Published Wednesday, June 3, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News
State's voters speak
strongly against teaching
in 2 languages
BY MICHAEL BAZELEY
Mercury News Staff Writer
Voters called for an end to bilingual education in
public schools Tuesday, overwhelmingly supporting
a measure that makes California the first state to
require all students be educated in English.
In a vote being watched across the country,
Proposition 227 held a strong lead from the
beginning. It passed in nearly every county with the
exception of San Francisco and Alameda.
``The people of California supported us because
they supported the idea of teaching children in
English,'' said Ron Unz, the Palo Alto software
developer who wrote and funded the initiative. ``I
expect the overwhelming number of school districts
will be implementing this and teaching their kids in
English come this fall.''
Opponents blamed their loss on a ``huge
misinformation campaign'' by Unz.
``He made some very negative statements about
the Latino community, and about teachers and
bilingual education that were not true,' said Holli
Thier, spokeswoman for Citizens for an Educated
America. ``Ron Unz painted a (negative) picture
very early on, before there was even organized
opposition, and we spent the rest of the time
having to respond to that.''
Unz had predicted that the anti-bilingual sentiment
would sweep across the country, but the immediate
effect of Proposition 227's victory was not clear.
The initiative is supposed to take effect 60 days
after it passes. But opponents were expected to
announce a legal challenge today, which Unz vowed
to fight.
``Tonight does not signify the end of our campaign,''
said Renee Saucedo, director of the Northern
California Coalition for Immigrant Rights. ``We are
going to continue to organize parents and teachers
to make sure this initiative is never implemented.''
At least two school districts -- including the San
Mateo-Foster City School District -- have already
said they would ask the state Board of Education
for waivers from the initiative. And several districts
have vowed to defy the measure's English-only
mandate.
Bilingual education has been used in California
schools for more than 25 years. It was designed to
help ease non-English-speaking children into regular
classrooms by teaching them in both their native
language and English.
But the teaching method has come under
increased attacks in recent years, partly because
of a persistently high Latino dropout rate and a
sense that many students are not learning English
quickly enough.
Unz, a 36-year-old millionaire businessman,
repeatedly characterized bilingual education as a
``dismal failure.''
As they left the polls Tuesday, many voters
appeared to agree.
``I don't know if they're not learning English in the
schools, but it's sure not happening in the
community,'' said software engineer Rich Edelman,
38, as he walked out of a San Jose polling place.
``There are a lot of people running around here who
do not speak English. This will force them to learn
English, and that's a good thing.''
Unz's initiative would place all students with limited
English skills in a yearlong intensive English class
and then move them into regular classrooms.
Parents who still want their children in bilingual
classes could apply for waivers in some
circumstances.
About 30 percent of the 1.4 million students not
fluent in English are now in bilingual classes, where
most instruction is in their native languages. The
remaining students are taught primarily in English.
Unz's campaign had just a handful of formal
endorsements, including Los Angeles Mayor
Richard Riordan and famed math teacher Jaime
Escalante.
By contrast, virtually every major education group
opposed the measure, along with dozens of school
boards, two dozen state and federal politicians, the
chairman of the California Republican Party,
President Clinton and all four candidates for
governor.
Unz was also outspent nearly 3-to-1 by the
opposition, which pulled in more than $2 million in
the final two months of the campaign.
None of that seemed to matter much, though,
when it came to public opinion. The notion of
English-only classrooms appealed strongly to
California voters, many of whom are frustrated with
public schools and an ever-growing immigrant
population.
Like Proposition 63, the 1986 measure that made
English the state's official language, Proposition
227 staked a strong early lead in public opinion
polls that it never lost.
The momentum toward English-only classrooms has
been building for more than a decade.
The state law mandating instruction in a student's
native language expired in 1987, after a bill that
would have extended it was vetoed by then-Gov.
George Deukmejian. State education officials
continued to require schools to offer bilingual
education.
But many districts -- faced with a shortage of
qualified teachers and questions about the
effectiveness of bilingual classes -- sought waivers
from the regulations.
==============================================
Published Thursday, June 4, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News
JOANNE JACOBS
If schools flout Prop. 227, there will be a backlash
BY JOANNE JACOBS
THE law says: Teach non-English-speaking students in
special English immersion classes. Proposition 227,
which passed with a 61 percent majority, goes into
effect in 60 days.
School officials say: We can't comply with Proposition
227 when school starts in the fall, but we won't have
to. It will be tied up in court for years. Or we'll get a
waiver from the state board of education to continue
bilingual education.
It's a high-risk gamble.
Wednesday, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a
lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco. To get an
injunction, they must persuade U.S. District Judge
Charles Legge, a Reagan appointee, that their lawsuit
is likely to win on the merits. It's not. Ron Unz wrote
his ``English for the Children'' initiative to fit federal
rulings, which say schools may use a variety of
methods, including English immersion, to help
students with limited English skills get an education
comparable to other students. Almost certainly,
Proposition 227 is constitutional.
The judge might be persuaded that letting the law go
into effect in 60 days would cause irreparable harm.
But it's not a sure thing. He might want to know why
school officials made no plans to implement English
immersion in the seven months Proposition 227 was
leading in the polls by 2-to-1 or more.
Some think the state Board of Education could nullify
227, which is now part of the education code.
According to state law, the board ``shall'' waive the
education code on request, unless there's reason to
believe such a waiver would not meet students' needs,
says attorney Celia Ruiz. She's representing San Jose
Unified and several other districts that plan to seek
waivers at the board's July meeting.
``We think we have a good case,'' says San Jose Unified
Superintendent Linda Murray, who observes that
bilingual education is part of the district's consent
decree in a federal desegregation case. If the waiver is
denied, San Jose Unified probably would join a lawsuit.
The district has no plans to implement 227 in
September.
The state board's legal counsel, Rae Belisle, doesn't
believe the board has the authority to waive away the
will of the voters. She reasons that the education
board's waiver power comes from the Legislature,
which can't change 227 without a two-thirds vote. So
how could the Legislature give the state board power
it doesn't possess?
Of course, nobody knows how the state board will see
the issue. The board came out for local control in April,
when it threw out the bilingual education mandate. But
it's shown no suicidal tendencies. Nullifying a very
popular initiative doesn't seem likely.
Ideally, California law would allow a range of choices,
including high-quality bilingual education programs
that show results.
Proposition 227 isn't ideal, but it is the law. It's time
to think about how to make it work.
First, local school districts need clarification on what
227 means. The state board will issue guidelines that
give districts maximum flexibility, Belisle predicts.
For example, the initiative says instruction must be
``overwhelmingly'' in English. Unz says teachers could
use another language for 20 to 30 percent of the day.
The board should adopt Unz's definition, making it
possible to offer extra help in students' native
language or to teach a foreign language to a class that
includes students who aren't fluent in English.
Opponents of 227 claim it requires students to be
mainstreamed after a year of special immersion
classes, with no additional help in learning English or
other subjects.
State guidelines should take a sensible interpretation,
letting schools mainstream students when they're
ready, and provide whatever extra help is needed.
The state board has jurisdiction over parental waivers
for children under 10 with ``special needs.'' (Waiver
rules are looser for children 10 and older, but most
bilingual education occurs in elementary school.)
The board should make it clear that ``special needs''
doesn't mean a child must be learning disabled, letting
parents choose bilingual education if that's what they
want.
The Legislature also could help by passing a special
appropriation so districts can buy English-language
books, and train teachers to teach reading, math,
science and social studies to students who aren't
fluent in English. All California teachers are supposed
to be trained in these techniques in the next few years;
227 makes this a priority.
At the local level, administrators should have been
surveying parents to estimate how many will request
bilingual education; they may apply for a waiver after
their children have spent 30 days in English immersion.
Under the law, if 20 students in the same grade at the
same school request bilingual education they have a
right to a class at that school; if fewer than 20 get
waivers, they may transfer to another school.
Switching students after 30 days will be a major
headache. It would be a lot easier if parents who plan
to seek a waiver were encouraged to enroll their
children at the same school or schools, which could be
staffed with bilingual teachers.
Bilingual magnet schools -- most of them following the
popular ``dual immersion'' model -- should apply for
charter status, so they're exempt from the education
code.
In covering this issue, I've been surprised that
educators don't seem to know much about the
alternatives to bilingual education used in Evergreen
and Cupertino elementary districts. Both districts
spent years developing English-language models. Both
show excellent results. Educators must be open to
learning from their experiences.
The same teachers and administrators who bitterly
opposed 227 will be the ones who will have make
English immersion work. Many sincerely believe it can't
work, a belief that could become a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Educators will have to put their personal
feelings aside for the sake of their students. It will be
very difficult, but there is no alternative.
Like Proposition 13, Proposition 227 is a voters' revolt
against the elites, reflecting enormous frustration with
the status quo. If schools are perceived to be flouting
the will of the voters, the backlash will be disastrous.
Joanne Jacobs is a member of the Mercury News editorial
board. Her column appears on Mondays and Thursdays.
You may reach her at 750 Ridder Park Dr., San Jose, CA
95190, by fax at 408-271-3792, or e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
================================
