Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
216887109
label
California [Ron K.] Unz Initiative - Bilingual Education: California Bilingual Ballot Initiative [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
216887109
contentType
document
title
California [Ron K.] Unz Initiative - Bilingual Education: California Bilingual Ballot Initiative [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Michael Cohen's Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
216887109
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7763316-20120160S-003-008-2013
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cb3846ca0c13e240
ocrText
Michael Cohen DPC
UNZ Announcement
Qdo
UNZ Memo
UNZ Meetings
UNZ Message
California UNZ Initiative-Bilingual Education
Tribal College Executive Order Update
Tribal Colleges
Indian Education Executive Order
ENCLOSURES FILED OVERSIZE ATTACHMENTS 13362
NAM 10791
Information about California Requirements for Limited English Proficient Students
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs:
California Law
The California Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act of 1976 was sunsetted on June 30,
1987.
The former State Bilingual Education Act established specific bilingual program
requirements for identification, instruction, staffing assignments, classroom
composition, reclassification and parent involvement.
California currently has no existing requirements for bilingual education of its own.
On July 14, 1995, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted a policy statement on
educational programs and services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. The
policy is not binding on school districts.
However, Section 62002 states that if the Legislature does not enact legislation to
continue a program listed in The Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act of 1976, "the
funding of that program shall continue for the general purposes as specified in the
provisions relating to the establishment and operation of the program." The funds
shall be used for the intended purposes of the program. There are eight intended
purposes:
The primary goal of all (bilingual) programs is, as effectively and
efficiently as possible, to develop in each child fluency in English.
The program must provide equal opportunity for academic achieve-
ment, including, when necessary, academic instruction through the
primary language.
The program must provide "positive reinforcement of the self image of
participating children".
The program must promote "cross-cultural understanding".
California school districts are required to offer "bilingual learning
opportunities" to each pupil of limited English-proficiency enrolled in
the public schools."
California school districts are required to "provide adequate supple-
mental financial support" in order to offer such bilingual learning
opportunities.
Insofar as the individual pupil is concerned participation in bilingual
programs is voluntary on the part of the parent or guardian."
School districts must "provide for in-service programs to qualify
1
existing and future personnel in the bilingual and cross-cultural skills
necessary to serve the pupils of Limited English- Proficiency of this
state."
The Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act of 1976 provided for parent advisory commit-
tees and school site councils to continue subsequent to the termination of funding for
the programs sunsetted and that provision continues.
Some California Facts:
The number of Limited English Proficient students has nearly doubled in less than a
decade.
Nearly 80 percent of the California LEP population is Hispanic.
The California State Department of Education estimates that there is a shortage of
21,000 qualified bilingual teachers in California.
About 30 percent of all LEP students receive instruction in the academic subjects
through the primary language.
In California, Hispanics have a 50 percent dropout rate.
An average annual rate for transfer out of a bilingual program is 5 percent.
In 1997, the total LEP population in California was 1,381,393.
29.70% received English Language Development (ELD) and Primary
Language Instructional services
21.61% received ELD, Specifically Designed Academic Instruction in
SOMELA Mchiue 5
English (SDAIE) and Primary Language support services
19.91% receive ELD and SDAIE services
16.00% receive no special services
11.50% receive ELD services
1.40% withdrawn from services
California Funding
Distribution of Education Funds in California--about 60% of the money is for general
purposes, and about 40% is earmarked for special purposes or categories of students.
Each district has its own combination of federal, state and local sources. The amount
depends on: 1) the average number of students (Average Daily Attendance or ADA),
2) the general purpose money the district is allowed to have for each student (its
revenue limit) and 3) the special support for which it qualifies (categorical aid).
(EDFACT Sheet, September 1996. EdSource).
Schools fund bilingual programs through their General Fund. Each district receives a
set amount of \general purpose income ("revenue limit") from a combination of state
shill
2
aid and local property taxes for each pupil (ADA). Revenue limit income is the
largest portion of each district's budget. The school board decides how to spend this
support (i.e. whether and how to fund bilingual education programs or LEP services).
(EDFACT Sheet, October 1996. EdSource).
Schools also fund bilingual programs through Economic Impact Aid (EIA) * This
funding is based on the number of special category, including LEP and economically
disadvantaged, students. EIA funds are used at the district's discretion. Each individ-
ual district decides what percent of EIA money will be allocated to LEP services and
what percent will be allocated to other categories. (Leroy Hamm at the Bilingual
Compliance Unit of Economic Impact Aid).
3
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
CERAS 207S
STANFORD, CA. 94305
(415) 725-7454
fox (415) 723-7578
September 28, 1997
Ms. Glenda Booth
Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senate
Dear Glenda:
I am pleased to offer the following comments about the proposed California ballot
initiative, "English Language Education for Children in Public Schools", authored by Mr.
Ron K. Unz.
1.
The initiative focuses exclusively on the language of instruction, and does not
address the quality of instruction in the content areas (such as reading, math,
science and social studies). Research amply demonstrates that program quality
involves multiple factors, of which the language of instruction is just one. The
goal of educational reform should be the continuous improvement in all
instructional aspects of schools, not just whether the environment is conducive to
the learning of English.
2.
The initiative assumes that sheltered immersion in English will result in more rapid
and efficient acquisition of English This is not the case. Exposure to programs that
use the student's native language does not appear to slow down their progress in
English. At least one major study funded by the U.S. Department of Education and
subsequently reviewed by an independent panel of statisticians at the National
Academy of Sciences showed no difference between immersion and short- and
long-term bilingual education programs in how long it took students to learn
English. Language minority students across the U.S. appear to be learning English
"at the speed limit" across program types. Research does show considerable
variation across individuals -- mostly, the speed of English acquisition is related to
family education background and level of development in their native language.²
3.
The initiative assumes that there is no finding supporting the efficacy of bilingual
education programs. But at least two independent committees of the National
Academy of Sciences that reviewed the evidence of program effectiveness
concluded, tersely but in no uncertain terms, that: "the panel still sees the elements
of positive relationships that are consistent with empirical results from other
1 M. Meyer & S. Fienberg (1992). Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education
Strategies Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2 Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994), In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
UNLY 415 (2) 7576
NO.523
P.2
studies that support the theory underlying native language instruction". In the
study that compared immersion and short- and long-term bilingual education
programs, the cleanest comparisons showed the short-term bilingual education
programs to be significantly better than immersion programin the areas of reading
and mathematics achievement.
In sum, I believe that the initiative is misguided because it will focus attention on English
acquisition, and away from attending to academic standards. Children are learning English
anyway. Attention needs to be directed toward why, despite successfully learning English,
many language minority students (80 percent of whom are economically poor) do poorly
in our schools. This initiative does not help us focus on this key issue, and instead drags us
back into the 30-year-old debate of language of instruction, a trap from which most
serious educators are hoping to escape.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide you with any additional information
or supporting documents.
Sincerely,
KgAe
Kenji Hakuta
Professor
a August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997), Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A.Research
Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html
Home News Articles I Facts Volunteer Contribute E-Mail Your Stories Courts Full Text
Translations
People
Links
English Language Education for Children in Public Schools
by Ron K. Unz and Gloria Matta Tuchman
Text:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 300) is added to Part 1 of
the Educational Code, to read:
CHAPTER 3. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR IMMIGRANT
CHILDREN
ARTICLE 1. Findings and Declarations
300. The People of California find and declare as follows:
(a) WHEREAS the English language is the national public language of the
United States of America and of the state of California, is spoken by the vast
majority of California residents, and is also the leading world language for
science, technology, and international business, thereby being the language of
economic opportunity; and
(b) WHEREAS immigrant parents are eager to have their children acquire a
good knowledge of English, thereby allowing them to fully participate in the
American Dream of economic and social advancement; and
(c) WHEREAS the government and the public schools of California have a
moral obligation and a constitutional duty to provide all of Californiaís
children, regardless of their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills
necessary to become productive members of our society, and of these skills,
literacy in the English language is among the most important; and
(d) WHEREAS the public schools of California currently do a poor job of
educating immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly
experimental language programs whose failure over the past two decades is
demonstrated by the current high drop-out rates and low English literacy
levels of many immigrant children; and
(e) WHEREAS young immigrant children can easily acquire full fluency in a
new language, such as English, if they are heavily exposed to that language in
the classroom at an early age.
(f) THEREFORE it is resolved that: all children in California public schools
shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.
ARTICLE 2. English Language Education
305. Subject to the exceptions provided in Article 3 (commencing with
Section 310), all children in California public schools shall be taught English
by being taught in English. In particular, this shall require that all children be
placed in English language classrooms. Children who are English learners
shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary
1 of 4
11/04/97 09:41:52
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html
transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Local schools
shall be permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of different
ages but whose degree of English proficiency is similar. Local schools shall
be encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from
different native-language groups but with the same degree of English fluency.
Once English learners have acquired a good working knowledge of English,
they shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms. As
much as possible, current supplemental funding for English learners shall be
maintained, subject to possible modification under Article 8 (commencing
with Section 335) below.
306. The definitions of the terms used in this article and in Article 3
(commencing with Section 310) are as follows:
(a) "English learner" means a child who does not speak English or whose
native language is not English and who is not currently able to perform
ordinary classroom work in English, also known as a Limited English
Proficiency or LEP child.
(b) "English language classroom" means a classroom in which the language
of instruction used by the teaching personnel is overwhelmingly the English
language, and in which such teaching personnel possess a good knowledge of
the English language.
(c) "English language mainstream classroom" means a classroom in which
the students either are native English language speakers or already have
acquired reasonable fluency in English.
(d) "Sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion" means
an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly
all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and
presentation designed for children who are learning the language.
(e) "Bilingual education/native language instruction" means a language
acquisition process for students in which much or all instruction, textbooks,
and teaching materials are in the childís native language.
ARTICLE 3. Parental Exceptions
310. The requirements of Section 305 may be waived with the prior written
informed consent, to be provided annually, of the childís parents or legal
guardian under the circumstances specified below and in Section 311. Such
informed consent shall require that said parents or legal guardian personally
visit the school to apply for the waiver and that they there be provided a full
description of the educational materials to be used in the different educational
program choices and all the educational opportunities available to the child.
Under such parental waiver conditions, children may be transferred to classes
where they are taught English and other subjects through bilingual education
techniques or other generally recognized educational methodologies
permitted by law. Individual schools in which 20 students or more of a given
grade level receive a waiver shall be required to offer such a class; otherwise,
they must allow the students to transfer to a public school in which such a
class is offered.
311. The circumstances in which a parental exception waiver may be granted
under Section 310 are as follows:
2 of 4
11/04/97 09:41:53
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/fiulltext.html
(a) Children who already know English: the child already possesses good
English language skills, as measured by standardized tests of English
vocabulary comprehension, reading, and writing, in which the child scores at
or above the state average for his grade level or at or above the 5th grade
average, whichever is lower; or
(b) Older children: the child is age 10 years or older, and it is the informed
belief of the school principal and educational staff that an alternate course of
educational study would be better suited to the childís rapid acquisition of
basic English language skills; or
(c) Children with special needs: the child already has been placed for a period
of not less than thirty days during that school year in an English language
classroom and it is subsequently the informed belief of the school principal
and educational staff that the child has such special physical, emotional,
psychological, or educational needs that an alternate course of educational
study would be better suited to the childís overall educational development. A
written description of these special needs must be provided and any such
decision is to be made subject to the examination and approval of the local
school superintendent, under guidelines established by and subject to the
review of the local Board of Education and ultimately the State Board of
Education. The existence of such special needs shall not compel issuance of a
waiver, and the parents shall be fully informed of their right to refuse to agree
to a waiver.
ARTICLE 4. Community-Based English Tutoring
315. In furtherance of its constitutional and legal requirement to offer special
language assistance to children coming from backgrounds of limited English
proficiency, the state shall encourage family members and others to provide
personal English language tutoring to such children, and support these efforts
by raising the general level of English language knowledge in the community.
Commencing with the fiscal year in which this initiative is enacted and for
each of the nine fiscal years following thereafter, a sum of fifty million
dollars ($50,000,000) per year is hereby appropriated from the General Fund
for the purpose of providing additional funding for free or subsidized
programs of adult English language instruction to parents or other members
of the community who pledge to provide personal English language tutoring
to California school children with limited English proficiency.
316. Programs funded pursuant to this section shall be provided through
schools or community organizations. Funding for these programs shall be
administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and
shall be disbursed at the discretion of the local school boards, under
reasonable guidelines established by, and subject to the review of, the State
Board of Education.
ARTICLE 5. Legal Standing and Parental Enforcement
320. As detailed in Article 2 (commencing with Section 305) and Article 3
(commencing with Section 310), all California school children have the right
to be provided with an English language public education. If a California
school child has been denied the option of an English language instructional
curriculum in public school, the childís parent or legal guardian shall have
legal standing to sue for enforcement of the provisions of this statute, and if
successful shall be awarded normal and customary attorneyís fees and actual
damages, but not punitive or consequential damages. Any school board
3 of 4
11/04/97 09:41:53
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html
member or other elected official or public school teacher or administrator
who willfully and repeatedly refuses to implement the terms of this statute by
providing such an English language educational option at an available public
school to a California school child may be held personally liable for fees and
actual damages by the childís parents or legal guardian.
ARTICLE 6. Severability
325. If any part or parts of this statute are found to be in conflict with federal
law or the United States or the California State Constitution, the statute shall
be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law, and the United
States and the California State Constitution permit. Any provision held
invalid shall be severed from the remaining portions of this statute.
ARTICLE 7. Operative Date
330. This initiative shall become operative for all school terms which begin
more than sixty days following the date at which it becomes effective.
ARTICLE 8. Amendment.
335. The provisions of this act may be amended by a statute that becomes
effective upon approval by the electorate or by a statute to further the actís
purpose passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature and
signed by the Governor.
ARTICLE 9. Interpretation
340. Under circumstances in which portions of this statute are subject to
conflicting interpretations, Section 300 shall be assumed to contain the
governing intent of the statute.
END
Ron K. Unz, a high-technology entrepreneur, is Chairman of One Nation/One
California, 555 Bryant St. #371, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
Gloria Matta Tuchman, an elementary school teacher, is Chair of
REBILLED, the Committee to Reform Bi-Lingual Education, 1742 Lerner
Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92705.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
4 of 4
11/04/97 09:41:53
Analysis of Unz Initiative
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs
All children are to be placed in English language classrooms.
English learners shall receive their education in a sheltered English LEP students
immersion program.
After acquiring "a good working knowledge of English" the children will be
transferred to English language mainstream classes.
Parent waivers must be in writing, acknowledged each year by a personal
visit to the school by the parents or guardians.
The waivers will be granted if:
the child already possesses good English language skills,
the child is age 10 years or older, or
the child has special physical, emotional, psychological, or
educational need.
Adult English instruction willbe provided for parents or members of the
community who pledge to provide personal tutoring to California LEP
students. $50,000,000 per year for ten years will be appropriated from the
General Fund for this purpose.
Parents will have the right to sue for enforcement of the provisions of this
statute. Administrators or elected officials or teachers can be held
personally liable.
1
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/
English
For the Children
Let's teach English to all of California's children
and end bilingual education by June 1998.
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
E-mail
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
The 1998 California "English for the Children" Initiative
Begun with the best of theoretical intentions some twenty or thirty years ago, bilingual education has
proven itself a dismal practical failure, especially in California. Today, nearly one-quarter of all
California children in public schools--over 1,200,000---are classified as not proficient in English.
During the past decade, the number of these non-English-speaking immigrant children has more than
doubled. Yet under the current system, centered on bilingual education, only about 5% of these children
each year are found to have gained proficiency in English. Thus, our state's current system of
language instruction has an annual failure rate of 95%.
Last year, immigrant parents were forced to begin a public boycott of Ninth Street Elementary in Los
Angeles after the school administration refused to allow their children to be taught English. Enormous
numbers of California schoolchildren today leave years of schooling with limited spoken English and
almost no ability to read or write English. We believe that the unity and prosperity our of society is
gravely threatened by government efforts to prevent young immigrant children from learning English.
Our initiative will end bilingual education by ensuring that all California schoolchildren are taught
English, unless there are special circumstances and their parents object. If it passes, today's immigrant
children will be given the same opportunity to become educated, productive members of society that our
own immigrant ancestors enjoyed.
Our effort is bipartisan, supported by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives,
immigrants and the native-born. All of us share the belief that young children should be taught English
in California public schools.
With your help, we can end bilingual education in California by June 1998!
English for the Children
1 of 2
07/22/97 16:18:10
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/
212 E. 6th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213)627-0005/(213)627-0050(fax)
[email protected]
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
2 of2
07/22/97 16:18:51
VIEW EXCERPTS FROM THE POLLING DATA
RETURN TO LIST OF POLLS
Oct 15, 1997 - Study #400
LOS® ANGELES TIMES° POLL ALERT
English-Only Education Initiative Would Garner
Widespread Support
Initiative would virtually end bilingual education in California public schools. Californians
are against legislative meddling in political use of union membership dues.
T
he latest Times poll measured early public perception of
non-native speakers. However, support for the fledgling initiative
the issues behind a handful of initiatives aimed at the June
is actually slightly stronger among Latino (84% to 16%) than
1998 primary ballot. The poll found widespread support
among white voters who favor the measure 80% to 18%.
for ending bilingual education in the public schools, opposition
Early support for the measure is broad as well as deep. The
to legislative meddling in the political life of the Democrat-lean-
hypothetical vote does not significantly divide along age or
ing unions, approval of the state's assault weapons ban and a
socioeconomic lines. Strongest support was found among women
wish to strengthen it further, as well as support for the notion of
in the Republican Party at 93%. Eighty-eight percent of the elder-
requiring minor girls to get permission from their parents before
ly and 89% of all Republicans along with 73% of Democrats and
having an abortion.
73% of the youngest voters also support the initiative. Even 2 out
Bilingual Education in California Public
of every 3 liberals support the initiative. A pocket of possible
Schools
opposition can be found only among 35% of self-identified liber-
al Democrats at this time.
California voters ranked education
It is worth noting that a Times
as one of the top three problems fac-
" Much depends on how Latino
poll measured majority Latino sup-
ing the state in the latest Times poll
port for the much more Draconian
and bilingual education is a hot-but-
community leaders respond to the
measures of Proposition 187 at 52%
ton issue in the debate over what
to 42% as late as the first week of
changes will bring the most improve-
English-only initiative, and how
September, 1994. One month later,
ment to the state's public school sys-
divided the community is over this
Latino voters were split 46% to 48%
tem. An initiative that will in effect
on the issue and by late October, a
nearly dismantle the program is cur-
rently in the process of getting signa-
complex issue. "
solid 65% majority of Latino voters
were arrayed against the initiative.
tures to qualify for the June primary
Opposition to Prop 187 continued to
vote.
grow in the Latino community-our
The poll found that opponents of bilingual education and the
exit poll measured 77% of Latinos who cast opposing ballots on
"English for Children" initiative have widespread backing from
election day. It is possible that we may see changes of this kind
the state's voters. Eighty percent of California voters agree with
over time in the support for the English-only initiative, as well.
those who say that students are better served by learning English
Much depends on how Latino community leaders respond to the
in an intensive program designed to bring them up to proficiency
measure, and how divided the community is over this complex
in one year. Proponents of this system claim that students in
issue.
bilingual programs are pushed into a "separate and unequal"
track which leaves them less than proficient in the English skills
Union Dues and Soft Money
they require, and segregated from their English-speaking peers.
Another Republican-backed initiative aimed at the June 1998
Supporters of bilingual education say that many children from
ballot is a bill which would require unions to get written advance
non-English speaking households need school instruction in their
permission from each member before adding the portion of their
first language in order not to fall behind in other subjects while
dues to the pot that is used by union leaders to make donations
they are learning English.
to-usually Democratic-political campaigns. This is a state ver-
Sponsored by Republicans-former gubernatorial candidate
sion of the "Paycheck Protection Act" amendment that effective-
Ron Unz and Latina public school teacher Gloria Matta Tuchman
ly killed the campaign finance reform bill recently in the U.S.
are co-sponsors-the measure has been characterized by oppo-
Senate.
nents as the latest embodiment of the sort of anti-immigrant and
Californians don't much like the idea of legislative meddling
anti-Latino prejudice found in Propositions 187 and 209 and by
in union affairs. When asked whether they would vote for or
its supporters as the true path to English language proficiency for
against such a measure, 59% of California voters told the Times
Los Angeles Times 1997. All rights reserved.
Los Angeles Times California Poll; Oct 4-7, 1997
Page 1
Poll that they would vote against it. A third of all voters would
sent, citing privacy protections written into the state Constitution.
vote for it and 8% aren't sure at this time. The measure finds only
Opponents of the court's decision have vowed to campaign for
slightly stronger opposition among union members than among
the ouster of two of the state Supreme Court justices who voted
non-members. Sixty three percent of union members who are
to overturn the law. In addition, they have said they will place an
registered to vote oppose the bill, 33% are for it and 4% aren't
initiative on the ballot to amend the privacy protection in the
sure while among non-members the vote is 58% to 33% with 9%
Constitution to exclude minor girls. Such an amendment would
not sure.
likely prove popular with the state's voters, based on the poll's
Opposition to the measure is found across political party lines.
findings, and if passed would allow enforcement of the legisla-
Support is slightly stronger among Republicans, but falls well
tion passed by voters in 1987 which has been tied up in the courts
short of a majority at 37% while 54% would vote against it. Even
ever since.
self-identified conservatives can only muster 39% support while
Support for requiring girls to consult their parents in this mat-
55% would vote no. Men are a bit more positive about the mea-
ter is widespread, but is most popular among the state's black
sure, voting 42% to 53% while Republican men split evenly at
residents, at 79% for, 18% against. Latinos, despite being over-
47% to 48%.
whelmingly (81%) Roman Catholic, are nearly split on the issue
of abortion rights in general at 43% opposed to 39% in favor and
Assault Weapons Ban
support the requirement of parental consent by 76% to 15%.
California voters not only approve of the assault weapons ban,
White residents weigh in at 64% to 29% on this issue.
but they also want to see it strengthened, the poll found. Nearly
three out of every four California voters are in favor of the 1989
California's New Open Primary
legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of certain
Under the new California "open primary" rules, registered vot-
types of semiautomatic weapons. Even a majority of the 3 out of
ers may cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice regard-
every 5 of voters who feel that the law has been ineffective in
less of party. Registered voters who decline to state a party-vot-
reducing the use of automatic weapons by criminals in California
ers commonly referred to as "Independents"-will be able to cast
are in favor of it-by 63% to 35% opposed.
ballots for a primary candidate for the first time under the new
Fifty-eight percent of all Californians and 60% of registered
rule. California's open primary plan is currently under scrutiny
voters feel that the 1989 law has been "not too effective", or "not
by the court, but is likely to still be in effect for the 1998 primary
effective at all" in reducing the use of semiautomatic weapons by
season.
criminals in California. When asked if they would be in favor of
The poll found that 77% of voters who are registered in a
the bill intended to close the loopholes in the original law, 71%
political party-registered as Democrats, Republicans, etc.-can
of all Californians and registered voters said they were.
think of a circumstance where they might cast their primary bal-
The Times poll found that 28% of all California households
lot for a candidate of another party. The vast majority (86%) of
keep at least one gun in their home or garage. Protection was the
those who said that they might vote for another party's candidate
top mention at 14% when respondents were asked to give up to
said that they would do so because they favor the candidate as an
two reasons why guns are kept in the home. Nine percent of
alternative choice in the general election while only 5% said that
responses cited gun-collecting or hunting as the main or sec-
they might be more inclined to vote to help insure a weaker
ondary reason. Among Californians who keep a gun in their
opponent for the candidate of their choice in the general election.
home, 63% favor the 1989 ban while 34% oppose, 67% feel that
This is a much talked-about concern among opponents of the
the ban has not been effective while 34% say effective and 56%
open primary system, but the real impact of rogue voters making
are in favor of strengthening the ban while 38% oppose.
trouble in this way seems to be minimal at this time.
Parental Consent
Independent voters-those who are registered but have
declined to state a party-look forward to voting for the first time
A large majority of Californians continue to support a
in the open primary. Seventy-one percent of Independents say
women's right to obtain an abortion in the first trimester-59%
they will now vote for candidates for elected office as well as the
of all residents and 62% of registered voters expressed support
primary initiatives, while 12% say they will continue to vote only
for the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision. Abor-
for initiatives. The large majority of these voters-87%-plan to
tion is both a political issue and one of personal ideology for
vote for the candidate they like while a tiny number-2% say
most voters and the widest disagreement lies between liberal
they are likely to use their vote to help insure a weaker opponent
Democrats-who support the Roe VS. Wade decision 79% to
for the candidate of their choice.
12%-and conservative Republicans who are the main opposi-
tion to abortion rights at 41% to 46%. One way to measure the
Analysis by JILL DARLING RICHARDSON
broad support that women's choice enjoys in California is to note
that Roe vs. Wade is supported by all Republicans at 49% to 40%
and even among self-identified conservatives at 45% to 41%.
When it comes to minors, however, 67% of Californians feel
that girls should be required to obtain permission from their par-
ents before having an abortion, while 26% feel that minor girls
should be allowed to make that decision for themselves. Regis-
tered voters reflect the state at large at 65% for, 28% against.
The California Supreme Court recently overturned a never-
enforced state law requiring girls under 18 to seek parental con-
Los Angeles Times 1997. All rights reserved.
Los Angeles Times California Poll; Oct 4-7, 1997
Page 2
READ THE POLL ANALYSIS
RETURN TO LIST OF POLLS
Oct 15, 1997 - Study #400
Los ANGELES TIMES® POLL ALERT
How THE POLL WAS CONDUCTED
(ASKED OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN A PARTY WHO SAY
THEY MIGHT VOTE FOR OTHER PARTY'S CANDIDATE)
The Times Poll contacted 1,396 adults, including 1,092 regis-
Would you be more likely to vote for another party's candi-
tered voters, statewide by telephone October 4 through October
date in the primary because you favor that candidate as an
7. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in
alternative choice in the general election, or because you
the state. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that list-
think they would be a weaker opponent for your own party's
ed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. The sample was
candidate in the general election, or is there some other rea-
weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race,
son you would vote for a candidate from another party?
age, education, region and registration. The margin of sampling
RV
DEM
REP
error for all adults and registered voters is plus or minus 3 per-
centage points; for certain subgroups the error margin may be
Favor as alternative choice
86
90
82
somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other fac-
Weaker opponent for own candidate
5
3
7
tors such as question wording and the order in which questions
Other
4
3
4
are presented.
Don't know
5
4
7
NOTES
(ASKED OF VOTERS REGISTERED AS AN
All answer frequencies are given in percentages.
INDEPENDENT/DECLINE TO STATE)
"-" indicates less than 0.5%.
Will you continue to vote just for the initiatives in the pri-
Totals may exceed 100% where more than one reply was accepted.
maries, or will you now vote for candidates running for elect-
The wording of some questions has been abridged.
ed office?
IND
SELECTED RESULTS FROM THE TIMES POLL
Continue to vote just for initiatives
12
CALIFORNIA SURVEY
Now vote for candidates
71
Oct 4-7, 1997
Depends on who runs (Vol.)
7
Don't know
10
(A full summary of results will be available at a later date
through the Los Angeles Times Poll)
(ASKED OF INDEPENDENTS/DECLINE TO STATE
GUIDE TO COLUMN HEADINGS
VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL NOW VOTE FOR
CANDIDATES)
ALL
All California adults
Now that you are able to vote for candidates running for
RV
Registered voters
elected office in the June primary, will you vote for a candi-
DEM
Registered Democrats
date because you like what he or she stands for, or will you
IND
Registered independents
vote for a weaker opponent to help insure that the candidate
REP
Registered Republicans
you want wins in the general election in November?)
IND
Vote for candidate you like
87
(ASKED OF VOTERS REGISTERED IN A PARTY)
Vote for weaker opponent
2
Will you continue to vote only for candidates of your own
Depends (Vol.)
9
party in the new "open" primaries, or can you think of cir-
Don't know
2
cumstances where you might vote for candidates from other
parties?
RV
DEM
REP
Vote only for my own party
15
17
14
Might vote for other party candidates 77
75
78
Depends on candidate (Vol.)
7
8
6
Don't know
1
2
c Los Angeles Times 1997. All rights reserved.
Los Angeles Times California Poll; Oct 4-7, 1997
Page 1
(ASKED OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS)
(ASKED OF EVERYONE)
There is a new initiative trying to qualify for the June prima-
As you may know, in 1973, the United States Supreme Court
ry ballot that would require all public school instruction to be
handed down a landmark decision, called Roe 15. Wade,
conducted in English and for students not fluent in English to
which essentially accepted abortion in principle.
be placed in a short-term English immersion program. If the
June 1998 primary election were being held today, would you
Generally speaking, are you in favor of the Supreme Court
vote for or against this measure? (INCLUDES LEANERS)
decision which permits a woman to get an abortion from a
doctor at any time within the first three months of her preg-
RV
DEM
IND
REP
nancy, or are you opposed to that, or are you indifferent on
Vote for
80
73
80
89
the subject or haven't you heard enough about that yet to
Vote against
18
23
17
10
say?
Don't know
2
4
3
1
ALL RV DEM IND REP
WHITES
LATINOS
Haven't heard enough
1
1
1
-
1
Favor
Vote for
80
59
62
69
67
84
49
Indifferent
10
9
9
11
Vote against
18
16
8
Oppose
28
26
18
19
Don't know
2
40
-
Don't know
2
2
3
3
2
FOR COMPARISON
The California Supreme Court recently overturned a state
How the prospective Latino vote on Proposition 187 changed as
law requiring girls under 18 to obtain parental consent before
the Nov. 8, 1994 election approached:
having an abortion, saying it violated privacy protection
guaranteed by the Constitution.
If the November 1994 general election were held today, would
Should girls under 18 be required to obtain their parent's
you vote for or against Proposition 187? (ASKED OF REGIS-
consent before they may have an abortion, or not?
TERED VOTERS)
ALL RV DEM IND REP
Oct 22-25, 1994
Oct 8-11, 1994
Sept 8-11, 1994
LATINOS
Should be required
67
65
59
LATINOS
68
74
LATINOS
Should not be required
26
28
34
21
19
Vote for
22
46
52
Depends on family
Vote against
65
48
42
circumstances (Vol.)
4
4
3
10
5
Don't know
13
6
6
Don't know
3
3
4
1
2
Election results, from the Times' exit poll:
FAVOR
OPPOSE
ROE V. WADE
ROE V. WADE
Nov 8, 1994
LATINOS
Should be required
56
90
Should not be required
38
5
Vote for
23
Depends on family
Vote against
77
circumstances (Vol.)
3
3
Don't know
3
2
There is another initiative trying to qualify for the June pri-
mary ballot that would require union members to approve
In 1989 a California law was passed banning the manufac-
part of their membership dues to be used for political candi-
ture, sale or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons.
dates or initiatives. If the June 1998 primary election were
The measure exempts many types of guns used by hunters
being held today, would you vote for or against this measure?
and other sports enthusiasts. Do you favor or oppose main-
(INCLUDES LEANERS)
taining this ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of
RV
DEM
IND
REP
semi-automatic assault weapons?
ALL RV DEM IND REP
Vote for
33
31
29
37
Vote against
59
62
64
54
Favor
73
74
81
67
67
Don't know
8
7
7
9
Oppose
24
24
17
28
31
Don't know
3
2
2
5
2
UNION
NON-UNION
MEMBERS
MEMBERS
GUN OWNERS
NON-GUN OWNERS
Vote for
33
33
Favor
63
78
Vote against
63
58
Oppose
34
20
Don't know
4
9
Don't know
3
2
c Los Angeles Times 1997. All rights reserved.
Los Angeles Times California Poll; Oct 4-7, 1997
Page 2
Do you feel that this law has been effective in reducing the
use of semiautomatic weapons by criminals in California?
ALL RV DEM IND REP
Effective
33 31 36 31 24
Not effective
58 60 53 59 69
Don't know
9 9 11 10 7
GUN OWNERS NON-GUN OWNERS
Effective
26
36
Not effective
67
53
Don't know
7
11
A bill to strengthen the 1989 assault weapons ban is pending
in the state Legislature. This new assault weapons bill would
close the loopholes of the 1989 law by expanding the defini-
tion of what constitutes an illegal assault weapon and would
also include copycat weapons that are cosmetically different
from the restricted firearms. Are you in favor of the Legisla-
ture passing a bill to strengthen the assault weapons ban or
are you opposed to this?
ALL RV DEM IND REP
Favor
71 71 80 77 58
Oppose
23 24 15 22 34
Don't know
6
5
5
1
8
GUN OWNERS NON-GUN OWNERS
Favor
56
78
Oppose
38
16
Don't know
6
6
Are there any guns or revolvers in your home or garage? (IF
YES) What's the main reason why guns are kept in your
home? Is it part of a collection, or is it kept for hunting, or is
it needed for your job, or is it kept for protection, or target
practice, or why are guns kept in your home? Is there anoth-
er reason why guns are kept in your home, or not? (ACCEPT-
ED UP TO TWO REPLIES)
ALL RV DEM IND REP
No guns
69 65 73 63 55
Guns (Net)
28 32 25 31 41
Protection
14 16 10 12 24
Collection
9
11
11
9
12
Hunting
9
11
8
14
13
Target practice
5
5
2
7
7
Needed for job
1
1
1
-
2
Some other reason
1
1
1
3
1
Don't know
3 3 2 6 4
Tables compiled by RAY ENSLOW
c Los Angeles Times 1997. All rights reserved.
Los Angeles Times California Poll; Oct 4-7, 1997
Page 3
Los Angeles Times Poll
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLLS/story24.htm
GO
GO
Los Angeles Times POLLS
HELP
What happens to an idea that
wins a NOBEL PRIZE?
Wednesday, October 15, 1997
THE TIMES POLL
Bilingual Education Gets Little Support
By MARK Z. BARABAK, TIMES POLITICAL WRITER
pponents of bilingual education enjoy overwhelming
O
support in a brewing ballot fight that has sparked early
skirmishing in the 1998 campaign, with strong backing
among California voters of all races, ethnicities and political
MAIN PAGE
persuasions.
A proposed measure to virtually dismantle California's
RELATED
system of bilingual public education garnered huge support
among the state's electorate, with 80% in favor and 18%
Wilson Presidential
against, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.
Bid Finds Meager
Support was in the 75% to 80% range virtually across the
Support
board, among all races, income levels and age groups. Latinos
voters surveyed favored the initiative by a slightly higher
Lack of Wide
margin--84% to 16%--than whites, at 80% to 18%.
Support Could Hamper
Boxer
Even two-thirds of self-described liberals supported the
proposed initiative, aimed at the June 1998 ballot.
The Times survey offered the first independent sounding of
Feinstein Popularity
Up Amid Economic
public opinions on a wide range of social and public policy
Hope
issues that could face California voters when they go to the
polls next year.
Among its other findings:
TELL US
YOUR COMMENTS
* A proposed measure aimed at curbing the influence of
organized labor by restricting the political use of union dues
was opposed by nearly 2 to 1. Those not in unions were only
slightly less opposed than union members.
*
Californians evidently look forward to their expanded
choices under the state's new "open primary" law, which allows
them to vote next June for whichever candidate they prefer,
regardless of party. Only a minuscule percentage said they
intended to use the opportunity to make political mischief.
* Californians strongly support the state's ban on assault
weapons, though most question its effectiveness. Such doubts
notwithstanding, an overwhelming majority would like to see
the ban strengthened.
*
Californians strongly support legalized abortion during
the first three months of pregnancy. At the same time, however,
a large majority believe parental consent should be required for
girls under 18.
The poll surveyed 1,396 adults statewide Oct. 4-7. The
margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Much of the early attention surrounding the 1998 campaign
has focused on the proposed bilingual education initiative. The
measure, pushed by Silicon Valley businessman Ron Unz and
1 of 4
11/04/97 09:27:24
Los Angeles Times Poll
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLLS/story24.htm
Orange County schoolteacher Gloria Matta Tuchman, promotes
English-only instruction for California's 1.3 million students
with limited English skills.
Some Latino political activists have criticized the proposal
and the negative reaction has, in turn, made some Republican
leaders skittish about associating the party with the so-called
Unz initiative, for fear of a backlash.
But the GOP rank and file was solidly behind the measure,
with 89% support. Seventy-three percent of Democrats backed
the initiative.
"The immigrant community has long viewed education as a
way up the socioeconomic ladder," said Susan Pinkus, director
of the Times Poll. But, she continued, "a lot will depend on
how the campaign for the Unz initiative is waged and how the
Latino community responds."
As a case in point, she noted the polling history of
Proposition 187, the 1994 anti-illegal immigration initiative. A
Times poll conducted in September 1994 found that Latinos
supported Proposition 187, 52% to 42%.
However, sentiment toward the initiative had turned
decidedly negative by election day, after a campaign that many
Latinos perceived as scapegoating their community. Although
Proposition 187 won statewide approval by a handy margin,
exit interviews conducted at polling places found that 77% of
Latinos ended up voting against the measure.
"The Unz initiative starts out a lot less controversial,"
Pinkus said. "The campaign to follow will determine if it stays
that way."
A second proposed ballot initiative fraught with potential
political undertones aims to inhibit the use of union dues for
campaign activities.
The measure, also intended for the June ballot, would
require union members to expressly approve part of their
membership dues to be used for political candidates or
initiatives.
Republicans have seized upon the issue as a way to
undercut the influence of Democratic-leaning labor unions. In
Washington, the controversy over a similar provision
sidetracked campaign finance reform legislation.
In California, Gov. Pete Wilson has enthusiastically
embraced the initiative, sponsored by conservative activists,
and has indicated that he may use the issue to help him realize
his presidential ambitions.
But the Times Poll found little initial support among voters
for the concept of a crackdown on unions' political activities,
with opposition to the proposed ballot measure running 59% to
33%. Sixty-three percent of union members were opposed,
only slightly more than the 58% among those not in unions.
Democrats were strongly opposed, 62% to 31%, with
Republicans less so, 54% to 37%.
"That finding is counterintuitive," said Pinkus, noting the
political import that leading Republicans have staked on the
issue.
One of the ballot measures that voters approved last year
will have its first tryout next June. Under the so-called open
primary system, California voters can cast their ballots for any
candidate, regardless of party registration.
Proponents of the measure suggested that it would
2 of 4
11/04/97 09.27.2
Lbs Angeles Times Poll
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLLS/story24.htm
encourage voter participation and promote bipartisanship and
problem-solving in government by boosting more moderate
candidates.
Opponents--including the two major political parties--have
gone to court seeking to overturn the measure. Among their
objections, Democratic and Republican leaders have asserted
that the law impinges on the rights of their members to choose
their own parties' nominees, and invites mischief by cross-over
voters.
But the Times poll suggests that voters are enticed by the
notion of greater choice and not terribly interested in causing
trouble.
Seventy-seven percent of voters said they could think of
circumstances in which they might vote for a candidate from a
party other than their own. Seventy-eight percent of
Republicans said so, along with 75% of Democrats.
Independents and voters who decline to state a party
preference stand to gain the most from the new primary system
because, for the first time in years, they can vote for candidates
seeking office. Before, independents and decline-to-state
registrants could vote only for initiatives on the ballot.
Seventy-one percent of those surveyed said they would take
advantage of their new status to cast ballots in contested
primaries.
As for mischief-making, most voters said they would mix
and match their ballots with benign intent. Eighty-six percent
of those registered in a party said they would vote for a
candidate of a different party because they supported that
individual. A mere 5% said they would support an opposing
party's candidate in hopes of sabotaging that party by
nominating the weakest possible general-election candidate.
On the assault weapons issue, 59% of respondents strongly
favored the 1989 California law banning possession, sale or
manufacture of 75 specific semiautomatic firearms, with an
additional 14% somewhat favorably disposed. Sixteen percent
were strongly opposed to the legislation, with an additional 8%
somewhat opposed.
Eighty-one percent of Democrats viewed the ban favorably,
compared with 67% of Republicans and a like percentage of
independents.
Despite the strong support for the 1989 legislation, 58% of
respondents felt the ban had done little or nothing to take such
weapons out of the hands of criminals. Thirty-three percent felt
the ban had been somewhat or very effective.
An overwhelming majority, 71%, expressed support for
legislation that would close the loopholes in the 1989 law and
expand the definition of what constitutes an illegal weapon to
include so-called copycat firearms.
Even 63% of those who felt the 1989 ban was ineffective
favored strengthening the law.
Democrats, at 80%, and independents, at 77%, were the
most favorably disposed to follow-up legislation, compared to
58% of Republicans.
Sixty-three percent of gun owners favored the initial
legislation and 56% favored strengthening the ban.
Twenty-eight percent of respondents said there was at least one
gun in their household.
On the abortion issue, 59% of those surveyed expressed
3 of 4
11/04/97 09:27:28
Los Angeles Times Poll
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLLS/story24.htm
support for the landmark 1973 Roe VS. Wade decision that
legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. At
the same time, 67% of respondents said that girls under 18
should be required to obtain parental consent before they could
have an abortion. Twenty-six percent said no such permission
should be required.
Pinkus said: "People feel that you need parental consent for
body piercing, to get a driver's license, to get a tattoo. This is
an event that is far more serious in a child's life and people feel
that the parents should be involved."
The California Supreme Court overturned the state's
parental consent law in August. Proponents of the requirement
hope to qualify a ballot measure in 1998 reinstating the law.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
GO
GO
4 of 4
11/04/97 09:27:29
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/news091197.html
Home
News
Articles
I
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
Federal Judge Rules Against
"Bilingual" Requirement, Paving the
Way for June 1998 Statewide Initiative
Vote
CONTACT: SHERI ANNIS (213) 627-2913
Sacramento, CA---Federal District Judge William B. Shubb Wednesday lifted à
state court injunction blocking the Orange Unified School District's move toward
English immersion classes. The ruling effectively ends "bilingual education"
programs for the 29,000 students in Orange. Shubb's 17-page decision stated that
any federal legal challenge against replacing "bilingual" programs with English
immersion had "a low probability of success."
According to Ron Unz, Chairman of "English for the Children," Judge Shubb's
ruling confirms both the lack of any federal basis for native-language instruction
programs and the solid legal foundation of his proposed initiative. "Bilingual
education is based on state law, and our initiative will change that state law.
Children in the District of Orange will now be allowed to learn English when they
enter public schools, but 99% of California schoolchildren are still trapped in
districts where "bilingual education" is mandatory, and our initiative is their only
hope of rescue. Our initiative will become law on the day it wins at the polls." The
"English for the Children" initiative has now reached the 350,000 signature
half-way point in its drive to qualify for the June 1998 ballot.
The previous day, a vote of the State Assembly effectively killed SB 6, the
Alpert-Firestone measure, which would have provided increased flexibility in
"bilingual education" programs. This represented the tenth consecutive year that the
California Legislature had deadlocked over attempts to modify or reform "bilingual
education." The education of California schoolchildren not fluent in English is
currently governed by the Chacon-Moscone law, which requires native-language
instruction for all English learners, with limited exceptions. Although the law
expired in 1987, it has never been replaced and therefore remains in effect.
Unz suggests that the bizarre nature of this government program underscores the
need to allow a direct vote of the California's citizens on the issue. "Today, nearly a
quarter of all California schoolchildren are legally prevented from learning English
when they enter school because of a state law which expired before most of them
were even born. This is a perfect example of the Alice-in-Wonderland mess which
only our initiative can clean up."
1 of 2
10/27/97 09:53:19
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/pr092897.html
Home
News
Articles
I
Facts
I
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
I
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
I
Links
Overcoming Leadership Opposition,
California Republican Party Endorses
"English for the Children "Initiative
CONTACT: SHERI ANNIS
(213) 627-2913
Anaheim, CA---Overcoming strong opposition from senior leaders, the
rank-and-file members of the California Republican Party voted overwhelmingly on
Sunday at their semi-annual convention to endorse the June 1998 "English for the
Children" initiative, which would largely end "bilingual education" programs in
California public schools. Opposition to "bilingual education" has been part of state
and national Republican Party platforms for two decades.
Republican Chairman Michael Schroeder and other party leaders had opened the
convention on Friday vowing to prevent a party endorsement of the initiative,
arguing that the ballot measure would further alienate Latino voters angry at the
party's past support for Prop. 187. Shortly thereafter, before most delegates had
arrived, a newly created committee hand-picked by Chairman Schroeder voted 3-1
to block the endorsement resolution sponsored by Assemblyman Tom McClintock
(R-Northridge).
But once the full membership arrived, the political tide began to turn as the caucus
of all 58 of California's Republican County Chairman voted unanimously to endorse
the initiative. Then on Saturday morning, the party Resolutions Committee
overturned the previous committee ruling by a 15-6 vote and revived the
endorsement resolution, which subsequently passed overwhelmingly by voice vote
of the full Republican Party membership on Sunday morning.
Ron Unz, Chairman of the "English for the Children" campaign and an outspoken
opponent of Prop. 187, suggested that the Republican Party leadership
misunderstood the desires of ordinary Latinos: "Nearly all Latino parents are very
eager to have their children taught English when they go to school, which our
initiative will finally allow. Ensuring that all young children are sent to school and
taught English should be the most uncontroversial law imaginable. We're also
hoping to gain the endorsements of the Democratic, Reform, Libertarian, and Green
parties as well."
Aside from Republican Chairman Schroeder, Attorney General Dan Lungren, the
likely Republican Gubernatorial nominee, and Republican Assembly Leader Bill
Leonard had also indicated their opposition to the initiative. Gov. Pete Wilson had
remained neutral.
1 of 2
10/27/97 09:53:36
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/pr100197.html
Home
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
I
Your Stories
I
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
California's Largest Teachers Union to
Hold Referendum on Endorsing
"English for the Children" Initiative
CONTACT: SHERI ANNIS
(213) 627-2913
Los Angeles, CA---Activist members of the United Teachers of Los Angeles
(UTLA) will turn in sufficient union signatures 10:30am Wednesday Oct. 1 to
schedule a union referendum to endorse the "English for the Children" initiative
against "bilingual education" and assist its qualification and passage. Doug Lasken,
who leads his elementary school's UTLA chapter, organized the effort, gathering
some 600 union signatures, well over the 500 necessary to schedule a union vote.
UTLA is California's largest public school teachers union local with 35,000
members and the vote must be held within 30-60 days. Mr. Lasken will turn in the
signatures at UTLA headquarters, located at 3303 Wilshire Blvd, 2 blocks west of
Vermont.
Mr. Lasken has written numerous articles critical of the LA Unified School
District's "bilingual education" policy, especially the provisions which prevented
teachers from spending more than 30 minutes each day teaching English to young
immigrant children. He expects his referendum to have an excellent chance of
passing: "We rank-and-file teachers see American-born Latino kids graduate
elementary school who can't read or write English, and that's a tragedy that has to
be stopped. I hope our union leaders don't try to block our "English education"
steam-roller and find themselves flattened, just like the Republican Party leaders
were last week at their own convention."
Many public school teachers have long been skeptical of current "bilingual"
education" policy, with the late Albert Shanker, long-time leader of the American
Federation of Teachers, being an especially sharp critic. In 1987, the UTLA
membership had voted 78% in favor of an advisory referendum asking their union
leadership to eliminate "bilingual education" through the collective-bargaining
process, which the union leadership was unable to achieve within existing law.
Ron Unz, Chairman of "English for the Children," sees the possibility of a major
union endorsement as being another sign of the bipartisan nature of the issue.
"Teachers unions are one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party, and if
we can gain the endorsement of their rank-and-file members, it makes it much
easier for Democratic elected officials to voice their true feelings on our initiative.
Teachers were among the strongest opponents of Prop. 187 and Prop. 209, and
their support will help demonstrate that our initiative stands on its own two feet."
1 of 2
10/27/97 09:54:49
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/facts.html
Home
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
The 1998 California "English for
the Children" Initiative
(1) Immigrant education is a complete failure in California. Some 1.3 million
California public school children--23% of the total---are now classified as not
proficient in English. Over the past decade, the number of these mostly Latino
immigrant children has more than doubled. California's future depends on
these children becoming fluent and literate in English, and this is the official
goal of the current system, centered on use of native language instruction,
with English being introduced to children only in later grades (so-called
"bilingual education"). Yet each year only about 5% of school children not
proficient in English are found to have gained proficiency in English. Thus,
the current system of language education has an annual failure rate of
95%.
(2) Latino parents want their children to learn English. Last year's survey by
the Center for Equal Opportunity showed that Latinos overwhelmingly rate
learning English as the top educational goal for their children, and by 4-1 favor
their children learning English as soon as possible rather than learning Spanish
before English ("bilingual education"). Adult immigrants are also eager to
learn English (English courses are the top advertiser on Spanish language TV).
(3) Anti-bilingualism has become linked with anti-immigrant sentiments.
There is a strong public perception that many opponents of "bilingual
education" are using the issue as a cover for anti-Latino and anti-immigrant
views. Unfortunately, this is often true. On the other side, private polling
indicates that anger at "bilingual education" is a leading cause of
anti-immigrant sentiment among California Anglos. Having individuals with
strong pro-immigrant credentials lead the move away from "bilingual
education" would help to decouple these two issues.
(4) California state politics is completely gridlocked on this issue. The
legislation requiring "bilingual education" expired ten years ago, but political
pressure and statutory interpretations have kept the system alive and growing
during this period, with annual spending exceeding $300 million per year.
Dozens of bills marginally changing the system have been proposed over these
years, but none have become law. Given this history, it seems likely that the
legislature will permit this failed policy to continue indefinitely.
(5) An initiative would break the impasse and change policy at a stroke.
There is no significant basis in federal or state constitutional law for requiring
"bilingual education". An initiative statute redirecting schools toward English
1 of 2
10/27/97 09:56:37
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/facts.html
language immersion for immigrant children would have immediate and
sweeping effect. Such a ballot measure should be overwhelmingly popular,
and pass quite easily (e.g. a decade ago, even the members of the Los Angeles
teachers union voted 80% against "bilingual education"). A positive,
pro-immigrant campaign could win a good majority of immigrant/Latino
voters themselves, lending strong legitimacy to the results (e.g a 6/1/97 LA
Times poll shows 83% of Latinos in Orange County oppose "bilingual
education").
(6) Immigrant children would become fluent and literate in English. Research
indicates that sheltered English immersion for young immigrant children is the
most rapid and efficient means of English language acquisition. Within months
to a year, the overwhelming majority of these young children would become
fluent in English and could be transferred into a mainstream classroom, giving
them the same educational opportunities as all other school children. This
would have a tremendously positive impact on the future of California society.
English for the Children
212 E. 6th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213)627-0005/(213)627-0050(fax).
[email protected]
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
2 of 2
10/27/97 09:56:37
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/fiultext.html
Home
News
Articles
I
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
I
Full Text
Translations People Links
English Language Education for Children in Public Schools
by Ron K. Unz and Gloria Matta Tuchman
Text:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 300) is added to Part 1 of
the Educational Code, to read:
CHAPTER 3. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR IMMIGRANT
CHILDREN
ARTICLE 1. Findings and Declarations
300. The People of California find and declare as follows:
(a) WHEREAS the English language is the national public language of the
United States of America and of the state of California, is spoken by the vast
majority of California residents, and is also the leading world language for
science, technology, and international business, thereby being the language of
economic opportunity; and
(b) WHEREAS immigrant parents are eager to have their children acquire a
good knowledge of English, thereby allowing them to fully participate in the
American Dream of economic and social advancement; and
(c) WHEREAS the government and the public schools of California have a
moral obligation and a constitutional duty to provide all of Californiaís
children, regardless of their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills
necessary to become productive members of our society, and of these skills,
literacy in the English language is among the most important; and
(d) WHEREAS the public schools of California currently do a poor job of
educating immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly
experimental language programs whose failure over the past two décades is
demonstrated by the current high drop-out rates and low English literacy
levels of many immigrant children; and
(e) WHEREAS young immigrant children can easily acquire full fluency in a
new language, such as English, if they are heavily exposed to that language in
the classroom at an early age.
(f) THEREFORE it is resolved that: all children in California public schools
shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.
ARTICLE 2. English Language Education
305. Subject to the exceptions provided in Article 3 (commencing with
Section 310), all children in California public schools shall be taught English
by being taught in English. In particular, this shall require that all children be
placed in English language classrooms. Children who are English learners
shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary
transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Local schools
1 of 4
07/22/97 16:21:39
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/filltext.html
shall be permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of different
ages but whose degree of English proficiency is similar. Local schools shall
be encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from
different native-language groups but with the same degree of English fluency.
Once English learners have acquired a good working knowledge of English,
they shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms. As
much as possible, current supplemental funding for English learners shall be
maintained, subject to possible modification under Article 8 (commencing
with Section 335) below.
306. The definitions of the terms used in this article and in Article 3
(commencing with Section 310) are as follows:
(a) "English learner" means a child who does not speak English or whose
native language is not English and who is not currently able to perform
ordinary classroom work in English, also known as a Limited English
Proficiency or LEP child.
(b) "English language classroom" means a classroom in which the language
of instruction used by the teaching personnel is overwhelmingly the English
language, and in which such teaching personnel possess a good knowledge of
the English language.
(c) "English language mainstream classroom" means a classroom in which
the students either are native English language speakers or already have
acquired reasonable fluency in English.
(d) "Sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion" means
an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly
all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and
presentation designed for children who are learning the language.
(e) "Bilingual education/native language instruction" means a language
acquisition process for students in which much or all instruction, textbooks,
and teaching materials are in the childís native language.
ARTICLE 3. Parental Exceptions
310. The requirements of Section 305 may be waived with the prior written
informed consent, to be provided annually, of the childís parents or legal
guardian under the circumstances specified below and in Section 311. Such
informed consent shall require that said parents or legal guardian personally
visit the school to apply for the waiver and that they there be provided a full
description of the educational materials to be used in the different educational
program choices and all the educational opportunities available to the child.
Under such parental waiver conditions, children may be transferred to classes
where they are taught English and other subjects through bilingual education
techniques or other generally recognized educational methodologies
permitted by law. Individual schools in which 20 students or more of a given
grade level receive a waiver shall be required to offer such a class; otherwise,
they must allow the students to transfer to a public school in which such a
class is offered.
311. The circumstances in which a parental exception waiver may be granted
under Section 310 are as follows:
(a) Children who already know English: the child already possesses good
English language skills, as measured by standardized tests of English
2 of 4
07/22/97 16:21:43
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/filltext.html
vocabulary comprehension, reading, and writing, in which the child scores at
or above the state average for his grade level or at or above the 5th grade
average, whichever is lower; or
(b) Older children: the child is age 10 years or older, and it is the informed
belief of the school principal and educational staff that an alternate course of
educational study would be better suited to the childís rapid acquisition of
basic English language skills; or
(c) Children with special needs: the child already has been placed for a period
of not less than thirty days during that school year in an English language
classroom and it is subsequently the informed belief of the school principal
and educational staff that the child has such special physical, emotional,
psychological, or educational needs that an alternate course of educational
study would be better suited to the childís overall educational development. A
written description of these special needs must be provided and any such
decision is to be made subject to the examination and approval of the local
school superintendent, under guidelines established by and subject to the
review of the local Board of Education and ultimately the State Board of
Education. The existence of such special needs shall not compel issuance of a
waiver, and the parents shall be fully informed of their right to refuse to agree
to a waiver.
ARTICLE 4. Community-Based English Tutoring
315. In furtherance of its constitutional and legal requirement to offer special
language assistance to children coming from backgrounds of limited English
proficiency, the state shall encourage family members and others to provide
personal English language tutoring to such children, and support these efforts
by raising the general level of English language knowledge in the community.
Commencing with the fiscal year in which this initiative is enacted and for
each of the nine fiscal years following thereafter, a sum of fifty million
dollars ($50,000,000) per year is hereby appropriated from the General Fund
for the purpose of providing additional funding for free or subsidized
programs of adult English language instruction to parents or other members
of the community who pledge to provide personal English language tutoring
to California school children with limited English proficiency.
316. Programs funded pursuant to this section shall be provided through
schools or community organizations. Funding for these programs shall be
administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and
shall be disbursed at the discretion of the local school boards, under
reasonable guidelines established by, and subject to the review of, the State
Board of Education.
ARTICLE 5. Legal Standing and Parental Enforcement
320. As detailed in Article 2 (commencing with Section 305) and Article 3
(commencing with Section 310), all California school children have the right
to be provided with an English language public education. If a California
school child has been denied the option of an English language instructional
curriculum in public school, the childís parent or legal guardian shall have
legal standing to sue for enforcement of the provisions of this statute, and if
successful shall be awarded normal and customary attorneyís fees and actual
damages, but not punitive or consequential damages. Any school board
member or other elected official or public school teacher or administrator
who willfully and repeatedly refuses to implement the terms of this statute by
providing such an English language educational option at an available public
3 of 4
07/22/97 16:21:4
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/filltext.htm
school to a California school child may be held personally liable for fees and
actual damages by the childís parents or legal guardian.
ARTICLE 6. Severability
325. If any part or parts of this statute are found to be in conflict with federal
law or the United States or the California State Constitution, the statute shall
be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law, and the United
States and the California State Constitution permit. Any provision held
invalid shall be severed from the remaining portions of this statute.
ARTICLE 7. Operative Date
330. This initiative shall become operative for all school terms which begin
more than sixty days following the date at which it becomes effective.
ARTICLE 8. Amendment.
335. The provisions of this act may be amended by a statute that becomes
effective upon approval by the electorate or by a statute to further the actís
purpose passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature and
signed by the Governor.
ARTICLE 9. Interpretation
340. Under circumstances in which portions of this statute are subject to
conflicting interpretations, Section 300 shall be assumed to contain the
governing intent of the statute.
END
Ron K. Unz, a high-technology entrepreneur, is Chairman of One Nation/One
California, 555 Bryant St. #371, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
Gloria Matta Tuchman, an elementary school teacher, is Chair of
REBILLED, the Committee to Reform Bi-Lingual Education, 1742 Lerner
Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92705.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
4 of 4
07/22/97 16:21:4
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/unz.html
Home
News
Articles
I
Facts
I
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
|
Full Text
I
Translations People Links
Ron K. Unz.
A theoretical physicist by training, Mr. Unz serves as president
and CEO of Wall Street Analytics, Inc., a Palo Alto-based
financial services software company which he co- founded in
1987. Mr. Unz holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from
Harvard University, Cambridge University, and Stanford
University, and is a past first-place winner of the American
Westinghouse Science Talent Search. His writings on issues of
immigration, ethnicity, and social policy have appeared in the
Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Policy Review,
Reason, and various other publications. In 1994, he received
34% of the vote in a Republican primary challenge to
incumbent Governor Pete Wilson of California. He serves as
Chairman of One Nation/One California.
(1) Immigration or the Welfare State?, Policy Review, Fall 1994
(2) Against Prop. 187, Los Angeles Times, October 3, 1994.
(3) Sinking Our State, REASON, November 1994
(4) CCRI vs. Prop. 187, Los Angeles Times, March 12, 1995.
(5) Immigration Mockery, Los Angeles Times, May 21, 1995.
(6) Big Brother, Meet Big Sister, Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1995.
(7) English isn't Racism, letter published in La Opinion, May 21, 1997.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:24:34
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/tuchman.html
Home I News I Articles I Facts I Volunteer I Contribute I E-Mail I Your Stories I Courts I Full Text I
Translations People Links
Gloria Matta Tuchman
An elementary school teacher in Santa Ana, Ms. Tuchman has specialized for
over thirty years in teaching students limited in their English proficiency. She
has served on a number of state and national boards and commissions dealing
with issues of educational reform, and twice was elected president of her local
school board. As a child in a Mexican-American family living in rural Texas,
she was a central plaintiff in a desegregation lawsuit under which her Texas
town was forced to open its public facilities to children of all ethnic
backgrounds. Her step-father later served as National President of LULAC
(the League of United Latin American Citizens), and she herself was honored
as LULAC Woman of the Year in 1988. She serves as Chair of REBILLED,
the Committee to Reform Bi-Lingual Education.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of l
07/22/97 16:25:55
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/facts.htm
Home
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
The 1998 California "English for
the Children" Initiative
(1) Immigrant education is a complete failure in California. Some 1.3 million
California public school children---23% of the total---are now classified as
not proficient in English. Over the past decade, the number of these mostly
Latino immigrant children has more than doubled. California's future depends
on these children becoming fluent and literate in English, and this is the
official goal of the current system, centered on use of native language
instruction, with English being introduced to children only in later grades
(so-called "bilingual education"). Yet each year only about 5% of school
children not proficient in English are found to have gained proficiency in
English. Thus, the current system of language education has an annual
failure rate of 95%.
(2) Latino parents want their children to learn English. Last year's survey by
the Center for Equal Opportunity showed that Latinos overwhelmingly rate
learning English as the top educational goal for their children, and by 4-1
favor their children learning English as soon as possible rather than learning
Spanish before English ("bilingual education"). Adult immigrants are also
eager to learn English (English courses are the top advertiser on Spanish
language TV).
(3) Anti-bilingualism has become linked with anti-immigrant sentiments.
There is a strong public perception that many opponents of "bilingual
education" are using the issue as a cover for anti-Latino and anti-immigrant
views. Unfortunately, this is often true. On the other side, private polling
indicates that anger at "bilingual education" is a leading cause of
anti-immigrant sentiment among California Anglos. Having individuals with
strong pro-immigrant credentials lead the move away from "bilingual
education" would help to decouple these two issues.
(4) California state politics is completely gridlocked on this issue. The
legislation requiring "bilingual education" expired ten years ago, but political
pressure and statutory interpretations have kept the system alive and growing
during this period, with annual spending exceeding $300 million per year.
Dozens of bills marginally changing the system have been proposed over
these years, but none have become law. Given this history, it seems likely that
the legislature will permit this failed policy to continue indefinitely.
(5) An initiative would break the impasse and change policy at a stroke.
There is no significant basis in federal or state constitutional law for requiring
"bilingual education". An initiative statute redirecting schools toward English
language immersion for immigrant children would have immediate and
sweeping effect. Such a ballot measure should be overwhelmingly popular,
and pass quite easily (e.g. a decade ago, even the members of the Los Angeles
teachers union voted 80% against "bilingual education"). A positive,
pro-immigrant campaign could win a good majority of immigrant/Latino
voters themselves, lending strong legitimacy to the results (e.g a 6/1/97 LA
Times poll shows 83% of Latinos in Orange County oppose "bilingual
education").
1 of 2
07/22/97 16:37:11
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/facts.htm
(6) Immigrant children would become fluent and literate in English. Research
indicates that sheltered English immersion for young immigrant children is
the most rapid and efficient means of English language acquisition. Within
months to a year, the overwhelming majority of these young children would
become fluent in English and could be transferred into a mainstream
classroom, giving them the same educational opportunities as all other school
children. This would have a tremendously positive impact on the future of
California society.
English for the Children
212 E. 6th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
[email protected]
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
2 of 2
07/22/97 16:37:18
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/071897.html
Bilingual Education Gets Foe Group seeks issue for state
ballot
By: Nanette Asimov
The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, July 18, 1997
Tapping into what promises to be next year's hot-button ballot issue, a new
group calling itself English for the Children wants to persuade voters to
jettison bilingual education in California public schools.
Led by Ron Unz, a political conservative who challenged Governor Pete
Wilson in the 1994 Republican primary, the group kicked off a signature
drive in San Francisco yesterday to qualify the contentious issue for the state
ballot next June. The effort is already under way in Southern California,
although it has gathered only about 1,500 names SO far toward the required
432,000.
Critics quickly labeled the move "divisiveness du jour" and "the next 187,"
referring to the 1994 state initiative barring illegal immigrants from health
and education services that is now tied up in court.
Unz, a software developer from Silicon Valley, has the financial wherewithal
to make his English- only initiative a force in shaping next year's political
agenda.
Already the state Board of Education has asked for a full briefing on bilingual
education for early next year. And the board members, Wilson appointees,
already have shown sympathy for the English-only approach by letting
Orange County schools eliminate all classes this September that are not
taught in English.
Unz's measure would require a similar approach in every school, outlawing
instruction in a child's native language.
California appears ripe for a bilingual education fight, since the number of
children labeled "limited English proficient" has more than doubled in the
past 10 years to 1.3 million -- nearly a quarter of the state's public school
students.
The question of how best to educate them is an emotional issue that has long
divided parents, educators and politicians.
At its most basic, the dispute centers on whether children should learn
English quickly and intensively, or whether they should study math, science
and social studies in their native language while studying English on the side.
About 30 percent of California's 1.3 million limited-English students are
taught in their native language, said Norman Gold, manager of bilingual
compliance for the state Department of Education.
California spent at least $319 million last year on training teachers and
providing classroom aides and materials specifically for children who speak
little English.
Much of the state law governing bilingual education died in 1987. But
schools still are required to teach English to non-English speakers and to
1 of 3
07/22/97 16:32:45
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/071897.htm
make sure they learn math, science and other subjects
--in their own language, if necessary.
The initiative by Unz and his group -- which includes state Republican Party
vice chairman Bok Pon, who was born in China -- would prohibit immigrant
pupils under age 10 from learning academics in their native language. Instead,
children would have to attend intensive English classes for as long as it took
for them to learn the language, even if it meant forgoing other studies until
they did.
"It isn't the duty of the public schools to help children maintain their native
culture," Unz said.
He complains that just 5 percent of immigrant children in bilingual education
programs exit them each year, a figure that is mirrored in San Francisco's
statistics.
"That's a 95 percent failure rate," he said.
The politician unveiled his initiative yesterday outside Jean Parker
Elementary, the school attended by Kinney Lau, whose family sued the San
Francisco school district in a case that led to the 1974 Supreme Court
decision requiring bilingual education.
Critics accused proponents of distorting a serious educational issue with
emotional appeals.
"The public is being sold a bill of goods here," said Marta Jimenez, general
counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. She
said the idea of withholding academic instruction from children until they
learn English is "arrogant in the least, and seriously detrimental."
She said it would violate a 1981 state high court ruling that requires districts
to ensure that "students do not suffer educational or academic deficits because
of their English language limitations."
Pon joined Unz yesterday at Parker Elementary -- a school he attended
shortly after arriving in the United States from China in 1952.
In thickly accented English, Pon said that anything other than total English
immersion is a disservice to children. He used his own experience to say why.
"I've been cheated," he said. "They didn't have bilingual education when I
went to school, but they put all the Chinese speakers in a class together. All
day we spoke Chinese.
"I failed in college because my English wasn't good enough. What happened
to me, I don't want to happen to others."
NATIVE LANGUAGES
The number of students classified as "limited-English proficient" in
California public schools, and the languages they speak (x):
-- Spanish: 991,000 pupils.
-- Vietnamese: 49,000 pupils.
2 of 3
07/22/97 16:32:47
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/071897.htm
-- Hmong: 30,000 pupils.
-- Cantonese: 24,000 pupils.
-- Pilipino: 22,000 pupils.
-- Khmer: 21,000 pupils.
-- Korean: 16,000 pupils.
-- Armenian: 15,000 pupils.
-- Lao: 11,000 pupils.
-- Mandarin: 9,000 pupils.
Total enrollment in California public schools: 5.5 million. < BR>(x) -
numbers are for the 1995-96 school year, and have been rounded to nearest
1,000.
Source: California Department of Education.
3 of 3
07/22/97 16:32:48
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/070997.html
Campaign Targets Bilingual Education
By: AMY PYLE
Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, July 9, 1997
A campaign to end bilingual education in California was being launched
inside a skid row day-care center Tuesday morning, but the phalanx of
television cameras did not interrupt Jose Negrete's construction of an intricate
Lego pirate cove.
As former gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz and English-only teacher Gloria
Matta Tuchman described their quest for a spring 1998 statewide
initiative--which was cleared last week by the state attorney general, enabling
a signature drive to begin today--the 10-year-old sorted through a peg-legged
pirate, a skeleton, a treasure chest and, of course, the plank.
Although Jose was oblivious to the speechmaking, he was actually an
inspiration for the initiative, as one of 80 Spanish-speaking children held out
of Ninth Street School by their parents last year after administrators refused
to move them into all-English classes.
The Times' coverage of the two-week boycott piqued the interest of software
entrepreneur Unz, who decided to renew his fight against bilingual education.
"Our initiative ensures that the parents get their wish," Unz said.
Jose's role in what could become a historic moment in California education
began in February 1996, when he was a third-grader in a bilingual class,
taught mostly in Spanish. Thanks to the boycott, by September he was
attending a fourth-grade class taught entirely in English.
"At first, I didn't understand what the teacher was telling me," he said in clear
but accented English.
Was it scary? "Yes. Then I started learning, little by little."
The value of English is crystal clear to Jose. "When you get big, if you go to
work and they talk to you in English and you don't understand them, they can
fire you."
Now, a quarter of California's public school students are eligible for bilingual
classes. Nearly half the Los Angeles Unified School District students are
eligible.
Dubbed "English for the Children," Unz's initiative would require that all
public school instruction be conducted in English unless a parent can prove a
child would learn faster through an alternative--possibly bilingual--technique.
Under current state laws, roughly the opposite is true: non-English-speaking
children are to be placed in some form of bilingual education unless parents
request English-only instruction.
The initiative provides for one year of immersion in English before students
are mainstreamed.
Unz said his proposal was prompted by public opinion polls showing that
Latino parents want their children in English-only programs and by statistics
indicating that bilingual programs graduate only 5% of their children annually
1 of 2
07/22/97 16:35:20
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/070997.html
into regular classes. "That's a 95% failure rate," he said.
Bilingual advocates, poised to battle the measure, say Unz has misinterpreted
the data. The 5% "transition rate" is based on all bilingual education students,
most of whom are only beginning a three- to seven-year transition to
all-English classes.
The impact on bilingual students could be devastating, said Joseph Jaramillo,
staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund. "It would send many California schools into crisis because they would
be stripped of the very tools necessary to bring children into the mainstream."
MALDEF is watching the initiative carefully, Jaramillo said, because of its
potential for tapping into the same immigrant-bashing that helped pass
Proposition 187.
But Republican Unz, who opposed bilingual education when he ran against
Gov. Pete Wilson in the primary in 1994, said he wants to avoid becoming
another magnet for anti-immigrant rage. He notes that he campaigned against
Proposition 187 and that some conservatives already have distanced
themselves >from his initiative because it would add $50 million a year to
programs that teach English to adults interested in becoming English tutors.
Unz sought out Matta Tuchman to lend classroom reality to his campaign.
Matta Tuchman has long opposed bilingual education and teaches an English
immersion first-grade class in Santa Ana.
She has challenged bilingual education for decades but had virtually sworn
off spending time on the cause until she received Unz's phone call. "After a
while you feel like a broken record," she said. "Isn't anybody listening?"
2 of2
07/22/97 16:35:23
Bilingual Education Under Attack
http://search.washingtonpost.com/w.te/1997-07/21/0731-072197-idx.html
THE AMERICAN DREAM KAPLAN
NOW AVAILABLE
Inside
washingtonpost.com I home page I site Index I search I help I
washingtonpost.com
Bilingual Education Under Attack
News From the 50 States
Find news, reference materials
and Internet resources for every
Calif. Ballot Initiative Backers Hope Effort
state. Type the name of any state
Will Resonate Elsewhere
below:
By Lou Cannon
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, July 21, 1997; Page A15
National Section: news,
background and Web resources
The Washington Post
on the topics of national interest.
LOS ANGELES-California, where socially divisive
National Breaking News:
ballot measures often ignite national policy debates, is at it
24-hour-a-day updates in the
again.
Today's Top News section.
All National stories from this
The latest hot-button initiative is called "English for the
morning's Washington Post.
Children" and would virtually abolish bilingual instruction
for 1.3 million California public school students who are
classified by the state as "not proficient in English."
Proponents hope that eliminating bilingual education here
would sound the death knell for similar programs
elsewhere. Half of the national total of children not
proficient in English live in California.
California voters are often harbingers of social change. In
1978, passage of the anti-tax Proposition 13 triggered a
national anti-tax movement. In 1994, Proposition 187
denied educational and medical benefits to illegal
immigrants, leading to similar efforts in other states and
federal legislation that reduced benefits for legal
immigrants, as well. Last year, in another possible
trendsetter, voters passed Proposition 209 to eliminate
state and local affirmative action programs. Propositions
187 and 209 have not been fully implemented because of
ongoing court challenges.
"Bilingual education is a bizarre government program that
costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn't succeed in
teaching children English," said Ron Unz, a
multimillionaire software entrepreneur from Palo Alto who
is underwriting the campaign to put the initiative on the
ballot next June. Opponents acknowledge that the initiative
will qualify, and several of them also concede that it will
be difficult to defeat.
But Latino leaders contend that the measure is dubious
policy and that the campaign to pass it will stir up the
ethnic and racial passions associated with the campaigns
over Propositions 187 and 209.
1 of 4
07/22/97 12:04:08
Bilingual Education Under Attack
"It's a horrible way to decide educational policy and
another example of the initiative process gone berserk,"
said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
Bilingual education has been a thorny issue in California
since 1986, when voters passed an initiative, since
emulated by many states, designating English as the state's
"official language."
In 1987, the state legislature extended a law mandating
bilingual education, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. George
Deukmejian (R). Bilingual education programs survived
because they have been mandated by the California
Education Department, which is headed by a nonpartisan
superintendent of public instruction.
Now, a new effort has arisen to curtail bilingual education,
backed by a loose coalition of political conservatives and
Latino parents who do not think their children are learning
English rapidly enough.
Last year, dozens of Latino parents at the Ninth Street
School in downtown Los Angeles, where 90 percent of
children do not speak English, organized as Las Familias
del Pueblo and demanded that the school replace bilingual
education. Their plea was rejected by school officials.
Similar but less publicized revolts have produced
modification of bilingual programs in at least two Southern
California communities, Santa Ana and Santa Barbara.
Recently, the State Board of Education gave the Orange
Unified School District in Orange County, with 29,000
students, a year to try alternatives to bilingual education.
Educators in this district believe that young children learn
English best if plunged into what are called "sheltered
immersion programs" where they are taught English
intensively. This is also the view of Gloria Matta
Tuchman, a bilingual first-grade teacher in Santa Ana who
co-chairs the "English for the Children" campaign.
As a child of Mexican American parents in Texas,
Tuchman was a central plaintiff in a desegregation lawsuit
that opened a rural town's schools to children of all ethnic
backgrounds. She said she often talks to the parents of her
first-grade students in Spanish.
"The parents tell me that the children learn Spanish at
home, and they want them to learn English in school,"
Tuchman said.
Unz, who calls himself a libertarian conservative, is not
fearful of immigrants. In 1994, in his first try for political
office, he received more than a third of the vote in the
Republican primary against Gov. Pete Wilson (R), whose
reelection campaign featured television commercials
2 of 4
07/22/97 12:04:45
Bilingual Education Under Attack
http://search.washingtonpost.com/w.te/1997-07/21/0731-072197-idx.ht
showing hordes of Mexicans running across the border
near San Diego.
Unz denounced Proposition 187 and Wilson's campaign as
"despicable." He said that he will not allow anyone
associated with that campaign or others with
"anti-immigrant views" to become involved in his effort to
eliminate bilingual education.
"It would be a disaster if this initiative was perceived as
anti-immigrant because it is not," Unz said.
But Harry Pachon, director of the Tomas Rivera Policy
Center in Claremont, thinks that Unz is naive about his
ability to control the political debate. He believes the
initiative inevitably will attract support from those who
fear the growth of Latino political and economic power in
California and that Latinos will also see it as "an extension
of 187 and 209."
Pachon, whose parents are from Colombia, was put in a
class for mentally handicapped students when he entered
school in Florida because he spoke only Spanish. He
eventually learned English by immersion, which he calls
the "sink-or-swim" method of teaching language.
"I swam, but some kids sink," he said.
Immersion advocates say that children also sink under
bilingualism, with/many of them never becoming
proficient in English. Unz cites state data which he says
prove a "95 percent failure rate" because only 5 percent of
bilingual students move into regular classes.
Some educators contend that Unz misreads the data.
Reynaldo Macias, a professor of education at the
University of California at Santa Barbara, said there is
research evidence showing that bilingual education
succeeds when there are "qualified teachers and materials
and a positive environment" but that such conditions
prevail in only about a third of California schools.
Still others, including Pachon, say that existing data are
inconclusive and heavily "politicized" by both sides.
Because of the absence of adequate data, he said, the Unz
initiative is "premature."
For the past two years, moderates in the legislature led by
state Sen. Deirdre Alpert (D) of San Diego and
Assemblyman Brooks Firestone (R) of Santa Barbara have
been trying to find a middle ground that would give school
districts flexibility to use different programs.
An Alpert bill to allow this flexibility recently won
approval of the Senate Education Committee but has
drawn opposition from bilingual teachers and influential
Latino organizations. Alpert expects that it will be bottled
3 of 4
07/22/97 12:04:4
Bilingual Education Under Attack
http://search.washingtonpost.com/w.te/1997-07/2I/0731-072197-idx.html
up by Latino leaders in the legislature.
If recent California history is any guide, voters are more
apt to approve broad initiatives when the legislature has
failed to address a perceived problem with more measured
solutions -- as was the case both with Proposition 13 and
Proposition 187. Alpert regards Unz's initiative as
"divisive and poorly drawn" but believes it is likely to pass
unless school districts are given flexibility.
"There is growing concern that we're producing students
who are illiterate in two languages," Alpert said. "There
are a number of approaches and combinations of
approaches to teach English, but both sides are dug in.
Sometimes in California, we're our own worst enemies."
C
Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
Back to the top
washingtonpost.com
Where will your benefit decision$ take you?
I home page I site Index I search I help I
www.
GOALWATCHER
Click HERE for more information.
4 of 4
07/22/97 12:04:57
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/attnypr.html
Home
I
News
Articles
I
Facts
Volunteer
I
Contribute
I
E-Mail
I
Your Stories
I
Courts
I
Full Text
Translations People Links
NEWS RELEASE from the Office of the Attorney General of California
Dated: May 13, 1997
ATTORNEY GENERAL RECEIVES
INITIATIVE FOR TITLE AND
SUMMARY
SACRAMENTO---Attorney General Dan Lungren has received a proposed ballot
initiative for preparation of title and summary.
The proposed measure, entitled "English Language Education for Immigrant
Children Initiative," seeks to amend the Education Code by adding that all children
in California public schools shall be taught English by receiving instruction in
English. The measure also proposes that a sum of $50,000,000 per year be
appropriated from the General Fund for the purpose of providing additional
funding for free or subsidized programs of adult English language instruction to
parents or other members of the community who pledge to provide personal
English language tutoring to California school children with limited English
proficiency.
The initiative's proponents are Ron K. Unz of Palo Alto and Gloria Matta
Tuchman of Santa Ana.
The Attorney General's office will forward the official title and summary of the
proposed initiative to the Secretary of State within 15 days after receiving fiscal
analysis from the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Committee. The
Secretary of State will notify the news media when the initiative has been cleared
for circulation.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:20:13
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/lopez.html
Home
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
I
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
Nativo Lopez of Hermandad
Mexicana Nacional denounces
"English for the Children" as based
on anti-Latino racism, 5/21/97
On May 21, 1997, La Opinion, California's largest Spanish-language
newspaper, published an extensive interview with Nativo Lopez, President of
the Board of Education for Santa Ana in Orange County. Among other
matters, Mr. Lopez strongly denounced the "English for the Children"
initiative, claiming that proponents Ron K. Unz and Gloria Matta Tuchman
were motivated by a hidden agenda of anti-Latino racism. La Opinion
subsequently published the following letter to the editor, responding to the
charges:
Letter of Ron K. Unz, published May 27, 1997 in La Opinion (original
English)
Mr. Lopez's organization Hermandad Mexicana Nacional is currently under
federal investigation on charges of election fraud and misappropriation of
government funds.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:27:29
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/ag070397.htm
Home I News I Articles I Facts I Volunteer I Contribute I E-Mail I Your Stories Courts I Full Text I
Translations People Links
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary
of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
EDUCATION. PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ENGLISH AS REQUIRED LANGUAGE
OF INSTRUCTION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires all public school
instruction be conducted in English. Requirement may be waived if parents or
guardians show that child already knows English, or has special needs, or would
learn English faster through alternate instructional technique. Provides short-term
placement, not normally exceeding one year, in intensive sheltered English
immersion programs for children not fluent in English. Appropriates $50 million
per year for ten years funding English instruction for individuals pledging to
provide personal English tutoring to children in their community. Permits
enforcement suits by parents and guardians. Summary of estimate by Legislative
Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
Probably no change in total state spending on K-12 public education. Potential
savings to local school districts on programs for students with limited English
proficiency.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:29:13
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/pr070797.html
Home
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative
Begins Signature Drive in Heart of
Immigrant Downtown LA
Los Angeles, CA -- The drive to qualify a new. voter initiative to end California's
current system of "bilingual education" begins 10:00am Tuesday morning at Las
Familias del Pueblo, a local community center at 307 East 7th St., in the heart of
LA's heavily immigrant Latino downtown garment district.
"After 25 years of 'bilingual education,' a quarter of all children in California
public schools don't know English, and of these, only about 5% learn English each
year," said Ron K. Unz, the Silicon Valley software entrepreneur who serves as
Chairman of the "English for the Children" initiative drive. "The current system
has an annual failure rate of 95% and is very unpopular with immigrant parents,
who overwhelmingly want their children taught English as soon as they begin
school. We are fully committed to getting our initiative on the June ballot and
ending (Ebilingual education' in California within 11 months, allowing all children
to learn English in California schools."
If approved by voters, the initiative will require that non-English proficient
students be moved from the native-language based "bilingual education" system
mandated by current state law into an intensive program of "sheltered English
immersion". "Bilingual education" would remain an option which parents could
specifically request for their children. The initiative will also allocate $50 million
per year for ten years to fund adult English literacy programs.
Mr. Unz, a leading California opponent of Proposition 187, mounted a
conservative, pro-immigrant challenge to Gov. Pete Wilson in the 1994 Republican
primary, receiving 34% of the vote. The initiative campaign is co-chaired by
Gloria Matta Tuchman, a Mexican-American elementary school teacher from
Santa Ana. Mrs. Tuchman is a past member of MALDEF and U.S. English, and
was named LULAC "Woman of the Year" in 1988.
Las Familias had served as the headquarters for the Latino parents who launched a
1996 boycott of the 9th St. Elementary School in protest over the school's
"bilingual education" policies and refusal to teach English to their children. The
center is directed by Sister Alice Callaghan, an Episcopal priest and longtime
immigrant-rights activist, who serves as an advisor to the initiative campaign.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:29:4
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/pr071697.ht
Home
News
Articles
Facts
Volunteer
Contribute
I
E-Mail
Your Stories
Courts
Full Text
Translations
People
Links
Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative
Launches Signature Drive at School
near SF's Immigrant Chinatown
District
San Francisco, CA -- The Northern California leg of the drive to qualify a new
voter initiative to end California's current system of "bilingual education" begins
10:00am Thursday morning outside the Jean Parker Elementary School, located at
840 Broadway, near the heart of San Francisco's heavily immigrant Chinatown
district. This was the elementary school attended by Kinney Lau, the Chinese
immigrant child who served as plaintiff in the unanimous 1974 Supreme Court
decision Lau V. Nichols. Lau constitutes the legal basis for all modern "bilingual
education" programs.
"We felt that our campaign to end the failed policy of 'bilingual education' should
begin at the same site which marked the legal origins of the policy 25 years ago,"
said Ron K. Unz, the Silicon Valley software entrepreneur who serves as Chairman
of the "English for the Children" initiative drive. "We are fully committed to
getting our initiative on the June ballot and ending 'bilingual education' in
California within 11 months, allowing all children to learn English in California
schools."
If approved by voters, the initiative will require that non-English proficient
students be moved immediately from the native-language based "bilingual
education" system mandated by current state law into an intensive program of
"sheltered English immersion." "Bilingual education" would remain an option
which parents could specifically request for their children. The measure also
allocates $50 million per year for ten years to fund adult English literacy programs.
Mr. Unz, a leading California opponent of Proposition 187, mounted a
conservative, pro-immigrant challenge to Gov. Pete Wilson in the 1994 Republican
primary, receiving 34% of the vote. The initiative campaign is co-chaired by
Gloria Matta Tuchman, a Mexican-American elementary school teacher from
Santa Ana. Mrs. Tuchman is a past member of MALDEF and U.S. English, and
was named LULAC "Woman of the Year" in 1988.
The statewide qualification campaign will be run by Progressive Campaigns, Inc.,
California's premier left-liberal initiative organization. In recent years, PCI has
successfully qualified Prop. 186 (Single-Payer Health Care), Prop. 210 (Minimum
Wage Increase), and Prop. 215 (Medical Marijuana). Prominent Northern
California supporters of the initiative include Bok Pon, a leading conservative
activist and Northern Vice-Chair of the Republican Party, and Lee Cheng of the
Asian-American Legal Foundation.
Copyright (C) 1997 by English for the Children, a project of
ONE NATION / ONE CALIFORNIA
All Rights Reserved
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:30:4(
English for the Children
http://www.onenation.org/yssalis.html
English-Only Teachers Need Not Apply
By:KATHLEEN SALISBURY
Los Angeles Times
Saturday, July 19, 1997,
I am a fifth grade teacher at one of the 100 lowest-performing schools in the
Los Angeles Unified School District. Part of the performance problem with
the schools is the district's bilingual program, which has resulted in a high
proportion of novice teachers clustered in the worst schools. In the district's
frenzy to hire bilingual teachers, emergency credentialed teachers are pushing
out experienced, dedicated, fully credentialed teachers.
Why? Most of those highly experienced teachers do not speak fluent Spanish.
Teachers with lifetime credentials and 20 or 30 years of experience are being
redesignated "teachers in training." In order to keep our current positions,
many of us are being required to sign a contract stating that we will become
fluent in Spanish in a specific time. (A promise most of us will not be able to
keep). Meanwhile we are listed as "misassigned."
And with the district's new bilingual master plan just implemented, we are
told that seniority, a long fought for right, no longer counts in our
assignments; a bilingual teacher just out of college and with an emergency
credential and no teaching experience can "bump" a fully credentialed
monolingual teacher from a position.
There are two salary tiers: Teachers who speak Spanish are paid a $5,000
stipend over teachers who are monolingual English speakers. Seasoned
elementary teachers are looking to other districts for jobs or seeking early
retirement.
It has been made very clear to us that, regardless of our teaching experience,
we are not valued at our schools because we speak only the language of this
country. Many good, experienced teachers have left my school, replaced by
novices. The demand for Spanish-speaking teachers rapidly increases as the
district continues to fail to transition into English the ever-growing numbers
of Latino children. The positions for English-only teachers shrink.
The message: Only those who speak a foreign language are qualified to teach
California's students. It is commonly said that it takes five years to begin to
be a good teacher. Many of the new bilingual teachers will also become
effective teachers. But who will pay for those years?
Kathleen Salisbury Teaches at Hooper Avenue Elementary School.
1 of 1
07/22/97 16:38:41
Delia Pompa @ ed.gov
11/10/97 03:29:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
Michael Cohen
CC:
Subject: Re: English initiative
FYI. Some interesting correspondence.
Delia
Forward Header
Subject: RE: English initiative
Author: "James W. Crawford" <[email protected] > at Internet
Date: 11/7/97 3:22 PM
Forwarded Message
From: James W. Crawford,
To:
"Ron K. Unz", INTERNET:[email protected]
Date: 11/7/97 12:15 PM
RE:
RE: English initiative
Dear Mr. Unz:
Thanks for your complimentary words about my Web site design. I'm
sorry you don't approve of my editorial decisions. My policy is not to
repost every article on the anti-bilingual initiative I worry that my
site's limited space allocation could be exhausted before the campaign is
over. Anyway, I'm not a fan of redundancy (I usually post just one account
of major developments). Or of name-calling, which is prominent in some of
your favorite articles (e.g., the egregious Jill Stewart piece calling
Stephen Krashen a "windbag" and critiquing his research findings as
characterized by Ron Unz [!]). Or of lazy journalism that merely recycles
the conventional wisdom or presents only one side of an issue. I'm afraid
that many of your starred items fall into this last category. But I'll take
another look at them, and if any have news value, I promise to repost them.
I didn't get your entire message. It broke off shortly after you
lumped me in with the "academic loonies." (I take exception to that -- I am
not now and have never been an academic.) I get your gist, though. You
think bilingual education supporters are manipulating research evidence and
concealing "true facts" about the program, which indicate that it's failing
miserably. Is that about right?
This is not a new allegation. I first heard it when I started
covering the field for_Education Week back in 1985. Indeed, I reported
such comments in my stories. At the same time, I investigated -- the
research issues, the classroom practices, the history, the politics, etc.
Gradually I came to my own conclusions, many of which can be found in my
book Bilingual Education
Briefly, I don't think using kids' native language is, in itself, a
panacea for the ills that plague today's schools. Or that it's essential
for all LEP students. But on balance, it's a lot more likely to keep them
from falling through the cracks than an English-only program -- other
things being equal. Of course, not all bilingual programs are well designed
or well implemented or well staffed. When they are, they seem to help in
counteracting other drags on student achievement -- such as poverty, family
illiteracy, and social stigmas -- unlike most other pedagogies for minority
kids these days. So I find that pretty exciting, even if the potential is
just beginning to be realized. Finally, there's no question that bilingual
education teaches English well, albeit gradually in programs that stress
native-language development, and that it can produce superior academic
outcomes over the long term. Which is what matters, after all, not how kids
do after one year.
That's the way I read the research. So do the great majority of
experts in applied linguistics and language education, who -- believe it or
not -- are far more concerned with maintaining professional standards than
with pushing any political point of view. It's significant to me that the
handful of academic critics of bilingual education, such as Keith Baker and
Christine Rossell, come out of fields like sociology and political science.
They don't think psycholinguistic or pedagogical expertise is necessary to
draw scientific conclusions about bilingual education. I'm skeptical of
that. I'm also skeptical of their highly selective reviews of the research
that throw out 80-90% of studies, which happen to be overwhelmingly
favorable to bilingual program models. (If you don't believe me, read Baker
& Rossell's own description of their methodology.)
Honest people can and do disagree on the merits of bilingual
education. Still like you -- I can't help but notice that some people in
this debate don't come across as very honest. I'm especially critical of
those who seem to be ideologically motivated. They don't care to
investigate this question for themselves because (1) they've made up their
minds after hearing just one viewpoint, (2) their conclusion is popular
with lots of voters, and (3) attacking bilingual education serves a larger
agenda -- e.g., bashing Big Government or minority set-asides or "political
correctness" in academia. Or perhaps it advances their political prospects,
should they decide to run for office. So they don't think twice about
advocating radical proposals affecting millions of children, without making
a careful assessment of the potential impact. If they end up wrecking the
schools, well, that's politics. They can always move on to another issue.
We've never met. I'm not certain whether this characterization
could fairly be applied to you. After observing you in numerous media
appearances, however, it wouldn't surprise me. Correct me if I'm wrong. But
it seems to me that your knowledge of the issues surrounding your
initiative is superficial at best. I've seen no indication that you've
given bilingual education a fair chance. Have you visited a bilingual
program to see what goes on? There are plenty of well known success stories
within an hour's drive of Palo Alto. Have you sought out the views of
respected researchers in the field? Kenji Hakuta tells me he lunched with
you last spring but found you unreceptive to any views favorable to
bilingual programs. Have you even bothered to read any of the research
literature you dismiss as "academic dogma"? If so, it's not obvious. Had
you done so, you would know, e.g., that none of the major critics of
bilingual education has claimed (as you do) that "a few months to a year"
of special English instruction is sufficient to keep LEP kids from falling
behind. Does it worry you that your initiative would terminate numerous
programs that parents perceive as successful - including English-speaking
parents whose kids are learning a second language? I've heard you say
nothing in public that suggests an awareness of this problem.
You're obviously a bright guy. So you must understand how
misleading it is to claim a "95% failure rate" for bilingual education based
on the percentage of LEP students redesignated as fluent in English each
year. These figures are so erratic and so influenced by extraneous variables
that their validity for measuring anything is questionable. As I've noted on
my web site, some of the current English-only districts come up short by
this crude yardstick, as compared with districts that have a commitment to
bilingual education. Not that such comparisons mean much redesignation
rates are raw data, not research evidence as you must know. (Didn't you
study physics at Harvard?) What's more, it's disingenuous to use these
numbers to indict a program that enrolls only 30% of the state's LEP
students. That's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Yet, in
front of poorly informed audiences, you continue to use this argument to
score debater's points. Just as you level the absurd charge that educators
support bilingual programs mainly for the money - when the state subsidy
for LEP students is an infinitesmal slice of its total education spending.
Just as you rely on anecdotes about a minority of parents within a single
school to insist that most parents want their kids out of bilingual
education.
So I'm wondering: If you honestly believe your claims, why do you
need sophistry to make your case? Or is this campaign as I suspect --
just an ideological joy ride for you? An ideologue, by my definition, is
someone who knows the "true facts" without doing his own investigation and
who feels vindicated by popular opinion and favorable press. Not my idea of
an intellectually honest person. Who are you, anyway?
James Crawford
> Dear Mr. Crawford,
>
I recently learned of your pro-bilingual, anti-initiative web site,
and was very impressed with its quality > and esthetics. Some of the design
aspects which you use have given me ideas on enhancing the display of our
> own "English for the Children" web site.
>
>
I was also quite impressed with the comprehensiveness of the
articles which you had available on our > initiative. Then I noticed that
by some remarkable coincidence you had left out most of the "starred"
articles > displayed on our own web site, i.e. those articles most
significant and favorable to our effort (e.g. #12, 13, 27, 28, > 59, 71, 86,
94, 106). Many of these articles were from the among most prestigious
national and statewide > publications to have covered the issue such as the
Economist, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Wall > Street Journal,
the Sacramento Bee, and the Mercury News. But since presumably they came
to the "wrong" > conclusion, you left them out of the collection. By
contrast, our web site contains just about every significant > article
touching on our initiative, including some of the most negative and
unfavorable---but the mainstream > media coverage has been so overwhelmingly
favorable that the collection speaks for itself.
>
>
I can only conclude that the same selectivity used to produce your
web site no doubt reflects the > research methods used by you and other
pro-bilingual advocates in your "scientific" studies "proving" the
> effectiveness of bilingual education, thereby explaining how a system with
a nominal annual failure rate of 95% > can be touted as a great success by
its supporters.
>
>
None of this matters all that much. It looks increasingly likely
that "bilingual education" will be > completely wiped out in California
within seven months, and nationwide shortly thereafter. And if so, I will
make it > a personal point to ensure that the national media and the history
books properly record the true facts, namely > that you and a few other
academic loonies have done more damage to the education of more
California Bilingual Education (English for the Children) Initiative Meeting
exctiv
Key Issues to consider:
9" cust cm
"Comminance" educt.
Macan la us h
will nb need r 1 is
edent
1. What services are now required under federal law and Supreme Court decisions (the "Lau"
guidelines)? What are the civil rights issues here? fask Norma Sha
empact on
2. What does the Education Department's bilingual education program require with respect to
fed $ $
the particular type of instruction local school districts provide to LEP kids. Note to Elena: It
basically provides flexibility to local districts/schools in choosing the approach that they think
Achi
will work best for their kids--but I don't think you can presume everybody at the meeting will
know this.
3. What is the research and evidence on the impact of bilingual education programs? Are the
initiative advocates basically on the mark or off the mark in claiming that only 5% of LEP kids in
bilingual education programs gain English proficiency each year?
4. What are the California politics on this issue? Kenal
Cd. Delegation
5. How are the Hispanic groups responding to this initiative--is there a unified position? How Mania /Janl
does this intersect with national test politics?
6. what are facts his st I Collarnm
Dalia
Doh
SH you
Asian group
ed for
Dem. el. dllad
tions
-
1
Delceme Eastin appoil, middle let looking -d- th-Noal for more cy.
Calif. bilingual education foes seek vote
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds29.htm
Search
The Yellow
Pages
Front page, News, Sports, Money, Life, Weather, Marketplace
USA
or click for map
TODAY
Nation
Inside News
11/14/97- Updated 11:29 AM ET
Nationline
Washington
Calif. bilingual education foes seek vote
World
LOS ANGELES - Opponents of bilingual education submitted
Politics
petition signatures Thursday for a ballot initiative that would
Opinion
dismantle virtually all the bilingual classes in California and require
Columnists
that children be taught in English.
Snapshot
Science
Leaders of the English for the Children campaign said they have
States
collected more than 720,000 signatures. Only 433,000 signatures
are required to qualify the measure for the June 1998 ballot.
Weird news
Resources
If California's voters support the initiative and eliminate bilingual
education, "there's a good chance that within two years bilingual
Index
education will be no more than a bad memory around the country,
Search
said Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley businessman who is spearheading
Feedback
the campaign.
What's hot
About us
The initiative would require that children be taught in English
unless a parent requests bilingual instruction. Even newly arrived
Jobs at USA
TODAY
immigrant children would have only one year of "sheltered English"
instruction.
Currently, students with limited English skills are taught primarily
in their native languages, with perhaps one class daily in English,
until teachers say their English is good enough for them to be
mainstreamed, which can take years.
Among the harshest critics of bilingual classes are some
Spanish-speaking parents who say their children are routinely
tracked into such classes and never master English.
The initiative already enjoys overwhelming support among all
races, income levels, ages and political leanings. A Los Angeles
Times poll last month found 80% in favor; there was a slightly
higher margin of support among Hispanic voters.
Unz recruited as the campaign's honorary chairman the famed high
school teacher Jaime Escalante. His success teaching calculus to
poor Hispanic high school students in East Los Angeles was
celebrated in the movie Stand and Deliver.
Escalante, who emigrated from Bolivia at 32, favors all-English
1 of 2
11/14/97 13:03:45
Calif. bilinguäl education foes seek vote
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds29.htm
instruction, he said Thursday, because "school prepares you for
life. You educate yourself to integrate in this society. The way you
do that is learning English."
Theresa Bustillos, a lawyer with the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, which opposes the initiative, said
that putting students with limited English abilities into mainstream
classes means they "are going to fall behind academically in math,
science and social studies."
By Carol Morello, USA TODAY
Go to Nationline
Go to News front page
Front page, News, Sports, Money, Life, Weather, Marketplace
©COPYRIGHT 1997 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
2 of 2
11/14/97 13:03:45
TO:
ELENA KAGAN
MICHAEL COHEN
CC:
MARIA ECHAVESTE
JANET MURGUIA
MICKEY IBARRA
CRAIG SMITH
FROM:
KAREN SKELTON
DATE:
NOVEMBER 12, 1997
SUBJECT:
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND CALIFORNIA POLITICS
OVERVIEW
The "English for the Children" initiative, sponsored by Republican and former
gubernatorial candidate Ronald Unz, is planned for the June 1998 ballot. The initiative
would move California's 1.4 million non-English proficient students from "bilingual
education" classes into an intensive program of "sheltered English immersion." Bilingual
education would remain an option for parents who specifically request it through a
waiver. Supporters and opponents both agree that the measure would essentially end
bilingual education in California, and probably spark a move to do the same nationwide.
Half of the children in America who are classified as "nonproficient" in English live in
California. Most of these students come from Spanish-speaking homes. California
spends approximately $300 million annually on bilingual education.
The question of whether to abolish bilingual education for these mostly Latino children is
a politically charged question in California. The initiative is California's third potentially
divisive "race" initiative in 4 years. In 1994, Proposition 187 barred public benefits for
illegal immigrants. In 1996, Proposition 209 ended affirmative action.
THE POLITICS
The gut reaction of most Californians is that public school instruction should be
conducted in English. Most people--Hispanic, Caucasian, Republican and Democrat--
want kids to learn English as early as possible by the most effective means possible.
Eleven years ago, Californians resoundingly approved a measure making English the
state's official language.
The recent Los Angeles Times poll reflects this basic sentiment. The poll asked all
registered voters whether they would vote for or against an initiative "that would require
all public school instruction to be conducted in English and for students not fluent in
English to be placed in a short-term English immersion program." The poll found 75
percent to 80 percent support for the initiative among every single voting group in the
state. Liberals support it 2-to-1. Latino voters support the initiative by a ration of 84
percent to 16 percent. Latino parents, like other parents, want their children to learn
English and prefer that their children's courses be taught in English.
People disagree on the best way to achieve that result, or whether there's one best way in
all circumstances. Nobody thinks it is bad for students to be bilingual. People disagree
on whether bilingual education is achieving that goal, or leaving students "limping along
in both, masters of neither."
Under the best circumstances, the "English for Children" initiative will provoke a healthy
debate on the merits of bilingual education in California. But, that is unlikely. Even
though many Latinos may privately feel bilingual education has failed, they and other
voters may be reluctant to attack such a "sacred cow."
The success of this initiative will depend more than anything else on the language in
which it is framed. If the initiative is framed as anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action,
anti-Latino, then Latinos are likely to fight against what they perceive to be "another
racist campaign." Given the history of Propositions 187 and 209, it is likely this initiative
will devolve into nasty hand-to-hand combat over race.
The divisive political rhetoric is heating up on both sides. The initiative's supporters
declare it is "shameful that so many politicians continue to support a program which they
realize does not work." Opponents of the initiative call it "anti-Latino racism."
At this time, most elected officials have not taken a position, but the line-up is taking
shape. Last week, the California Teacher's Association came out against the Initiative.
On November 23, the United Teachers of Los Angeles will vote. Both sides have signed
up endorsements that signal a tough fight ahead: Latino teachers say they support the
initiative and a few Republican State Legislators say they oppose it. (See attached list)
CONCLUSION
It does not make political sense for us to take a position on the initiative at this time.
First, we must assume for now that the Unz initiative is going to pass by a large margin,
and it would take huge money to defeat it. Second, this initiative raises a California state
issue that begs the question of federal "meddling."
Third, a popular Democratic President's opposition to the initiative will entice Governor
Wilson, who has remained silent, to oppose the President and support the initiative.
Other Republicans will follow Wilson's lead. We are then in the position of a sitting
President fighting a sitting Governor over a California issue. We do not want this.
Fourth, a Presidential position at this point could adversely effect the 1998 elections in
California. Given the presumed popularity of the initiative, we may assume that
Democratic candidates in the State may support it. If the President opposes the initiative,
it may cause a political disagreement between the Democratic President and Democratic
candidates, and thus give the Republicans a "wedge" issue they'll readily exploit. If the
President supports the initiative, he risks alienating "base voters" who the Democratic
primary candidates must capture for a win. Thus, the President's least risky position in
terms of the 1998 elections is to allow the candidates to make their own political
determinations independent of the President.
Fifth, the State Legislature is considering drafting bi-partisan legislation which strikes a
compromise between the Unz initiative and the position taken by the California Teacher's
Association. The legislation may be drafted by January. Our involvement any earlier will
ensure negotiations collapse.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
Keep the powder dry. Avoid knee jerk reactions. Do not get involved in the heated
political rhetoric over the initiative. Wait for State Legislature's compromise.
2.
Stay on the Offense. Unpack this issue and go back to what is at stake. Take a position
that supports education for the 21st Century: bilingual graduates (however we get there),
computers in the schools, local school flexibility.
3.
Consult with gubernatorial candidates, Hispanic Caucus, Asian and Hispanic leaders,
unions, and educational groups before making any decision on the initiative.
4.
If we oppose the initiative, plan to spend a great deal of money to win.
CURRENT POLITICAL ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS USED TO SUPPORT THE INITIATIVE (To Abolish Bilingual Education)
"Bilingual education" is a failed program.
The number of students classified as "limited English proficient"
has more than doubled since 1982.
The number of students reclassified as "English proficient" has
remained flat. Only 5% of students graduate to proficiency in a
given year.
Bilingual Education does not work if it is not done right, and California
cannot do bilingual education right.
Only a third of supposedly bilingual classes are taught by
credentialed bilingual teachers.
California schools have been trying to recruit and train more
bilingual teachers for 25 years.
Class-size reduction has made the teacher shortage even more
acute.
California can't offer a high-quality bilingual program to more than
a small number of students - - estimated at about 10% of English
learners.
ARGUMENTS USED TO OPPOSE THE INITIATIVE (Save Bilingual Education)
Initiative would virtually end bilingual education.
Initiative Process is poorly designed for dealing with complex education
issues.
Initiative removes flexibility from local schools over educational
decisions.
Initiative exposes teachers and other educators to personal liability
lawsuits.
POLITICAL LINE-UP
SUPPORT INITIATIVE
Ron Unz, Silcon Valley Republican, former gubernatorial candidate, and author
of the initiative
Gloria Matta Tuchman, Latina school teacher from Santa Ana and co-author
Jaime Escalante, Latino calculus teacher whose success with inner-city kids was
the basis of the movie "Stand and Deliver."
Fernando Vega, past City Councilman and School Board Member, worked on
Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign.
Mayor Richard Riordan
Darrell Issa, Republican Senate Candidate opposing Senator Boxer
OPPOSE INITIATIVE
California Teachers Association
MALDEF (Antonia Hernandez)
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (Arturo Vargas)
State Assemblyman Bill Leonard, Minority Leader
State Assemblyman Rod Pacheco, only Republican Latino Assemblyman
California Association of Bilingual Education
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
NO POSITION YET
California Federation of Teachers
California Association of School Boards
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein
PTA
Lt. Governor Gray Davis (Democratic candidate for Governor in 1998)
Atty. General Dan Lungren (Republican candidate for Governor in 1998)
Delaine Eastin, Supervisor of Public Instruction
Speaker Cruz Bustamante
Assemblyman Antonio Villaregosa
Supervisor Gloria Molina
ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Democrat Al Checchi opposes the initiative but thinks bilingual education has
failed. He favors intensive language schooling of 3 and 4 year olds who do not
speak English. Separate provisions would be made for students who are older
when they arrive in California schools.
Maria Echaveste
11/09/97 05:41:15 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Miguel M. Bustos/OVP @ OVP
cc:
Moe Vela/OVP @ OVP, Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP, Michael Cohen/OPD/EOP
bcc:
Subject: Re: NABE
Miguel, I think you should definitely consider having VP going to NABE, and I think we should have
a position on the initiative by then.
Miguel M. Bustos @ OVP
Miguel M. Bustos @ OVP
11/07/97 01:52:06 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Maria Echaveste/WHO/EOP
cc:
Moe Vela/OVP @ OVP
Subject: NABE
Moe and I are interested in suggesting the National Association of Bilingual Education's conference
in Feb. and Dallas, Texas as a possible event for the VP. However, we understand that the current
climate on this issues is hazy and unclear. Should we submit the request for their consideration or
should we drop it because the Administration would not have had a position yet. Please advise.
Gracias
FEB-16-98 MON 04:23 PM 78.
STMARYSUNIVERSITY
This is worth Plune
s -
reading
- Maria
copy
- Karen
St. Mary's University
- Mike
ANDREW HERNANDEZ
- Ron
Visiting Lecturer
and
- Monica
Writer in Residence
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET While
DATE: 2/16/98
PAGES WITH COVER:
TO: Mickey Ibarra -white House
FAX#: 202 456-6220
FAX#: FROM: ANDY Hernandez
OFFICE:
PHONE#:
COMMENTS:
- Per yourneq ust -
good talking to you Michey
POLITICAL SCIENCE
ONE CAMINO SANTA MARIA
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78228-8571
(210) 436-3110, FAX (210) 436-3500
TO:
Mickey Ibarra
FROM:
Andy Hernandez
DATE:
February 16, 1998
RE:
The politics of the UNZ initiative in the Latino Community and it's implications for
the administration
Overview
There are a few policy issues in the Latino community that have more political saliency than does
bilingual education. There has existed for more than two decades and continues to exist an
overwhelming consensus on the part of Latino leaders and voters around support for bilingual
education. Support for bilingual education is wide, deep, and sustained. This consensus cuts
across ethnic origin lines, and class and age cohorts. It is one of the great "unifiers" in the Latino
community. As such, it has great symbolic importance to Latino voters and substantive policy
significance to Latino leaders in both parties. Bilingual education has become one of the
measuring sticks of commitment for Latino political leadership and a visceral issue for Latino
voters.
Recently, a number of pollsters, pundits, and conservatives commentators have suggested that
Latino voters do not support bilingual education and would in fact support the UNZ initiative in
California. They are wrong. They are just as wrong now as they were on Proposition 187 and
Proposition 209 in California where the same chorus was heard on how Latinos would vote in
favor of anti-immigrant legislation and oppose affirmative action. They predicted Latinos would
vote 2-1 in favor of these initiatives. On election day, Latinos voted 70-80% against these very
same measures. Not only did they vote overwhelmingly against 187, they broke turnout records
to do so.
While the pundits and pollsters were wrong, Latino leaders were right.
There exists considerable polling data that suggests that once the UNZ initiative in perceived to
be an anti-bilingual education measure by Latino voters, Latino voters will again be energized to
turn out in large numbers to vote overwhelmingly against the UNZ initiative and punish those
politicians associated with it as they punished Republicans in 1996 with the lowest Republican
vote in 25 years. Latinos will vote anywhere between 75-80% against the UNZ initiative.
The President and Vice-President can solidify their positive standing among Latino voters and
further deepen Latino identification with the Democratic Party among new Latino(a) voters by
coming out of the initiative. Probably more significantly for our prospects in 2000 the Vice-
President can position himself among Latino political leaders, particularly in California, as their
champion. It is an act of political conviction and courage that Latino leadership will not forget.
Not doing anything will have the opposite effect. Latino leadership would not forgive the fact
that the Vice-President stepped away from this fight in California. Furthermore, because the
contrast between Republicans and Democrats would be blurred, we would loose a historic
opportunity to crystallize opinion against the Republicans for the long haul.
Latino Electoral Support for Bilingual Education
Polling in the Latino community has generally found overwhelming support among Latino voters
for bilingual education. Since the mid-eighty's when sophisticated, scientific public opinion
polling was first undertaken in the Latino community, support for bilingual education has ranged
from 65-80% among Latino voters.
A national telephone poll of 2,285 Latino citizens was undertaken by the Southwest Voter
Research Institute just prior to the presidential election in 1996 and found that 86% of
respondents opposed a law that would eliminate bilingual education."
Exit polls in Texas (N = 1,626) and California (N = 930) of Latino voters leaving the polls in
November 1996 found that 65% of Texas Latino Voters and 58% of California Latino Voters
oppose" a law eliminating bilingual education". Only 21% of Latino voters in Texas and 17% in
California said they supported such a measure.
Recent Polls by the Los Angeles Times and Field Polls in California paint a different picture.
According to a Los Angeles poll taken in October of 1997, 84% of the Latino respondents
indicated that they favored the UNZ initiative. Of course, a L.A. times poll conducted in
September 1994 found that 52% of the Latinos supported proposition 187. Two months later,
77% of Latinos voted against the measure.
A Field Poll taken in February 1997 found 46% of the Latinos interviewed favored the measure
with 45% opposed. The Field Polls track record is not much better than the Los Angeles Times
Poll in predicting how Latinos would vote either on Proposition 187 or 209. In September 1994
a Field Poll reported that Latinos were split on 187 (44% in favor 48% against) and in October
1996 a Field Poll showed only a slight majority opposing 209 when in fact, 70% of the Latino
voters according to exit polls conducted by Los Angeles voted against 209.
I also recall the argument that Dick Morris and the White House pollsters made that Latinos
would vote for Proposition 187 and were ambivalent about affirmative action. They were also
wrong.
How does one explain the differences between those polls that show considerable support for
bilingual education and those that show just the opposite?
It is easily explained by (1) sample size or how many people you actually interview with the built-
in margin of error associated with small sample sizes (2) the way you ask the question and (3)
how you interpret the results.
Most national or state polls have very small Latino samples. The Field Poll for example
interviews fewer than 80 Latinos for all of California; The Los Angeles Times 150. The same is
true for other national polls where most sample sizes range from 150 350 respondents out of 5
million voters. Obviously the margin of error is off the charts.
Secondly, how you ask the question makes a marked difference in the kind of response you are
going to get. If you ask Latino voters if Latinos should learn English first, 88% agree. If you ask
should bilingual education be eliminated, 80% say no. People agree that English is to be taught
and learned but not at the expense of doing away with bilingual education.
The question on the UNZ initiative is how will it be framed come November? There is no
question that ultimately it will be seen as an anti-bilingual education initiative. Expect Latinos to
vote 70% 80% against it.
Finally, there is the question of how you interpret the data. Every time pollsters have claimed to
know more that Latino leaders, Latino leaders have been vindicated. Because Latino Leaders and
elected officials can read the data out of a long history of direct, intimate relationships with Latino
Voters - they have a much better "feel" for what is meant in what is said.
The notion that folks that hardly know Latinos would know better what Latinos feel, think or
would act upon, than those very people who emerge out of, and have built Latino political
participation would be amusing if it did not lead to such poor political decision making.
Even Latino Republican leaders understand the political fallout for taking an anti-bilingual
education position in the Latino community. All three of the Republican congresspersons, and the
Republican rising star in California, State Representative Pacheco, have unsuccessfully fought
their own parties attempts to do away with bilingual education. They believe, accurately, it will
damage the Republicans Parties ability to win over Latino voters. They know their party is
making a huge mistake.
Bilingual Education:Administration Policy and Campaign Promises
On what grounds should the President and the Vice-President publicly oppose the UNZ initiative
in California - on the very same policy grounds they have supported bilingual education as
effective education policy in two presidential campaigns and through six years of the
administration.
Because the President and Vice-President ran in 1992 and 1996 on an educational plank
supporting bilingual education, making commitments to Latino leaders to oppose it's elimination
and sought to demonstrate the Presidents commitment to improving Hispanic education
opportunities by campaigning on bilingual education, their silence as the elimination of bilingual
education is underway in California would be a glaringly apparent. It would become an issue
among Latino elected officials and activists.
If we ran on bilingual education when we were courting Latino voters, then it would be politically
disastrous and morally wrong to run away from it because it may prevail with white voters. It
FEB-16-98 MON 04:25 PM 78. 6279'7 8648.
431+4211
L
would leave a residual of distrust and disappointment among Latino elected officials and civic
leaders. Furthermore, it would give Latino Republicans the right to claim Democrats aren't much
better on this issue. Finally, it could provide Latino political leadership the inspiration to seek
other primary options other than the Vice-President
Phyllis Nimmons Thompson
281 679 5440
4/21/98
e 8:34 PM
1/2
DATE:
TuesdayThuAprilOct211219981995
MEMO
TO:
Michael Cohen, Spec. Asst to Pres., Domestic
Policy Council
FAX:
1 (202) 456 5581
A
FROM:
Phyllis Nimmons Thompson
PAGES: 2
Phyllis Nimmons Thompson
281 679 5440
4/21/98
8:35 PM
2/2
The Texas Foreign Language Association
An Association dedicated to the learning of languages other than
English and the professional organizations of Texas teachers of
languages other than English, Pre-K through University
FROM:
Phyllis D. Thompson, Ph.D.
Directory, Advocacy and Public Outreach
Texas Foreign Language Association
MAILING ADDRESS:
Houston Baptist University
7502 Fondren Rd
Houston, IX 77074
FAX:
281 649 3012
PHONE:
281 649 3000 X2277
[-mail:
[email protected]
DATE:
April 21, 1998
Our members, teachers of languages other than English, understand that successful
language acquisition occurs over a period of time, the length of which is dependent
upon factors that cannot be mandated by law. Therefore we oppose a
mandatory three-year time-limit to Title VII grants.
We support the National Association of Bilingual Education (NABE) position that
President Clinton should oppose entirely the California Unz Initiative (Proposition 227)
or take no stand at all on this Initiative.
Sent by: PODHURST, ORSECK. LAW
HORE773053582382;
04/20/98 10:40AM; Jetfax #124; Page 1/2
LAW OFFICES
PODHURST ORSECK JOSEFSBERG EATON
MEADOW OLIN & PERWIN, P.A.
CITY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 800
25 WEST FLAGLER STREET
AARON $. PODHURST
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130-1780
FAX (306) 358-2382
ROBERT ORSECK (1034-1978)
ROBERT C. JOGEFSBERG
TELEPHONES
JOEL D EATON
WALTER H. BECKHAM, JR.
MIAMI (305) 358-2800
BARRY L. MEADOW
OF COUNSEL
FORT LAUDERDALE (954) 463-4346
MICHAEL S. OLIN
JOEL 3. PERWIN
STEVEN C., MARKS
VICTOR M. OTAZ, JR.
KATHERINE W. EZELL
KAREN PODHURST DERN
XAVIER MARTINEZ
April 20, 1998
FACSIMILE
202 456-5581
Bruce Reed
Special Assistant and Director of the
Domestic Policy Council
FACSIMILE
202 456-5581
Michael Cohen
go
Special Assistant to the President
FACSIMILE
202 401-0596
Secretary Richard Riely
Secretary of Education
FACSIMILE
202 456-6218
Maria Echaveste
Special Assistant to the President
and Director of the Office of Public Liaison
Dear Mr. Reed, Mr. Cohen, Secretary Riely and Ms. Echaveste:
I am writing to urge the President and the Clinton
Administration to refrain from calling for a three year time limit
on Title VII grants as part of its opposition to the California Unz
Initiative (Proposition 227). As a product of bilingual education
in the public schools of Dade County, Florida, that went on to
graduate from the President's alma mater (Yale Law School), I
personally know the value of and need for bilingual education in
order to help acculturate recent immigrants to this country.
I
also have had the personal experience in my family of my older
Sent by: PODHURST, ORSECK. LAW
HORE773053582382;
04/20/98 10:40AM; Jetfax #124; Page 2/2
brother who was not fortunate enough to have bilingual education
availble at the time that he entered the public education system in
Dade County, Florida. The resulting set back to his education and
the emotional fall-out caused by it, I believe had a tremendous
impact on his subsequent attitude towards education. He is the
only member of our family who was not able to benefit from
bilingual education and, perhaps not coincidentally, is the only
member of my family that never graduated from college or attained
a post-graduate degree.
Bilingual education is a real and vital need for millions of
Hispanic Americans. I strongly urge President Clinton and Vice
President Gore to avoid the temptation to compromise on this
important issue of public policy.
Sincerely,
Vitilly
Victor M. Diaz, Jr.
VMDjr/njd
CC
Osvaldo Soto, Esq.
Chairman, Spanish American
League Against Discrimination
LAW OFFICES, PODHURST ORSECK JOSEFSBERG EATON MEADOW OLIN & PERWIN, P.A. OF COUNSEL, WALTER H. BECKHAM, JR.
Jo-Ann T. Carricarte
Support Services Chairperson
Washington School
3905 New York Ave.
Union City, NJ 07087
201-348-5699 FAX 201-348-1602
email- [email protected]
April 21, 1998
Br
b
Sp
tant & Director of the Domestic Policy Council
M
Sp
stant to the President
G
I
to urge President Clinton to oppose Proposition 227.
Fur
or
the President's statement should focus on improving the
qu
lucation and levels of achievement for language minority
che
not on the length of time it takes them to learn English. If the
Pre
is
compelled to set arbitrary time limits before he opposes
Pr
n
227, then President Clinton should NOT take any position on
22
Th
₹ of research out there on the time it takes to aquire a
SEC
age. Naturally, the length of time varies depending on the
de
alchild's native language foundation and knowledge.
Si
Jo
arricarte
&
oters at:
Road
n, NJ 07424
APR-20-98 11:05 FROM Great City Schools
202 393 2427
PAGE
2/6
Council of the Great City Schools
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 702
Washington,
D.C.
20004
(202) 393-2427
(202) 393-2400 (fax)
http://www.cgcs.org
Council of the
Great City Schools
April 15, 1998
Adams
Biltimore
Honorable Richard W. Riley
Birmingliam
U.S. Department of Education
Boston
600 Independence Avc., SW
Broward County
Washington, DC 20202
Buffalo
Charlotte
Dear Mr. Secretary,
Chicago
Clark County
Cleveland
On behalf of the Council of the Great City Schools, 1 would like to share with
Columbus
you a copy of a resolution passed by our board of directors. This resolution, passed on
Dade County
a unanimous vote, expresses the Council's opposition to the Unz Initiative Proposition
Dallas
227, slated for the June 2 ballot in California.
Dayton
Denver
The Council's Board of Directors also formed an Ad Hoc Task Force on
Detroit
Bilingual Education, with the express purpose of helping defeat the Unz Initiative in
El Paso
California. At our March legislative conference, this task force met for the first time
Fort Worth
and engaged in an intense discussion about the issues. The group's consensus was that
Fresno
this initiative should be stopped in California and must not be allowed to spread to
Houston
other parts of the nation. The initiative's proposals are educationally unsound,
Indianapolis
politically divisive and a direct threat to how the nation has traditionally determined
Long Beach
instructional practices for all children, not only those whose first language is English.
Los Angeles
Memphis
MiTwaukee
Although the campaign rhetoric of Unz primarily focuses on bilingual education,
Minneapolis
the reality is that the initiative does much more harm than good, not only to bilingual
Nashville
education but, to the entire educational endeavor. School districts across the nation
New Orleans
are working hard to improve the services provided to students whose first language is
New York City
not English. A school district's decision to adopt an instructional program that
Newark
includes teaching in students' native languages depends on a myriad of factors. Such
Nortolk
factors include the availability of adequately trained reachers to serve the number of
Oakland
languages spoken by the children, the availability of textbooks and other instructional
Oklahoma City
resources, and the educational standards and objectives-both locally and state
Omaha
determined. As local school districts assess such factors, it is critical that state and
Philadelphia
federal policies provide adequate support and guidance rather than arbitrary parameters
Birtsburgh
such as program time limits that, in fact, are hurdles to implementing quality
Possland
Providence
education programs.
Richester
The Council's task force raised three main concerns with the Unz initiative. We
are concerned that-
1. School boards would be stripped of their power [0 determine the most
appropriate instructional approach for language minority students enrolled in
their communities.
APR-20-98 11:05 FROM: Great City Schools
ID:202 393 2427
PAGE
3/6
2. The proposed 180 day instructional approach proposed by the initiative lacks a
sound pedagogical basis yet would be mandated for all districts, adversely
affecting language minority students.
3. The political rhetoric of the Unz campaign precludes any responsible discussion
about how best to teach children whose first language is not English.
In addition to the three concerns outlined above, Council members (both from
California and other states) indicated that the Unz initiative would have an adverse
impact on all programs in a school-not only those provided for students whose first
language is not English. As language minority students are mainstreamed into regular
English courses, after only 180 days of special English classes, a great majority of them
will have fallen behind in content areas such as math and science. Schools will have to
accommodate for these prematurely mainstreamed students, either by providing
additional help through tutors and teachers, adjusting the instructional program
affecting an entire class, or through some other means.
Through this letter, I reiterate the request made to you and Mike Cohen at our
recent Legislative Conference: Please take 3 principled stand against the Unz initiative
on the grounds that it undermines local control and it fails to seek the best interest of
our children, particularly those who are learning English. Your respected leadership is
needed to keep the debate focused on these issues, and not be clouded by the heated
debate around the effectiveness of bilingual education. We need to work hard together
to improve instruction for our English language learners.
Sincerely,
Michael Casserly
Executive Mich Cirly Director
CC: Hon. Xavier Becerra, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Mike Cohen, Special Assistant to the President
Delia Pompa, Director Office of Bilingual Education and Language Minority
Affairs
APR-20-98 11:05 FROM: Great City Schools
ID:202 393 2427
PAGE
4/6
COUNCIL OF GREAT CITY SCHOOLS OPPOSES CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE TO
LIMIT EDUCATION SERVICES FOR LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
RESOLUTION: In opposition to the Unz Initiative "English language Education for
Immigrant Children" (Proposition 227) slated for the California June Ballor.
WHEREAS, the Council of the Great City Schools is a national organization representing
50 of the largest urban school superintendents and school boards; and
WHEREAS, our nation's public schools enroll over 3 million students who are English
language learners; and
WHEREAS, the member districts of the Council of the Great City Schools are responsible
for educating over 40 percent of the nation's linguistically diverse students, who speak
over 100 languages; and
WHEREAS, the member districts of the Council of the Great City Schools value the
richness of its culturally and linguistically diverse students and communities; and
WHEREAS, the member districts of the Council of the Great City Schools recognize that
parents of linguistically diverse students are more likely to be involved in their
children's education when schools value their primary language and culture; and
WHEREAS, the proposed California initiative entitled "English Language Education for
Immigrant Children" would remove local control from local school boards of
education to determine the most effective methods to teach their students; and
WHEREAS, the proposed initiative would outlaw existing educational programs that our
districts have found effective in increasing English proficiency and academic
achievement for our diverse student population; and
WHEREAS, the proposed initiative mandates a state-imposed "one-size-fits-all" method of
teaching language minority children which severely limits options suited to the varied
needs of our non-English and limited English speaking students-depriving them an
equal opportunity to learn;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the
Council of the Great City Schools opposes the proposed California Unz initiative
(Proposition 227), entitled "English Language Education for Immigrant Children;" and that
the
Council of the Great City Schools will actively participate in the campaign to defeat this
initiative.
APR-20-98 11:06 FROM:Great City Schools
ID:202 393 2427
PAGE
5/6
Board of Directors and Member Districts
Page I of 2
cred: stud.
Board of Directors and Member Districts
As of March 24, 1998
School District
Superintendent
Board Representative
Atlanta Public Schools
Benjamin Canada
Jean Dodd
Baltimore City Public Schools
Robert Schiller
J. Tyson Tildon
Birmingham Public Schools
Johnny Brown
Barry Clemmons
Boston Public Schools
Thomas W. Payzant
Felix Arroyo
Broward County Public Schools
Frank R. Petruzielo
Abraham S. Fischler
Butfalo Public Schools
James Harris
Florence Johnson
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
Eric Smith
Susan Burgess
Chicago Public Schools
Paul Vallas
Gery Chico
Cleveland Public Schools
James Penning
Gerald Henley
Columbus Public-Schools
Rosa Smith
Loretta Heard
Dallas Independent School District
James Hughey
Kathleen Leos
Davton City School District
James Williams
Joey Williams
Denver Public Schools
Irv Moskowitz
Bennie Milliner
Detroit Public Schools
Eddie Green
Irma Clark
District of Columbia Public Schools
Julius W. Becton
Tonya Vidal Kinlow
EI Paso Independent School District
Stan Y. Paz
Kathy Becker
Fort Worth Independent School District
Thomas Tocco
Jesse Martinez
Fresno Unitied School District
Carlos Garcia
Manuel Nunez
Houston Independent School District
Rod Paige
Arthur M. Gaines
Jefferson County Public Schools
Stephen Daeschner
Joseph Hardesty
Long Beach Unified School District
Carl Cohn
Karin Polacheck
Los Angeles Unitied School District
Ruben Zacarias
Victoria Castro
Memphis City Public Schools
Gerry House
Barbara Prescon
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
Roger C. Cuevas
G. Holmes Braddock
Milwaukee Public Schools
Allan Brown
Joseph V. Fisher
Minneapolis Public Schools
Carol Johnson
Judith L. Farmer
Nashville-Davidson Metropolitan Public Schools
Bill M. Wise
Kent M. Weeks
New Orleans Public Schools
Morris Holmes
Maudelle Cade
New York City Public Schools
Rudolph F. Crew
Luis Reyes
Newark Public Schools
Beverly L. Hall
Calvin Ledford
Norfolk Public Schools
J. Frank Sellew
Anna Dodson
Oakland Unified School District
Carole Quan
Jean Quan
Oklahoma City Public Schools
Marvin Crawford
Ron Bogle
Omaha Public Schools
John J. Mackiel
Bernard Kolasa
Philadelphia Public Schools
David Hombeck
Dorothy Summers Rush
Pinsburgh Public Schools
Dale Frederick
Ronald Suber
Portland Public Schools
Diana Snowden
Marc Abrams
Providence Public Schools
Arthur Zarrella
Susan Derita
Richmond Public Schools
Alben Williams
Delores-McQuinn
Rochester City School District
Clifford Janey
Frank Willis
Sacramento City Unified School District
James Sweeney
Ida Russell
San Antonio Independent School District
Diana Lam
Margaret Mircles
http://www.cgcs.org/about/board.cfm
3/24/98
APR-20-98 11:06 FROM: Great City Schools
ID:202 393 2427
PAGE 6/6
Board of Directors and Member Districts
,
Page 2 of 2
San Diego Unified School District
Bertha O. Pendleton
Frances O'Neill Zimmerman
San Francisco Unified School District
Waldemar Rojas
Dan Kelly
Seattle Public Schools
John Stanford
Ellen Roe
St. Louis Public Schools
Cleveland Hammonds
Renni Shuter
St. Paul Public Schools
Curman L. Gaines
Becky Montgomery
Toledo Public Schools
Merrill Grant
Terry Glazer
Tucson Unified School District
George F. Garcia
Joel T. Ireland
Council of the Great City Schools
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.. Suite 702
Washington. D.C. 20004
(202) 393-2427. (202) 393-2400 (fax)
http://www.cgcs.org/about/board.cfm
3/24/98
The Failure of
Bilingual Education
OMAR. ?: 19981 3:28PM 202DEPT_OF OF ED/DEP SECY CEO
Introduction by Linda Chavez
Edited by Jorge Amselle
Center for Equal Opportunity
101 "ON
P.2/B 002
Is Bilingual Education
transitional bilingual education, however, we must compare it to other ed-
ucational programs for LEP children. There are four basic alternatives for
an Effective
instructing LEP children. The first of these is submersion of "sink-or-
swim." In this model, the LEP child is placed in a regular English class-
Educational Tool?
room with English monolingual children and given no more special help
than any child with educational problems.
A second technique is English as a Second Language (ESL) instruc-
tion, which consists of regular classroom instruction for most of the day
combined with a special pull-out program of English language instruction
for one or two periods a day, or in some districts two or three periods a
week, and participation in the regular classroom for the rest of the time.
by Christine Rossell
A third instructional technique is structured immersion, where in-
ifingual education has been a controversial issue throughout the
struction is in the language being learned (in this country, English) in a
B
United States since its inception in the mid-1960s. Its most
self-contained classroom of LEP children. The second language used in
common form is called transitional bilingual education (TBE).
these programs is always geared to the children's language proficiency at
In transitional bilingual education, the student is taught to read
each stage SO that it is comprehensible, and the student thus learns the sec-
OF ED/DEP
and write in the native tongue, with subject matter also taught in the na-
ond language and subject matter content simultaneously.
tive tongue. The second language (English) is initially taught for only a
The fourth instructional technique, transitional bilingual education
small portion of the day. As the child progresses in English, the amount of
(TBE), is described above. The rationale underlying TBE differs depend-
instructional time in the native tongue is reduced and English increased,
ing on the age of the child. For very young children, it is that learning to
until the student is proficient enough in English to join the regular class-
read in the native tongue first is a necessary condition for optimal reading
room.
ability in the second language. For all children, it is argued that learning a
At the heart of the controversy over this pedagogical technique are
second language takes time, and children should not lose ground in other
three questions: (1) Should limited-English-proficien (LEP) children re-
subjects particularly math, during that time period.
ceive, because of their Language barrier, special, self-contained instruction
The majority of elementary school programs have as their goal exit-
that keeps them out of the regular classroom? (2) Should LEP children be
ing a student after three years. But these programs also allow students to
taught to read and write in their native tongue? (3) Should time be taken
stay in the program longer than three years if they are judged to be below
out of the regular instructional day to teach LEP children about the cul-
par in English language skills. Indeed, many children stay in a bilingual
ture of their ancestors' countries? Although the public may disagree about
program throughout their elementary school career (see Rossell and Baker,
the answers to these questions, federal and state policy makers have, since
1988; Ramirez, 1991; Rossell, 1992). Transitional bilingual education is
1968, come down squarely on the affirmative side. Federal and state gov-
less common once 2 child reaches the grade where departmentalization oc-
emments have provided millions of dollars to fund programs that teach
curs (different subjects taught by different teachers). Because teachers have
LEP children in their native tongue and culture.
to be certified in both a subject matter and in a foreign language to teach
It is thus important to know whether TBE is the best method for
in a bilingual program in junior high and high school, few school districts
teaching LEP children. In order to assess the educational effectiveness of
are able to staff bilingual programs at these grade levels. Thus the typical
18
19
Center
for Equal Opportunity
Is Bilingual Education
an Effective Educational Tool?
LEP child enters 2 regular English program in junior high school. It is
gual education-Baker and de Kanter (1981, 1983) and Rossell and Ross
only in the large school districts with large numbers of LEP students of a
(1986).² The total number of studies and books we have read now numbers
single language group that native-tongue instruction in one or more sub-
above 500, of which 300 are program evaluations, in the sense that their
jects might occur at the secondary level.
purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of TBE or some other second (an-
At least nominally, TBE appears to be the dominant special lan-
guage acquisition technique. Reviewing the research was a frustrating and
guage instructional program in the U.S. The American Legislative
arduous task since most of it consists of local evaluations that do not even
Exchange Council and U.S. English (1994) recently reported 60 percent
come close to meeting scientific standards, even when they are conducted
of the state and locally funded programs for LEP children were labeled
by outside consulting firms that are supposedly hired for their method-
bilingual education in 1991-92. use the words "nominally" and "labeled"
ological expertise. Unfortunately, the fact that an article is published in an
in a deliberate sense, however, because it is quite clear from visiting class-
academic journal does not guarantee it is scientific. Approximately 11 per-
rooms and reading evaluation reports that virtually the only children re-
cent of the methodologically unacceptable studies were published in acad-
ceiving native-tongue instruction in the U.S. according to the theory-
emic journals. It thus appears that millions of dollars are wasted each year
learning to read and write in the native tongue and learning subject matter
on unscientific, descriptive evaluations of local school district bilingual ed-
in the native tongue-are Hispanic children. This is because often only
ucation programs.
3:28PM 2026DEPT_OF ED/DEP
Hispanic children are a large enough group to have enough students
speaking one language to fill a classroom and to have a teacher who is flu-
Methodologically Acceptable Studies
ent in their native tougue.'
We found 72 out of 300 program evaluations-about one-fourth of
The bilingual education programs for Asian, African, and Europe-
the total-to be methodologically acceptable. Methodologically acceptable
an students are not truly bilingual education. Asian, African, and Europe-
studies generally had the following characteristics:
an students in so-called bilingual education programs learn to read and
write in English, exactly the opposite of the theory, and receive little na-
1. They were true experiments in which students were randomly as-
tive-tongue instruction beyond learning the alphabet and a few words or
signed to treatment and control groups.
phrases. Thus, claims for the success of Asians in bilingual education pro-
2. They had non-random assignment that either matched students
grams cannot be taken at face value. Asian and African bilingual education
in the treatment and comparison groups on factors that influence
programs are generally closer to what is called structured immersion (that
achievement or statistically controlled for them.
is, instruction in English in a self-contained classroom of LEP students),
even though for political, legal, or funding reasons they may be described
3. They included a comparison group of LEP students of the same
as "bilingual education." The European bilingual education programs (e.g.
ethnicity and similar language background.
Russian, Portuguese, Hebrew, Polish, etc.) stray even further afield from
4. Outcome measures were in English using NCEs, raw scores,
the theory. Many of them are simply regular classroom instruction with
scale scores, percentiles, etc, but not grade equivalents.
ESL pull-out support if needed. This lack of consistency in the treatment
NO.
only complicates the issue of evaluating and analyzing the effects of bilin-
5. Additional educational treatments were either nonexistent or
gual education programs.
controlled for.
The research evidence presented here is the result of a collaboration
with Keith Baker in updating our earlier reviews of the research on bilin-
20
21
Center
for Equal Opportunity
Is Bilingual Education
an Effective Educational Tool?
Findings
Table 1
Table 1 shows the effect of transitional bilingual education-com-
Percent of Methodologically Acceptable Studies* Demonstrating
pared to (1) "submersion," i.e., doing nothing, (2) ESL, (3) structured im-
Program Effectiveness by Achievement Test Outcome
mersion, and (4) maintenance (long-term) bilingual education-on second
READING** LANGUAGE
MATH
language (usually English) reading, language, and mathematics as demon-
strated by the 72 methodologically acceptable studies-all of them of
THE V. Submersion (Do Nothing)
TBE Better
22%
7%
9%
Spanish bilingual education programs and students. Table 1 also shows the
No Difference
45%
29%
56%
effect of structured immersion compared to ESL pull-out.' Studies are re-
TBE Worse
33%
64%
35%
peated in more than one category of outcome if they had different out-
Total N
60
14
34
comes at different grade levels or for different cohorts-that is, a group of
TBE V. ESL
students in the same grade. Those not in the table are excluded because
TBE Better
0%
0%
25%
they did not assess alternative second-language learning programs or they
No Difference
71%
67%
50%
did not meet the methodological criteria.
TBE Worse
29%
33%
25%
The percentages in Table 1 indicate the percentage of studies show-
Total N
7
3
4
ing a program to be better than the alternative it is compared to, the per-
TBE V. Submersion/ESL
centage showing no difference, and the percentage showing the program
TBE Better
19%
6%
11%
to be worse than the alternative it is compared to. This is repeated for each
No Difference
48%
35%
1998 2026DEPT_OF OF ED/DEP SECYCEO
55%
achievement outcome-reading, language, and math. The total number of
TBE Worse
33%
59%
34%
studies assessing the particular achievement outcome for each category of
Total N
67
17
38
comparisons are shown below the percentages.
TBE Structured Immersion
TBE V. Submersion. Table 1 indicates that for second language
TBE Better
0%
096
0%
reading,⁴ 22 percent of the studies show transitional bilingual education to
No Difference
17%
100%
63%
be superior, 33 percent show it to be inferior, and 45 percent show it to be
TBE Worse
83%
0%
38%
no different from submersion-that is, doing nothing. Altogether, 78 per-
Total N
12
1
B
cent of the studies show TBE to be no different from or worse than the
Structured Immersion V. ESL
supposedly discredited submersion technique.
Immersion Better
100%
0%
0%
In a standardized achievement test of language, a test of a student's
No Difference
0%
0%
0%
understanding of grammatical rules, transitional bilingual education does
Total N
3
0
0
even worse than it does in reading. Seven percent of the studies show tran-
TBE Maint. BE
sitional bilingual education to be superior, 64 percent show it to be infe-
TBE Better
100%
0%
0%
rior, and 29 percent show it to be no different from submersion-daing
Total N
nothing. Altogether, 93 percent of the studies show TBE to be no differ-
1
0
0
"ON 109'0N
ent from or worse than doing nothing at all.5
Studies are listed in more than one cstegory if there were different effects for different grade or cohorts.
Onl English achievement for preschool programs.
These more negative findings for language than for reading suggest
22
23
P.5/81/005
Center
Is Bilingual Education
for Equal Opportunity
un Effective Educational Tool?
that a child is less dependent on school for many of the skills learned in
ferent from or worse than submersion/ESL in reading, 94 percent show
reading-decoding, vocabulary, and understanding concepts-than they
TBE to be no different from or worse than submersion/ESL in language,
are for grammar. The fine rules of grammar, it appears, are learned mostly
and 89 percent show TBE to be no different from or worse than submer-
in school, and because they are more complex, they are more influenced by
sion/ESL in math.
school time on task. Thus, these results suggest there is a risk that bilin-
TBE V. Structured Immersion. Table 1 also compares TBE to
gual education students will incur a deficit in English grammar rules be-
structured immersion, the fourth category from the top. Most of these
cause they have spent less time on them than have LEP children in an all-
studies come from the Canadian immersion programs, which come in sev-
English environment.
eral carefully documented types-early immersion (late bilingual), delayed
In math, 9 percent of the studies show TBE to be superior, 35 per-
immersion (early bilingual), dual immersion, and SO forth. In many cases,
cent show it to be inferior, and 56 percent show it to be no different from
we had to "translate" the programs into U.S. terminology. Twelve studies
submersion. Altogether, 91 percent of the studies show it to be no differ-
had reading outcomes, one study had language outcomes, and eight studies
ent or worse than the supposedly discredited submersion technique in de-
had math outcomes. No study showed TBE to be superior to structured
veloping math proficiency.
immersion in reading, language, or math. In reading, 83 percent of the
TBE V. ESL. Although many so-called submersion situations
studies showed TBE to be worse than structured immersion, and 17 per-
probably have an English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) program where
cent showed no difference. In language, the one study showed no differ-
the students are pulled out of the regular classroom and taught English in
ence. In math, five studies showed no difference, and three studies showed
small groups for a period a day or a few times a week, it is generally not
TBE to be worse than immersion.
specified in the evaluations. Nevertheless, we suspect that many of the
Structured Immersion V. ESL. There were also three studies that
studies classified above as submersion may in fact include an ESL pull-out
compared structured immersion to ESL specifically. These studies all
OF ED/DEP SECYCEO
component. In seven studies, transitional bilingual education is specifically
showed structured immersion to be superior to ESL in reading.
compared to reading achievement in the regular classroom with ESL pull-
TBE V. Maintenance Bilingual Education. The final category in
out. None of these studies shows TBE to be better than ESL pull-out in
Table 1 compares transitional bilingual education to maintenance bilingual
reading. Five studies (71 percent) show no difference between transitional
education, which continues native-tongue instruction after a child has be-
bilingual education and ESL in reading, and two studies (29 percent) show
come fluent in English. This study showed transitional bilingual education
TBE to be worse than ESL. Of the three studies that examined language
produced significantly higher English reading achievement than mainte-
achievement, none showed TBE to be superior, two showed no difference
nance bilingual education.6 In other words, more English time on task
between TBE and ESL, and one showed TBE to be worse, Of the four
(TBE) produces higher English language achievement than less time on
studies that examined math, one showed TBE to be superior, two showed
task (maintenance bilingual education).
no difference, and one showed TBE to be worse.
TBE V. Submersion/ESL. Because we suspect that many, if not
most, of the so-called submersion alternatives had an ESL component, we
Conclusions
NO.
also show in Table 1 the outcomes for a category (the third from the top)
The results shown in Table 1 suggest that the ideal program for sec-
that combines submersion and ESL studies. Because of the small number
ond language learners is "structured immersion" where instruction is in
of studies that specifically examine ESL pullout, there is virtually no dif-
English at a level the students can understand in a self-contained class-
ference in the findings: 81 percent of the studies show TBE to be no dif-
room consisting entirely of LEP students. While it may be helpful if a
24
25
900 13/9'd
Center
Is Bilingual Education
for Equal Opportunity
an Effective Educational Took
teacher knows his or her students' native tongue, it is probably best for the
1 suspect that the major reason why TBE is not more harmful is
students if the teacher is not fluent in it because, human nature being what
that many bilingual education teachers are subverting the theory. Rather
it is, the more proficient a teacher is in a language, the more time he or she
than waiting until their students are proficient in reading and writing in
will spend teaching in it. Thus, contrary to the theory and current practice,
their native tongue as the theory advocates, they transition their students
I suspect that the better teachers of LEP children will be those who are
fairly quickly into English. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for all of
more comfortable in English than their students' native tongue.
them. Some teachers are ardent believers of the theories they have been
Nevertheless, it cannot be emphasized enough that the research
taught, and their students are in TBE and native-tongue instruction for
clearly shows, as with all other educational interventions, that the inter-
the entire time they are in school. As a result, my policy recommendation
vention itself is only one of many important factors explaining achieve-
is for all-English instruction for LEP children, preferably structured-im-
ment. Indeed, the most important factors in a child's acquisition of
mersion, although the period of being in a self-contained classroom must
English and other subjects are the child's family characteristics, his or her
be of a very short duration, a year or less. The research evidence suggests
intelligence, the characteristics of his or her classmates, and the intelli-
that all-English instruction holds the least risk and usually bas the greatest
gence and talent of his or her teacher. For most students, at least in an ed-
benefit for limited-English-proficien children.
ucational system in which all programs ultimately provide substantial
amounts of English, the exact percentage of each language has, on average,
explained only a small portion of the variance in achievement. Even in the
References
worst cases, I am struck by how small the differences in academic achieve-
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Foundation and U.S. English
ment are-a maximum of about 15 points-between programs with very
Foundation. 1994. Bilingual Education in the United States 1991-92; Special
different amounts of English instruction. For any single student, however,
Supplement; The Report Card on American Education 1994. American
OF ED/DEP CEO
there could be serious consequences to having little English instruction. As
Legislative Exchange Council and U.S. English Foundation: Washington,
Table 1 indicates, substantially more studies show a harm from TBE, com-
D.C.
pared to all-English instruction, than show a benefit, and this disparity in-
Baker, Keith & de Kanter, Adriana. 1981. The effectiveness of bilingual education
creases when the all-English program is structured immersion. Thus, the
programs: A review of the literature. Final draft report. Washington, D.C.:
risk of academic deficiency in English is greater for TBE than for all-
U.S. Department of Education.
English instruction.
Baker, Keith & de Kanter, Adriana. 1983. "Federal Policy and the Effectiveness
Nevertheless, transitional bilingual education as actually imple-
of Bilingual Education." In Keith A. Baker, Adriana A. de Kanter, cds.,
mented is typically not a disaster, despite its potential to be so, The facili-
Bilingual Education. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company.
tation theory justifying bilingual education states that students must be
Ramirez, J., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., & Pasta, D. 1991. Final Report: Longitudinal
taught to read and write in their native tongue until they reach proficiency
Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit
in the native tongue (called the threshold effect) in order to achieve the
Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children,
Vol. L Prepared for U.S. Department of Education. San Mateo, Calif.:
highest level of cognitive development and English language achievement.
Aguirre International
This theory if blindly followed could result in a child never transitioning
out of the native tongue and never learning English. Yet students in TBE
Ramirez, J., Pasta, D., Yuen, S., Billings, D., & Ramey, D. 1991. Final Report:
Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and
do learn English and master content areas in English, although they may
Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minarity
be behind their LEP schoolmates who are taught completely in English.
Children, Vol. II. Prepared for U.S. Department of Education. San Mateo,
26
27
200
Center
Is Bilingual Education
for Equal Opportunity
an Effective Educational Tool?
Calif.: Aguirre International.
Rossell, Christine. 1992. "Nothing Matters? A Critique of the Ramirez, et al.
What
Longitudinal Study of Instructional Programs for Language-Minority
Children." Bilingual Research Journal 16(18:2):159-186.
Bilingual Education
Rossell, Christine & Baker, Keith. 1988. "Selecting and exiting students in bilin-
gual education programs." Journal of Law and Education 17(4):589-23.
Research Tells Us
Rossell, Christine. & Ross, J. Michael. 1986. "The social science evidence on
bilingual education." Journal of Law and Education 15:385-419.
Rossell, Christine. & Baker, Keith. 1996. Bilingual Education Reform in Massa-
chusetts. Boston, Mass.: Pioneer Institute
Endnotes
By Keith Baker
rom 1979 to 1989, I worked in the main evaluation office of the
¹Moreover, only the Spanish language teachers have non-native speakers fluent
F
U.S. Department of Education, where I directed a number of ex-
in the language. Because we share a border with a Spanish speaking country,
tensive studies of bilingual education. I was also a major partici-
there is ample opportunity for non-Hispanics to learn Spanish. In addition,
pant in formulating federal policy on the education of limited-
03MAR 2026DEPT OF OF ED/DEP CEO
Spanish is an easier language to learn for English speaking people than are any
English-proficient (LEP) students. When the White House Regulatory
of the Asian or African languages. Thus, the non-Spanish bilingual programs
Review Group asked the U.S. Department of Education if bilingual edu-
have a much smaller teacher labor pool to draw from since virtually the only
people who speak Cantonese, Khmer, Vietnamese, Cape Verdean, Haitian
cation programs were effective, the department put me in charge of find-
Creole, etc., are native speakers, almost all of them immigrants.
ing the answer.
'This collaboration has produced a 1995 book Bilingual Education Reform in
I also planned, designed, and directed the largest study done by the
Massachusetts, published by Pioneer Institute in Boston, Mass.
federal government of the validity of procedures used to exit LEPs from
special programs for LEPs. I know of no valid scientific research that
3 All of the studies in Table 1 appear in complete citation form in Rossell and
Baker (1996).
shows that any LEP student would benefit from more than three years of
bilingual education to prepare them to participate in the mainstream class-
'We included oral progress in preschool or kindergarten in this category since 2
room.
reading test for these grades is obviously inappropriate.
I know of no scientifically valid evidence that supports the New
, Neither Baker and de Kanter (1981, 1983) nor Rossell and Ross (1986) exam-
ined language since at that time there were too few studies that examined this
York State Education Commissioner's policy and practice of routinely ex-
outcome.
tending beyond three years the time LEP students are segregated from full
participation with their peers in the mainstream classroom. I know of no
# Ramirez et al. 1992 also examined maintenance bilingual education (late-exit
bilingual education), but unfortunately did not directly compare it to transi-
psychometrically valid or scientifically sound definition of "academic profi-
tional bilingual education (contrary to media reports and his own conclusions).
NO.601
Although his graphs appeared to show that the students in late-exit bilingual
This article is excerpted from Keith Baker's affidavit in Bushwick Parents Organiza-
education were doing worse than the students in transitional bilingual educa-
tion v. Richard P. Mills, Commissioner of Education of the State of New York.
tion, no statistical analysis was performed to verify that.
28
29
Is Bilingual Education
Center
an Effective Educational Tool?
for Equal Opportunity