CALIFORNIA
FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2016, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“PROP. 58 – MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION ON FALL BALLOT?”
Most of the attention this fall has
properly gone to the fierce presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton. Some voters have also given substantial attention to many of the
propositions on next month’s ballot, covering everything from plastic bags to
condoms in pornography, from taxes to legalized marijuana.
All these are important questions, but
the proposition that could have the most impact of all on California’s future
is largely being ignored. That’s Proposition 58, simply described as
“Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education.”
This measure would all but repeal the
1998 Proposition 227, which passed by more than a 3-2 margin and has banned
most bilingual education instruction in public schools ever since. Schools are
still allowed to set up dual-language immersion programs if they and the
parents involved choose to.
Proposition 227 has long infuriated
teachers unions, in part because it effectively did away with the salary
differentials paid to thousands of bilingual education teachers in California
before it passed.
No, the implication in the ballot
title that non-English languages have been banned from this state’s public
schools for almost 20 years is not correct. Public schools, whether charters or
not, never stopped teaching French, Spanish, Latin, Russian, Chinese, Japanese
and many other languages.
But Prop. 227 has meant that the vast
majority of pupils from kindergarten through high school are taught primarily
in English. That’s in contrast to the thousands of classrooms that previously
taught English-learner students primarily in their native language – and a
little English – with the purpose of eventually having them become proficient
in English.
The reason 227 passed so handily when
it did was not anti-Hispanic racism, as some supporters of Prop. 58 imply, but
because English-learner children were progressing only very slowly toward
proficiency. As a result, employers had trouble finding young English speakers
to fill jobs in supermarkets, banks and other businesses where employees are
often not college graduates.
The immediate results of 227 were
successful. For example, more than 32,400 students, or 10.3 percent of the
English learners in the Los Angeles Unified school district, largest in
California, became fluent in English between December 1998 and December 1999,
an increase of about 20 percent over the last year of predominant bilingual
education.
But some Latinos say they felt damaged
by the change. “There was a racist undertone when it came to Spanish speakers,”
Democratic state Sen. Richard Lara of Bell Gardens told a reporter. “That’s how
I felt.”
By contrast, many prominent Latinos
supported 227, in spite of Lara’s perception. Jaime Escalante, the late famed
calculus teacher portrayed in the 1988 film “Stand and Deliver,” was the “yes”
campaign’s honorary chairman. Leaders of the Para Los Ninos organization
vocally backed 227, too.
Now a member of the Senate’s
leadership, Lara sponsored Prop. 58 as the Legislature put it on the ballot.
The measure, says the ballot argument supporting it, would enable “schools to
use the most up-to-date teaching methods to help our students learn (English).”
But the original author, sponsor and
prime funder of Prop. 227, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron Unz (an unsuccessful
Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate last spring) insists his measure is
still needed. He says Prop. 58 supporters ignore the good 227 continues to do.
In the ballot argument against 58, he
says it would repeal the requirement that English be taught in public schools
and that it would “overturn policies that actually improved language
education.”
It’s a bitter disagreement. Unz claims
58 would bring back ineffective bilingual education programs and mire Latino
children in English-learner status for many years. “This really is a sneaky
trick by politicians in Sacramento,” he said. He adds that he ran for the
Senate mostly for the opportunity the campaign gave him to oppose 58 in major
media.
For sure, this is a disagreement that
deserves at least as much voter attention as any other major measure to be
decided this fall. But so far, neither side has raised much money. As of the
last reporting date, the Yes side had $326,000 in hand, while opponents had
nothing.
Which means a measure with immense
potential effects on California’s future is being all but ignored.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias at
tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising
Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now
available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment