|
October 3, 1998, NY Times
California Still Debates
Bilingual Education
By DON TERRY
LOS ANGELES -- Bilingual
education in California was supposed
to be in a grave by now,
essentially killed when residents voted
last spring to end it.
The ballot initiative, supported
by 61 percent of the voters, sought to
replace 30 years of using
Spanish and other foreign languages to help
immigrant children in the
state learn to read, write and speak English with a
method that uses "nearly
all" English instruction.
But more than a month into
the current school term, bilingual education is
clearly still breathing.
The reasons are a subject of hot debate.
Supporters of the initiative,
Proposition 227, assert that school districts and
the education bureaucracy
are resisting the will of the voters, taking
advantage of loopholes to
preserve a rejected method of teaching.
Critics of the proposition
see the bumpy transition as a result of confusion,
reluctance on the part of
some parents and teachers to push children into
instruction they are not
ready for, and even basic logistical issues like the
lack of textbooks.
What is clear is that the
fight over Proposition 227 is not over yet.
Doug Stone, a spokesman for
the state Education Department, said he had
heard of no open defiance
of the law and "when push came to shove,
virtually all of the districts
are complying."
Some do not agree with that
assessment.
"A lot of people are trying
to loosely interpret and undermine this law,"
said Sean Walsh, a spokesman
for Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican and a
critic of bilingual education.
"The law says 'nearly all' should be taught in
English. But many districts
are using 40 percent Spanish and 60 percent
English."
The law does not define what
"nearly all" means, so there is much
disagreement over what constitutes
compliance.
Elena Soto-Chapa, the statewide
education director for the Mexican
American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, which has gone to court
seeking to block the initiative,
said that how the hundreds of school districts
across the state defined
"nearly all" was "just all over the spectrum."
Ms. Soto-Chapa said some
districts were using a 60-40 English-foreign
language formula while others
were using 70-30 or 80-20. "There's a lot of
confusion," she said. "It's
a very political, murky environment right now."
The Los Angeles United School
District, with 681,505 students the second
largest in the country behind
New York City, offers two programs for
pupils with limited English
ability: Model A and Model B. In Model A, the
classes are taught virtually
all in English. In Model B, 65 percent to 70
percent of the classes are
taught in English.
Alice Callaghan, one of the
leading proponents of Proposition 227, said
"L.A. is absolutely out
of compliance."
The state Education Department
has set up a study group to help districts
implement the law.
"We realized that before
June 2 and after June 2 there would be more
questions than answers,"
Stone said, referring to the day the initiative was
approved. "But that isn't
a sign from heaven that school districts can thwart
the law."
Out of the 5.5 million public
school pupils in California, about 1.4 million
have a limited understanding
of English, but only 30 percent of them were
enrolled in bilingual education
programs last year. The rest were in classes
in which teachers used nearly
all English. There were not enough qualified
teachers for bilingual classes.
Under Proposition 227, some
parents are eligible to request that their
children be retained in
a bilingual program, and such waivers can be be
granted by a school district
under three circumstances: The child has a
physical or psychological
need to be in bilingual education, the child is
over 10 years old or the
child speaks English.
But the question of waivers
is also the subject of intense and varied
interpretation and debate.
Before a waiver can be granted, a child must
spend the first 30 days
of school in a class taught primarily in English. That
period has now expired for
about 25,000 Los Angeles pupils with limited
English skills who started
the new year in late summer. Although many
expected a wave of request
for waivers, only about 1,300 have been sought
so far, said Forrest Ross,
director of language acquisition for the Los
Angeles district.
Ms. Soto-Chapa said, "I think
a lot of parents are taking a wait and see
approach,"
At the Logan Street School
in Los Angeles, a few blocks from Dodger
Stadium, parents of 250
of the 360 pupils eligible have asked for and
received waivers. Those
children are now in bilingual classes.
"We're not trying to circumvent
the law," said Logan Street's principal, May
Arakaki. "We're just giving
the parents the options they and their children
deserve and are entitled
to."
Mrs. Arakaki and her staff
have had to do some fancy juggling. Mrs.
Arakaki had to move three
children whose parents signed waivers into
Helen Trevino's second-grade
class, which is primarily bilingual, and
move three others into an
English-immersion class.
Still, Ms. Trevino has a
class of nine bilingual pupils and six who are
taught primarily in English,
forcing her to go from table to table and tongue
to tongue. Ideally, the
class would be either all bilingual or virtually all
English.
"I'm for bilingual education,"
Ms. Trevino said. "But the new law has
passed and we have to deal
with it."
In one twist, 39 of the nearly
1,000 schools districts in California --
including Los Angeles, San
Diego, Fresno and Oakland -- have requested
waivers of some kind to
teaching all classes primarily in English -- whether
for individual schools or
for entire districts.
But in August, the state
Board of Education, whose 11 members are
appointed by the governor,
refused to consider the waiver requests, saying
it did not have the authority
to grant them to districts.
"The initiative was very
clear about waivers," said Bill Lucia, executive
director of the state school
board. "And it doesn't say anything about
districtwide waivers."
After the board refused to
hear the requests, the districts of Oakland,
Hayward and Berkeley took
the board to court, demanding that it be forced
to do so.
"We feel that bilingual education
works and we feel that our community
believes in bilingual education,"
said Sue Piper, a spokeswoman for the
53,000-pupil Oakland Unified
School District. "That's not to say it's
perfect. But our test scores
show that the children who graduate from
bilingual education do very
well."
Alameda County Superior Court
Judge Henry Needham ruled last month
that the board had to hear
the districts' waiter requests. The board appealed
the decision and voted to
postpone action on the requests pending the
outcome of the appeal. That
could be months, and in the meantime the
districts are required to
implement the proposition.
Wilson had urged the board
to appeal Needham's decision, saying his
decision "could potentially
eviscerate Proposition 227."
Lucia said that some of the
board members were also concerned that they
might be sued by proponents
of the proposition if they ruled on the waivers
before the issue of the
board's authority had been determined in the appeal.
"It could require individual
board members to get lawyers," he said. "It's a
serious matter. It's a question
of losing your house."
The initiative says that
teachers and administrators who implement the law
improperly can be held liable.
"We're going to be suing
soon," said Ms. Callaghan, a leading supporter of
the proposition. "We won't
let this go on much longer."
The threat of lawsuits has
also had a chilling effect on teachers. Hundreds
of teachers in Los Angeles
signed a petition last spring pledging open
rebellion if Proposition
227 passed. The teachers vowed to risk being sued
and dismissed by continuing
to use bilingual education methods in their
classrooms. But so far,
the rebellion has not materialized -- at least not
openly.
"Open defiance would be dismissal,
and that was made very clear to us,"
said Steve Zimmer a member
of On Campus, the teachers' group that
organized the pledge of
resistance. "But you certainly still have defiance.
It's just being done behind
closed doors."
Zimmer said that some teachers
were simply teaching how they had always
taught immigrant children,
using bilingual methods, while others who
otherwise comply with the
law were still using a lot of bilingual methods
because they did not yet
have the books and other materials necessary to put
the proposition into effect.
"There aren't enough books,"
he said. "There are stories about fourth
graders using kindergarten
books."
Still, Zimmer said, the majority
of teachers are doing their best to comply
with the law.
"Even though we did the pledge,"
he said, "I can't in good conscience tell a
teacher to let this fail
so we can get rid of it. The efforts of teachers not to
damage children is what
is making this work at all."
But Ms. Callaghan said she
received almost daily reports of widespread
non-compliance by teachers
and districts.
"Name me a district that
is not defying the law," she said. "There will be
less Spanish spoken, but
that doesn't mean they will teach English
immersion. The law required
that bilingual education be replaced, not
mended. It's going to be
a very unfortunate year."
Yet at individual schools
like Logan Street in Los Angeles, it is more a year
of improvisation, of trying
to accommodate and educate at the same time.
Gloria Rodriguez has two
children at Logan, a daughter, Christina, 8, a
third grader, and a son,
Gabriel, 9, a fourth grader. Her daughter began
school in bilingual classes
but tested high enough to move into classes
taught in English before
Proposition 227 became the law.
Mrs. Rodriguez signed a waiver
for her son.
"He's not ready yet," she
said. "My daughter is doing very well, and I think
it is because of bilingual
education. When she goes to college, she wants to
learn Japanese and French.
That will be four languages she will know how
to speak and write. Employers
will love her." |