COGG logo Issue: Bilingual Education in the California Public School System, K - 12

The following position paper, as well as other C.O.G.G. publications and correspondence, may have contributed to Governor Wilson's May 18, 1998 veto of the bilingual education bill, SB6. (Click on the preceding link to see the veto letter. After viewing it, use the BACK feature of your browser to get back here.)

C.O.G.G. POSITION

We favor withholding support from Senate Bill 6 and Assembly Bill 36 in favor of promoting passage, instead, of The 1998 California "English For The Children" Initiative

SUPPORT OF POSITION

Following the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Lau v. Nichols, California amended its Education Code to further implement and emphasize instruction in foreign languages under the euphemism of "Bilingual Education."

  1. Since then, immigration has greatly increased with the number of non- English-speaking immigrant children doubling in just the past decade; yet only 5% of them under the current Bilingual Education system are gaining proficiency in English each year.

  2. After more than 20 yrs. of Bilingual Education costing $300 million per year, approximately one-fourth of all of California's 5.34 million public school students are classified as non-proficient in English.

  3. Such dismal results have understandably emerged from a system which has permitted and encouraged English learners to continue having instruction in a foreign language for an average of five years in elementary grades and for three years in middle school and high school.

  4. Senate Bill 6 and Assembly Bill 36 are proposed as a modifying improvement for this situation. Yet the continuing emphasis upon prolonged foreign language instruction promises no true reversals of the prior failed and costly experimental instruction policies, and even their sponsors acknowledge likely defeat.

  5. By contrast the "English for the Children" initiative takes the position that every California student has a right to be taught English and it mandates that all students (except in special circumstances) be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible with a transition period of foreign language instruction normally limited to one year.

  6. This Initiative recognizes a moral obligation to provide all California children, regardless of ethnicity, with the skills necessary to become productive members of society and it further recognizes that English proficiency is among the most important of those skills, what with English being the predominant world language for science, technology and international business in addition to being spoken by the vast majority of California residents.

  7. This Initiative also provides for appropriation of $50 million from the General Fund in order to fund free or subsidized adult English language instruction for parents and others who pledge to provide personal English language tutoring to California school children with limited English proficiency.

  8. Despite attempts by opponents to smear this initiative with the "racist" label, it is garnering strong support from all political persuasions including "Latinos," 83% of whom in Orange County favored it in a recent L.A. Times poll.

PLAN OF ACTION

  1. Transmit official C.O.G.G. letters to each California Assemblyman and Senator pointing out the deficiencies of S.B. 6 and A.B. 36 urging a vote against them.

  2. Urge all C.O.G.G. members to support the "English For The Children" Initiative with contributions and with signatures needed for qualifying the Initiative.

  3. Whenever the Initiative qualifies, make C.O.G.G. donations to its support in whatever amounts and extent permitted by our bylaws and encourage individual member support.

  4. Make plans for a letters-to-editor campaign and a letters-to-legislators campaign for C.O.G.G. members to execute prior to the June '98 vote on the Initiative.

  5. Arrange for a debate between Ron Unz and a proponent of bilingual education. A tentative date of April 13 for a C.O.G.G. luncheon forum is being negotiated with the Unz headquarters. Further efforts are proceeding to obtain a high profile supporter of the bilingual system presently in place in order to provide a balanced debate. Media coverage to announce this event is being established.

  6. On a longer range program, continued position statements to legislators and the media will be released to keep the issue highlighted.

  7. A cooperative liaison has been established with the Assembly Republican Caucus staff. On this issue, the following has been sent: "...We are now concerned with the continued efforts of the bilingual proponents to force their program on the system, viz., Dede Alpert's thinly disguised effort to moderate the position and to defeat the English for the Children initiative which is preferable to us to her panic attempt to confuse the issue with SB 6. We agree with Lance Izumi's analysis: _...the Alpert bill is fatally flawed because it doesn't address the fundamental problem afflicting the public education system.' The virtual monopoly, to which he refers, needs to be dismantled." Follow-up dialogue with staff on this and other positions needs to be ongoing.

  8. Incorporate in and broadcast this issue over the C.O.G.G. Web site to enlist the support of other informed activists.

Allyn McDowell, M.D.
Member, Education Committee

California's Bilingual Law, which mandated that students be taught in their native language, was sunseted in 1995, but Education Department bureaucrats persist in promulgating this failed policy. More than 23% of the children in California schools have been classified as limited English Proficient (LEP). Students, for instance, in the Los Angeles Unified School District, come from families in which more than 50 languages or dialects are spoken. In 1996 and 1997, Assembly member Firestone (R-Santa Barbara) and Senator Alpert (D-San Diego) introduced wide, sweeping legislation which emphasized English learning instruction over bilingual instruction. In fact, their legislation was entitled English Learning Instruction. After a bitter and prolonged battle, that legislation failed to pass. Current efforts to reform the state's bilingual education program include the superficially appealing Alpert bill, which, although moderated in scope, remains unsatisfactory.

To quote Linda Chavez, President of the Washington, D.C. based Center for Equal Opportunity: "...the (bilingual) program which started out with the best intentions in the world to help these kids become proficient in English, quickly got hijacked and became a program with a very political agenda. Most of the adamant supporters of native language instruction for children were not the parents whose children attended these schools, but advocacy groups - the National Association for Bilingual Education, which is affiliated with the NEA, was one of the prime movers in this area. Rather than working for the quick transition of children from their Spanish-speaking homes into an English-speaking mainstream, the goal became to maintain the children's native language, to maintain an ethnic identity, to teach the child about his or her native culture, to try and encourage some sort of identification with that culture, and to keep the children fluent in their first language, which, in most cases, was Spanish."

Having thoroughly studied the issues involved, the C.O.G.G. education committee has determined that the objections to the "English for the Children" campaign raised by a minority of bilingual education advocates have been thoroughly debunked. Ron Unz's ballot initiative to emphasize English instruction for LEP students shows overwhelming support in the polls. According to Boston University Professor Christine Rossell, the vast majority of methodologically sound studies have found bilingual education to be ineffective in improving students' English skills. Structured English immersion, however, does work. Say Professor Rossell: "The [empirical] results...suggest that the ideal program for second language learners is 'structured immersion' where instruction is in English at a level the students can understand." She goes on to say that this "structured" immersion should be of a short duration, perhaps a year or less. The Unz initiative says LEP students "shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed a year." In other words, exactly as experts like Prof. Rossell recommend.

In his paper The Unz Initiative and Parental Empowerment, Lance Izumi, Director of Education for the Pacific Research Institute, informs us that the Unz initiative does not mandate a single teaching method as some have been led to believe. "It does not force kids to 'sink or swim' in English-spoken classes as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) contends. The reality is that the Unz initiative empowers parents to choose what they feel will work for their children. If they feel that their child needs bilingual education, their child will get it. What MALDEF and other bilingual education advocates fear is that parents will not choose bilingual education, but rather will choose what works, i.e., structured English immersion.

To be specific, MALDEF and its allies fear the parents of students like Tony Velasquez. Tony is a seven-year-old Los Angeles schoolboy who has twice been placed in bilingual education classes despite the fact that his parents objected both times. Says Ericka Velasquez, "If he has trouble reading, they should deal with that in English. I'm his parent, and I know what's best for him." And that's the difference between MALDEF and Ron Unz. MALDEF thinks it know what's best for parents like Ericka Velasquez. Mr. Unz believes that Ericka Velasquez knows what's best for her child.

Fred J. Ferrazzano,
Chairman, Education Committee
Chairman of the Board, C.O.G.G.

Flag Home page Flag More about COGG
Flag Newsletters Flag Position papers
Flag Essays & correspondence Flag Legislatures & legislators
Flag Related Web sites Flag Bonus resources
Flag Get on our e-mailing list

Flag How to contact us