The struggle
on both sides of the initiative only began on June 6. It is sure to remain
a heated issue for months and years. The first round of public contention
involves just how much of last year's bilingual education approach remains
intact. It all hinges on the interpretability of Proposition 227.
The proposition
states that, for English-language learning children, the majority of the
school day must be conducted in English. But what is the definition of "majority"?
The proposition does not say. It is left up to each school district to interpret
that word.
Pasadena
Unified School District is interpreting "majority" as at least
80% English instruction. This coming week, most children who were in traditional
bilingual education classes last year will be placed in "immersion"
courses where 80% of instruction is in English and 20% is in the child's
primary language. For 92% of Pasadena's English-language learners that primary
language is Spanish. It is this open interpretation of "majority"
that lets some 227 opponents breathe a sigh of relief and makes many 227
advocates jittery. What is to keep a given school district from interpreting
"majority" as 51%? And what is to keep school districts from creatively
interpreting the waiver option?
Proposition
227's waiver provision states that, after 30 days, parents may petition
to have their child placed in a traditional bilingual education program.
One circumstance under which a child may receive a waiver is if "it
is the informed belief of the school principal and educational staff"
that the child is in need of returning to a bilingual program.
"Informed
belief" is subjective enough for school districts as varied as Bell
Gardens and Irvine to arrive at two very different interpretations of what
constitutes a legitimate waiver. All this leeway for interpretation, finagling
and administrative gymnastics has the potential to make the legal battles
over Propositions 187 and 209 feel like a short hour in traffic court by
comparison. Tensions are already bubbling under the surface. One side of
our citizenry feels there is a concerted attack against the pluralistic
advances of the civil rights era and sound instructional theories on language
acquisition. The other side's frustration grows each time a proposition
wins at the ballot box but is in some way subverted in the courts.
I am trying
to take a "wait-and-see" approach to Proposition 227. It's a difficult
stance to take, because all around I hear ominous warnings. A neighbor said
to me this week, "They got the immigrants with 187, the Blacks with
209, and now they are going after everybody else." Her speech was longer
and more passionate than that, but that's the gist of what she said.
A Presbyterian
pastor I know is suspicious of the proposition's timing, coming on the heels
of 187 and 209. The stories from his childhood ring in my conscience. For
speaking Spanish in school, he was put down by teachers and peers, and ridiculed
more when he pulled a burrito out of his lunch bag. I pipe up and say I
have White friends who are not like that.
"I do,
too," he says. But he says it without conviction. He's a Chicano boomer,
a member of the Affirmative Action generation, and he has little trust for
California voters or politicians. Something deep inside of me does not want
to believe these things neighbors and friends are saying. I try to live
my life as a peacemaker, to see all sides of a situation.
Yet I can't
ignore the feeling in my gut: What if they are right? What if it's true
that the people who voted for Proposition 227 secretly (some not so secretly)
have an ultimate goal of squelching California's burgeoning Latino presence,
of putting Latinos back in their place? Time will tell.
In the meantime
I'm willing to give Proposition 227 the benefit of the doubt. Let's see
what English for the Children can accomplish, especially since the proposition's
ambiguous language gives control to local school districts and, more importantly,
parents. If it can deliver the goods - if it can turn today's multi-hued
student population into tomorrow's workers, governors and world businesspeople
- let's grab hold of it with both hands.
If, however,
227 proves ineffective, let's scrap it. If we seek the good of the children,
we will hold the 227 movement accountable just as the historical bilingual
education establishment was held accountable in the last election. In the
process we will make our state and our nation strong, for we will ensure
ensure that Latino, Laotian, Armenian and other recent immigrants have the
same chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that many other
Americans received in generations past. The only alternative is to turn
a promising generation of students into liabilities who tax our prison,
welfare and other social systems.
The choice
is not theirs. It's ours. Let's wait and see, then act - quickly.
COMMENTS?
Email Rudy
This month, public schools throughout the San Gabriel Valley are scrambling to comply with Proposition 227. Titled "English for the Children," the initiative approved by voters in June purports to end bilingual education as we have known it in California's public schools, with the goal of improving English fluency and overall academic performance among children in this state.