Kenji Hakuta, Professor of Education, Stanford University

In June of 1998, the California electorate will vote on the "English for the Children" ballot initiative (Proposition 227), which proposes to dismantle the state’s system of bilingual education and replace it with all-English instruction for language minority children. The initiative was introduced by former GOP gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz and co-sponsored by a teacher and a former local school board member Gloria Tuchman (who is a candidate for State School Superintendent). This statement is my individual perspective on the initiative. My perspective is based on the following experiences: (1) as a researcher on the topic of language acquisition, cognitive development, and bilingual education for over 25 years; and (2) as an active participant in the policy development process, especially when there are opportunities to bring research knowledge to bear on important policy issues. Further information about my background can be found in my home page: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~hakuta.

Proposition 227 contains five main provisions:

• All minority language children will be placed in English language classrooms. Children who are limited English proficient will be taught through sheltered English immersion for a period not normally to exceed one year. Local school districts will be "permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of different ages whose degree of English proficiency is similar.

• Parents whose children are eligible for a waiver from the English only program and who wish to apply for a waiver must come to school personally to fill out the appropriate forms. The presence of twenty or more children with waivers at one grade level at a single school site triggers a bilingual classroom. If there are under twenty children with waivers at the same grade level then parents will be allowed to transfer their children to a public school that offers a bilingual program.

• Unless the child meets certain guidelines, parents will not be allowed to enroll their child in alternative programs, such as bilingual education. In order to be eligible for an alternative program, the child must be: proficient in English, age ten or older and have permission of the school principal and educational staff, or have identified special needs.

• English language instruction for parents and other community members will be offered either free of charge or at reduced rates, provided that parents and members of the community pledge to provide personal English language tutoring to children with limited English proficiency. Fifty million dollars per year will be set aside from state general funds.

• Parents will have the right to sue a school district, individual teachers or administrators who do not enforce provisions of the statute. Parents will also have the right to sue individual teachers or administrators who willfully and repeatedly refuse to implement the terms of the statute.

My bottom line is as follows: the initiative has one positive aspect, and many negative aspects.

The positive aspect is that it has brought to public attention the issue of educating language minority students. Thanks to the initiative, the public is now more aware than ever of the growing numbers of students with English language needs, and their educational condition. Polls in support of the initiative indicate that a broad segment of the population want reform. It is too early to tell if the polls indicate support for the specific provisions of the initiative.

The negative aspects are many.

1. Proposition 227 prescribes a one-size-fits-all approach to educating language minority children and diminishes local control. In a state as economically and ethnically diverse as California, no single educational approach will match the needs of individual school districts. Research clearly demonstrates that approaches to teaching language minority children have varied degrees of success depending on the resources of the school and the make-up of the classroom. Currently, the California Education Code allows school districts to choose among several types of English language development programs (including English as a second language, maintenance bilingual education, sheltered English, submersion, and others) according to existing resources and the needs of students in the district. This initiative effectively removes options from school districts, teachers, and local community members. Furthermore, the initiative places undue burden on language minority parents who may be limited English proficient and have little experience with the school system, by requiring them to go through a laborious waiver process (only if the child is older than 10, fluent in English, and scores above the 5^th grade level on standardized tests in English) in order to change their children’s language program. Current law allows parents to withdraw their child from a bilingual program, regardless of the child’s age, simply by written notification to the principal of the child’s school.

2. Proposition 227 focuses on children’s learning English at the expense of academic content. One of the provisions of the initiative is that all children who have limited English proficiency will be placed in a sheltered English immersion classroom, according to their proficiency level in English (not grade level), for up to a year and then immersed into a mainstream English program. There are several problems with this provision. In the first place, allowing children of different age levels to be placed into the same sheltered English classroom would confuse the teaching of meaningful academic content for an entire year. Secondly, the writers of this initiative assume falsely that one year is sufficient for children to learn English at a level high enough to engage fully in academic content of all subjects in English. Research has shown, however, that although children are able to quickly learn vocabulary and basic grammatical structures, attaining full proficiency usually takes between much longer than a year. This initiative would, therefore, result in a majority of the children falling behind in math, social studies, science and other academic subjects, thereby counteracting current federal and state efforts to raise academic standards for all students. Research amply demonstrates that program quality involves multiple factors, of which the language of instruction is just one. The goal of educational reform should be the continuous improvement in all instructional aspects of schools, not just ensuring that the environment is conducive to learning English.

3. Proposition 227 is not backed by any sound educational theory. Ron Unz has admitted to basing his initiative on what he refers to as "logic" rather than educational research. In contrast to Unz’ and his supporters’ claims, bilingual education is not an "experimental, new" program, but one that has strong research validation. Unz, on the other hand, proposes to implement "sheltered English immersion" programs, which is poorly defined and which may not be all that different from the "sink or swim" programs of the past that resulted in the educational failure of many language minority students. Unz has blamed bilingual education for the poor performance of many language minority students in California. However, consider this: only one-third of students with limited English skills are currently in bilingual education programs; the remainder are in all-English programs.

4. Proposition 227, while removing options, does not support the efforts of teachers. If the initiative passes, 1.4 million LEP students will be transferred into mainstream classrooms after only one year of receiving sheltered English instruction. In contrast to current California law, which requires that the State Department of Education provide appropriate training and establish minimum standards for bilingual education teachers, the Unz/Tuchman initiative only requires that "teaching personnel possess a good knowledge of the English language." The initiative allows for LEP students to be indiscriminately mixed in all-English classrooms with native English speaking students. Teachers, many of whom have never had LEP students in their classrooms, will all of a sudden be faced with having to adapt their curricula to address huge disparities in their students’ language proficiency and academic preparation. Without proper training for dealing with such an ethnically, linguistically, and academically diverse classroom, unprepared teachers would likely either ignore the needs of their LEP students entirely, or lower the level of the curriculum, thereby obstructing the academic progress of all students, including that of native English speaking students.

5. Proposition 227 contains no provision for program accountability. The Unz initiative requires all LEP students to be transferred into mainstream classrooms after spending time for "a period not normally to exceed one year" in a sheltered English classroom, regardless of the students’ level of progress during that year. While there are probably a handful of students who will acquire English at a high level after one year, research points to the fact that the majority will not. The initiative does not provide for any mechanism with which to assess students’ mastery of English or the success of the untested immersion program it proposes. Currently, the California Education Code requires school districts to assess the annual progress of English language learners. This initiative would displace that assessment requirement and put nothing in its place.

6. Proposition 227 most likely violates the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) as interpreted under the Lau vs. Nichols and Castañ eda vs. Pickard. By denying LEP students access to any meaningful content and replacing current instructional programs with an immersion program not based on sound educational theory, the Unz initiative goes against previous court rulings. While not mandating bilingual education per se, these rulings did require that LEP students be provided with an instructional program that is based in "sound educational theory" and that takes "appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation in the educational program of the district" (Castañ eda vs. Pickard (648 F. 2^nd 989 (5^th Circuit. 1981). The Unz initiative makes no provision for helping students catch up with their native English speaking counterparts after a year of not learning meaningful academic content because they are focusing solely on building their English skills. Furthermore, failure to provide any special training to teachers dealing with this population of students would most likely prevent even an educationally sound program from helping LEP students gain equal access to the educational programs of the district.

Conclusions

Despite claims to the contrary, children in California are learning English, irrespective of the type of instructional program in which they are enrolled. Instead of focusing our attention on the learning of English, we should probe into why, despite successfully learning English, many language minority students (80 percent of whom come from low-income families) do poorly in our schools. This initiative diverts our attention from this key issue, and instead drags us back into the 30-year old debate of language of instruction, a trap from which most serious educators are hoping to escape.

For comments or discussion, please contact Kenji Hakuta at (650) 725-7454 / kenji@lindy.stanford.edu or Daria Witt (650) 725-8411 / dwitt@leland.stanford.edu