Massachusetts votes to end bilingual education
Voters in Colorado reject a ban on bilingual education
By Craig Colgan
11/19/02 – The catalyst behind the movement to replace bilingual education with English-immersion instruction is considering taking his effort nationwide.
"We'll see what happens, but it is ridiculous to do this on a state-by-state basis," says Ron Unz, the California software entrepreneur who heads English for the Children. "There are a lot of states."
Unz has won big victories in California in 1998 and Arizona in 2000, where voters by huge margins approved measures to end bilingual education. But his average dipped after he went one for two on Nov. 5.
The English immersion initiative he pushed for in Massachusetts won by 36 percentage points in Massachusetts, but a similar measure in Colorado was defeated by 12.
In an interview with School Board News several days after the election, Unz said he is "waiting to see how things shake out."
"There is nothing specific that I am talking about now. But the fact that we did win by a large margin in Massachusetts, possibly the most liberal state in the union, I would think that would get the attention of Congress."
Conversely, bilingual education advocates are encouraged after handing the Unz effort its first defeat.
"I do not know of one local school board in the state that supported it," says Jane Urschel, associate executive director of the Colorado Association of School Boards, referring to Amendment 31, which would have virtually ended "transitional bilingual education" in that state.
"Amendment 31 is like a computer virus," Urschel says. "It sounded very attractive but once you studied it and opened it up, it had very poisonous effects."
Of major concern to school board members was a provision that would have restricted local choice, Urschel says.
"In the Colorado Constitution, it says elected school boards are responsible for instruction, and we interpret that to mean curriculum," Urschel says. "We value local control very much. This struck at the heart of that."
Urschel adds that the measure also would have made teachers vulnerable to being sued by parents of students with grievances such as dissatisfaction with their students' progress.
Unz labels as scare tactics charges of inevitable lawsuits against teachers, noting there has not been a single lawsuit filed against any teacher in either California or Arizona since voters overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to dismantle bilingual education in those states.
He claims bilingual education has proven to be a failure, and English immersion works. If you offer school boards a choice of offering bilingual education or immersion, he says, they will choose whichever is cheaper or politically safer.
Crucial to Amendment 31's defeat were scores of ominous TV ads that Denver news media say played to ethnic prejudices among white parents. The ads did not defend the current bilingual education system; instead they drove home a theme of "chaos in the classroom," suggesting that if bilingual education is abolished, inevitably non-English speaking students would then spill into and disrupt classes full of mainstream students.
Unz says supporters of Amendment 31 were outspent 15-to-1, mainly because of a $3 million donation from billionaire Patricia Stryker, whose daughter attends a school that offers "two-way" classes, in which English speakers and non-English speakers learn to speak each other's language.
In Massachusetts, the English-immersion measure will now take precedence over a recently passed state law that increased oversight of language education programs. The law was pushed as a less radical alternative to the Unz measure, called Question 2.
Question 2 mandates most non-English-speaking students receive one year of English immersion classes before they are fully moved into mainstream classes.
When Massachusetts established bilingual education options for public school districts in 1971, it was the first state to do so.
Despite its passage, Question 2 still faces hurdles.
The first could be a court challenge. A pro-bilingual education group called Multicultural Education Training Advocacy is considering a lawsuit.
And in several Massachusetts communities, federal court orders issued to settle desegregation lawsuits already determine how bilingual students will be taught. The state Education Department is researching implementation procedures.
"The legislature revised the law this year to create more flexibility, and the system we have in Massachusetts was and is working," says Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC).
"Single-year immersion is simply not appropriate for every student. If you moved to Japan, would you like to have one year of immersion to learn that language? I wouldn't."
When school committee members from 150 school districts at a MASC meeting were asked whether they supported Question 2, he says, only seven hands were raised.
"Ameliorating legislation" may end up providing school districts some flexibility, Koocher says. But there seems to be little help on the way to districts in the form of dollars. Boston Superintendent Thomas Payzant says the measure could cost his district $15 million next year.
Koocher adds that one of the loonier claims made during the campaign by those who support the English immersion measure is that the state's bilingual education program is just a front for a plan to hire more foreign-born teachers. "This is Massachusetts," Koocher says. "Politics is a blood sport."
Meanwhile, as bilingual education supporters claim that the achievement gap between immigrants and mainstream students has in fact widened, Unz counters with data that show test scores among non-English-speaking students in California have gone up since that state's voters abolished bilingual education four years ago.
Top of Page
| Reproduced with permission from the Nov. 19, 2002, issue of School Board News. Copyright © 2002, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789. |