Prop. 203, English only,' is propped up by big lies

Ron Unz and the “English Onlies” seem to have brought the Big Lie technique to new depths in their efforts to “sell” Proposition 203 to Arizona voters. Both the Arizona bilingual lie and the California English-only lie can be shown to be false from data readily available form the two state departments of education The Arizona bilingual lie

The Arizona bilingual lie says that all “English learners” are forced to go into bilingual education classes, their parents cannot get them out of these classes, and there they speak nothing but Spanish – or Navajo. That’s why, we’re told, they don’t learn English. Bilingual education, we’re told, is a forced, failed Spanish-only program.

In the relevant Arizona revised statutes there are at least 10 references to schools having a choice between English-as-a-second language (ESL) and bilingual education (BLE) programs. The statues also say that parents must have a choice – schools are required to remove students from either BLE or ESL programs upon parental request Data in the annual report of the Arizona Department of Education shows only about a third of all “English learners” are in bilingual education programs. Contrary to the Big Lie, bilingual education programs are a matter of choice for both schools and parents. Bilingual education programs are now, and should remain, a choice for schools and parents.

The Arizona Department of Education cannot be accused of favoring bilingual education. Yet their annual report shows that students in bilingual programs have averaged higher on standardized tests than students in English-only programs at every grade for the last three years – the only years this comparison has been reported. Contrary to the Arizona Big Lie, bilingual education programs have consistently out-performed ESL – type programs.

The third claim – that “English learners” go to school all in Spanish (or Navajo) – may be a bit harder to disprove from the data available. But how is it that the children in bilingual programs average higher on standardized tests given in English if they aren’t exposed to English? The Arizona state statutes define three kinds of bilingual programs. Contrary to the Big Lie, all bilingual education in Arizona involves the use of two languages – one of which is always English. Despite their repeated claims, the English Onlies have failed to point out all-English or all-Navajo programs that would enable the press to verify this strange allegation. The California English-only lie

The California English-only Big Lie says that their “structured/sheltered English immersion” program has been a great success in California. To “prove” this, they cite achievement test data.

But the original claim, implicit in the proposition and explicit in the propaganda, was that all “English learners” would learn all the English they needed in only one school year. This is why California voters voted for Proposition 227. The best way to evaluate “structured/sheltered English immersion” is against its own clams. Did 100 percent of California “English learners” test “proficient” in English at the end of their first year of “structured/sheltered English immersion”?

California still tests the language abilities of “English learners” each year. Those “English learners” that meet the criteria in oral English, English reading, and English writing are re-classified as “English proficient.” Seven percent of “English learners” were re-classified the school year before Prop. 227 passed. Seven point six tested “proficient” in 1999 and 7.8 percent in 2000. This is the percentage of all “English learners”; we can’t tell how many of these were first year “English learners.” We only know that that percentage must be even smaller. This means that at least 92 percent – and probably more – of all “English learners” did not test “proficient” in English at the end of their first year.

Remember: Unz claimed that all “English learners” would learn English in only one year. “Structured/sheltered English immersion” must be considered a failure in terms of its own claims.

Seeing this data, Ron Unz – the money behind Prop. 203 – has chosen to try to blow it off. He has said that it is “nonsense” and that it didn’t “have any reality.” The fact remains that these are the best tests available for ascertaining children’s English language abilities. They have been widely used for a number of years. Choosing to ignore such data seems extremely irresponsible.

Unz chooses instead to tell us about achievement test scores. These scores, he has told us, indicate that this is the greatest educational reform of the 20th century. But if you are an educator, you will realize that most of the children who have been exposed to the one-year-only “structured/sheltered English immersion” program would have been in Kindergarten. But the children who take the achievement test scores are 2nd graders and up. In short, very few of the “English learners” who took the achievement test scores could have taken part in the new one-year-only “structured/sheltered English immersion” program. The achievement test scores of one set of students tell us almost nothing about the “success/failure” of the English-only program offered another group of students.

More careful re-analysis of the achievement test scores has shown that almost all schools in California showed some improvement on achievement test scores – probably due to smaller class size, teaching toward standards, and intensive test preparation. Why these big lies?

Most people don’t realize that Prop. 203 would actually give “English learners” a single year of English-language instruction – less English than they now receive in multi-year English-as-a second-language or bilingual education programs. “Structured/sheltered English immersion” is “not normally intended to exceed one year” (section 15-752). And, because of the much harsher provisions of the Arizona proposition, Prop. 203 probably would be a one-year-only program in Arizona.

Why? Arizona has long harbored a small group of irrational bilingual haters. They think that eliminating bilingual education is the single best thing they can do for Arizona’s “English learner” – despite the fact that only a third of Arizona “English learners” are in such programs, and the fact that the children in such programs do better than those in the ESL-type programs. What Ron Unz has given these bilingual haters is the illusion of an alternative – and deep pockets.

Uze claims to offer an alternative to bilingual education. But there is almost no research to date to show that “structured/sheltered English immersion” or any other program has enabled large numbers of “English learners” to acquire “academic English” in a single school year. Unz has not done so in California. “Structured/sheltered English immersion” is not really an educational program, it is an ideological stalking horse. It is not really meant to help children; it is really intended to ego-satisfy the English Onlies.

Arizona has a choice. It can go with the haters and opportunities that promote these big lies. Or it can go with the research, the data, and the responsible bilingual and ESL educators who are trying to improve the education of “English learners” in Arizona. Which will it be?



Comments are closed.