Hd Bilingual Mess
There’s little argument that California’s current system of bilingual education is a mess and needs significant fixing. It’s a system that has forced students to take bilingual classes for years and it often leaves them neither fluent in English nor academically equipped for college.
It’s also a system being fueled by the absurd reality that schools receive more money per student if bilingual classes are included in the mix. Never mind whether that money does any good.
The question is how to fix it. Proposition 227, the June 2 ballot initiative that would essentially eliminate bilingual education in the public schools, is the quick-and-dirty response.
Backed by Silicon Valley businessman Ron Unz, the measure calls for a one-year, English-only immersion program that strikes many observers as the educational equivalent of boot camp. But in the end, say supporters, it will better enable non-English speaking students to prepare for college and then the workplace.
Unz and his group clearly are onto something, but as with so much of the initiative process, the devil is in the details. The most devilish feature: A “one size fits all” approach that runs counter to recent efforts to provide more flexibility at the grass-roots level.
To be fair, parents could seek waivers to the immersion method if, say, their children already spoke English or had “special needs” (a category that hasn’t been adequately spelled out). But these waivers would have to be renewed annually and would be subject to the whims of an educational bureaucracy that loves to wallow in paperwork. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
A more reasoned alternative to Proposition 227 got through the state Legislature last week. SB 6, sponsored by state Sen. Dede Alpert, D-Coronado and first passed by the Senate last year would provide school districts with much greater flexibility in designing bilingual programs that suit individual schools and even students.
While requiring each school district to offer daily English instruction, the details would be left to local educators. Sometimes, a Proposition 227-type immersion would be appropriate; sometimes not. How ever it’s done, the districts would be required to demonstrate that their students are becoming fluent in English and maintaining academic standards. If those standards weren’t met, revisions would be required.
Critics of the Alpert bill argue that it’s merely a last-ditch effort by Sacramento Democrats to thwart the popular Unz initiative not unlike the hastily crafted alternative to the tax-cutting Proposition 13 some 20 years ago. That may well be true, but it’s not the point. The important question is, which measure stands the better chance of success? We believe it’s the Alpert legislation both for its more sensible approach to an immensely complex problem and the fact that it’s a legislative solution rather than a TV-fed plebiscite.
Not that Gov. Pete Wilson is likely to agree. As of late last week, he was still leaning solidly toward Prop. 227 and not sounding wildly enthused about SB 6. Whatever approach wins out is likely to be bogged down in the courts for some time.
For Sacramento legislators, there is a lesson here: Dragging your heels on important policy issues will only lead to other parties taking matters into their own hands often at everyone’s expense.
