis that voters are going to see “will be a little more accurate but it’s still inaccurate.”

State Election Director Jessica Funkhouser told The Arizona Republic that she chose to delete the first paragraph from the analysis because there wasn’t enough time to rewrite it before it went to the printer.

“What matters is that we are going to give the parents a choice to either throw out bilingual education in Arizona public schools or to keep it,” said Maria Mendoza, co-chairwoman of English for the Children, the group supporting the initiative.

The analysis was written by a bipartisan panel of state legislators. The lawsuit claims the analysis overstates the rights parents would have if the initiative passes. The lawsuit also said that the analysis suggests all parents will be able to apply for waivers from the English immersion program when waivers would be limited to children with special education needs.

The lawsuit also claimed the analysis wrongly suggests that parents who obtain waivers would have their children placed in bilingual education or other programs when no such guarantee exists.



Comments are closed.