Debate appraises Prop. 227

Monday, June 1, 1998

Debate appraises Prop. 227

EDUCATION: Opponents of immersion claim initiative simplifies
complex problem

By Audrey Beck

Daily Bruin Contributor

At a debate on Thursday, supporters of Proposition 227 were
inundated with disapproval from an audience who will help decide
the future of bilingual education Tuesday.

If passed, Proposition 227 will require that all public school
instruction for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students be
conducted in English, for a period not normally exceeding one
year.

Thursday’s debate, sponsored by the Asian Pacific Coalition and
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano/a de Aztlan, featured two educators,
a UCLA student and a member of the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Education Fund (MALDEF).

Proponents of Proposition 227 focused more on the current
problems with bilingual education than the merits of an
English-only system.

Henry Gradillas, former principal of Garfield High School,
attributed his support for Proposition 227 to the gridlock in
Congress over improving bilingual education.

"Nothing is being done. No one else wants to tackle this issue,"
Gradillas said.

Opponent Gay Wong, an associate professor of education at
California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) said the main
problem with the initiative is "it provides a single-method answer
to a complicated problem."

Wong said that teachers must assess a students’ diversity, age,
educational background and socio-economic status when deciding how
to best teach a student, and Proposition 227 would eliminate this
type of process.

Panelists first addressed the implementation of the
initiative.

Alicia Sherman, a volunteer for the English for the Children
Campaign and a third-year sociology student, said classes that are
now bilingual would become immersion classes, utilizing visual aids
and dialogue exercises to teach English.

Opponents argued that the language of the initiative is vague.
Silvia Arqueta, a lawyer from MALDEF, said it lacks accountability
and flexibility.

Arqueta also pointed out that the initiative does not specify
who would assess the 1.4 million limited English proficient
children, nor does it describe what tests would be used to
determine if they had a "good working knowledge."

Proposition 227 states, "local school districts shall be
permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of
different ages but whose degree of language proficiency is
similar."

However, Sherman downplayed this as a common myth, saying that
the only times where this might occur would be in rural or small
school districts who can not afford a one-to-one student teacher
ratio.

Proponents pointed out that the initiative says nothing about
rural school districts.

Arqueta questioned the effect of being put in a class with much
younger children would have on a child’s self-esteem and desire to
learn.

The initiative would put LEP students in an English-only
classroom for one year and then move them in a mainstream classroom
unless the child’s parents filed a waiver. Opponents said the time
limit of one year is not enough to speak and understand English as
it pertains to academics.

Sherman said that a one-year time limit to learn English
included summer school, weekends and after-school.

One of the biggest issues of the night was the waiver program
proposal included in the proposition.

Proposition 227 requires a legal guardian or parent to visit the
school to apply for a waiver to transfer their child from the
English-only classroom to a bilingual program.

One will be granted in three cases: if the child already knows
English, if the child is 10 or older or if they can be labeled
"special needs."

The pro-227 panelists insisted that the waiver system puts the
control in the parents’ hands. In situations where a child has been
unable to learn English after a year, the waiver will provide them
with the opportunity to return to the bilingual education
program.

Wong doubted that parents would apply for waivers.

"Schools are institutions of government and authority and many
of the parents come from countries where you don’t mess with the
government," Wong said.

Wong also said many parents don’t have a strong command of
English and would be intimidated in an academic setting.

Proposition 227 also will hold teachers liable if they willfully
and repeatedly refuse to implement the initiative.

Supporters Sherman and Gradillas both insisted that this does
not mean a teacher cannot use a student’s native language, as long
as the overwhelming time teaching is spent in English.

However, Wong said that the phrase "willfully and repeatedly"
can be open to interpretation and she questioned what constituted
repeatedly.

Arqueta also said that this would create a hostile relationship
between teachers, parents and students who would feel compelled to
tell their parents if their teacher spoke in their native
language.

"Read the initiative and make up your mind. If you want to
reform bilingual education this is not the way. We deserve better.
Our children deserve better," Arqueta said.

AELIA KHAN

Silvia Arqueta (left) of the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund and Professor Gay Wong participate in a debate on
bilingual education.