Friday, January 16, 1998
When it comes to shoddy schools, Californians misplace blame
Inept politicians, not bilingual education true source of
state’s instructional problem
By Antonio Sandoval
California’s educational system has gone to hell. This short and
precise statement is what many people in the state feel is
accurate. Everything in the media would have you believe such a
conclusion. The Los Angeles Times reported that superintendent of
schools for the L.A.Unified School District, Ruben Zacarias, had a
list of the 100 worst schools. Not surprising to many, the schools
were schools located south and east of Downtown Los Angeles. Later,
the Times reported that many of the schools within the district did
not have books.
Strange? Hardly. At the same time Ron Unz and Gloria Tuchman
introduced the "English for the Children" initiative to
Californians. Then, the debate began. The question was posed:
Should we save bilingual education, or should we do away with
it?
In the 1960s, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the
concept of bilingual education when he said that "schools had an
obligation to use native languages of non-English-speaking children
as a medium of instruction." In California, the Republican Gov.
Ronald Reagan agreed with the president, and introduced legislation
allowing for the formation of bilingual instruction. After the
establishment of bilingual education, which previously existed to
assist German, Yiddish and Polish-speaking immigrants, bilingual
education was reaffirmed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the
landmark case Lau vs. Nichols. In the latter case the high court
ruled that 1,800 Chinese students’ constitutional rights had been
violated. The opinion stated that "there (was) no equality of
treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities,
textbooks, teachers, and curriculum, for students who (did) not
understand English (were) effectively foreclosed from any
meaningful education." This meant that remedies had to be created
to allow Asian Americans, and all immigrants for that matter, to be
given access to an education that would allow them to become fully
integrated into society. The result was bilingual education
programs, which, for the most part, have been very successful.
Many people think that after 30 years bilingual education has
failed to help Chicano and Latino students make the transition into
an English speaking society. What these people do not realize is
that bilingual education is not what has failed Chicano/Latino
students. The reality is that Lau vs. Nichols has been disregarded
in most California schools. Currently, data from the California
Department of Education shows that out of the 1.5 million
limited-English-proficient students, 70 percent are getting what
most call an English-only curriculum. A curriculum which the
"English for the Children" initiative, which will be up for a vote
in June, proposes. The English for the Children initiative proposes
short-term immersion programs in the English language. Well, if you
see the number 70 percent it is obvious that if
limited-English-proficient students are not successfully making the
transition to mainstream classes, it is because experiments with
immersion are not working. Currently, 30 percent of limited English
students are receiving proper instruction in bilingual education
classes as is called for by the Lau vs. Nichols case.
Well, if you can see, if California’s educational system has
gone to hell it is not because of bilingual education. The fact is
that California schools have been shafted in order to build housing
facilities that lock up students in poor areas that cannot afford
good schools. Prisons are being built at astronomical rates. Is it
bilingual education, or is it a lack of interest by outgoing Gov.
Pete Wilson to fund schools at higher levels? It is not until now
that he is even proposing such a thing.
Another possible reason for a bad educational system could be
the fact that school district bureaucracies are spending money on
irrelevant resources instead of something essential, such as
textbooks. It is not bilingual education, it is an irresponsible
governor and his cronies who have done nothing to save California
schools from ruin.
Education initiatives that are now planned come at a time when
California ranks at the very bottom with states such as
Mississippi. If there was any concern for Californians it should
have been seven years ago, not now.
Now it is evident, bilingual eduction is not a failure. Where it
is implemented, it is quite successful. Many of us at UCLA are
products of the system. From time to time it is important to take a
look at how it has worked, but to eliminate the system and add a
$50 million burden to tax payers as the "English for the Children"
initiative does is not what we need. We need to keep this
educational tool.
Californians should look for the real problem in California
today. The problem is an inept governor who many joyfully
reelected, and who has allowed California to become the
laughingstock of the United States. It is not the fault of
bilingual education, it is the fault of unconscientious individuals
like him who have devastated our schools.
Because of the danger to bilingual education MEChA de UCLA urges
all of the UCLA faculty, staff, and students to critically evaluate
the "English for the Children" initiative. The initiative will
abolish bilingual education, and in its place leave a faulty
alternative that will not be able to be changed when it fails.
MEChA de UCLA believes that well-crafted and implemented bilingual
education programs leads to success in the future of the students.
MEChA de UCLA hopes that you decide to save bilingual education by
voting "NO" on the "English for the Children" initiative.