For Immediate Release: May 4, 1998

Anyone looking for some ....

Fresh Story Ideas?

Journalists tell us they are getting bored with the Prop. 227 story. That they are tired of working the same familiar angles week after week:

Latest Poll Shows Big Margin for Initiative ... Unz Blasts ‘Utter Failure' of Bilingual Programs ... Educators Differ on Best Instructional Approach... Immigrants Eager for Children To Learn English ... ‘Reform' Bill Stalls (or Advances) in Legislature ...

Covering the bilingual education controversy was exciting at first, our friends in the news media say. But it's just no fun anymore.

We're sympathetic to the problem and we'd like to help. Fortunately, UnzWatch is able to point out numerous paths to this story that remain virtually unexplored. We can also supply reliable leads, information, analysis, and sources. All reporters need to do is ask us about ....

Provisions and Implications of Prop. 227
Polls show that voters are largely unaware of the initiative's fine print. This means there's lots of potential here for enterprising journalists. Thus far, little or no attention has been paid to such questions as:

180 days to learn English — Prop. 227 would eliminate bilingual instruction in favor of an English "immersion" program "not normally intended to exceed one year" — 180 school days. What does educational research have to say about this time limit? Is there any evidence that one year is enough to prepare English learners for the mainstream? What if it isn't? Wouldn't students, teachers, and schools be unfairly penalized? Since children vary widely in their pace of second-language acquisition, why impose a time limit at all? Is the idea to save money by offering less than what many students need?

Impact on regular classrooms — How many teachers are prepared to cope with English learners' needs in Year 2, when 1.5 million of these students would be reassigned to regular classrooms? What would be the impact on their English-speaking classmates? Would the curriculum be "dumbed down" to accommodate students with language problems? Would such students be left behind? Or would all children suffer equally?

Restrictions on parental choice — Ron Unz claims he is pushing Prop. 227 on behalf of parents who want their children to learn English in nonbilingual classrooms. But current law already gives them the right to choose English-only instruction. By contrast, the Unz initiative would impose numerous restrictions on parental choice. For example, the 54% of California's English learners under the age of 10 would be ineligible for bilingual instruction unless they were determined to have "special needs" — i.e., labeled as "learning disabled" or "mentally retarded." All students would have to spend at least the first 30 days of school in English-only classrooms, regardless of what parents wanted or what educators recommended. And if "waivers" of the English-only rule were denied, parents would have no rights to appeal. Is there any justification for all this red tape? Or is it simply designed to frustrate parents' right to choose bilingual education?

Potential costs to taxpayers — Apart from the initiative's $50 million annual appropriation to train adult immigrants as English tutors, very little media scrutiny has been focused on the likely fiscal impact of Prop. 227. After children are mainstreamed into regular classrooms, how many would still need remedial instruction or grade retention — and at what cost? How many would be placed in astronomically expensive programs of special education? How much would California lose in federal funding now targeted for bilingual programs?

Personal liability for educators — Prop. 227 would authorize lawsuits against teachers, administrators, and school board members who "willfully" violate the English- only policy, holding them "personally liable" for financial damages and plaintiff's attorney fees. No doubt this provision would invite litigation by self-appointed "citizen watchdogs" against any educator who tested the limits of the English-only mandate. What would be the impact on teacher morale at a time when California is struggling to overcome teacher shortages? Would it drive many bilingual teachers into other occupations or into out-of-state schools where they could make use of their bilingual skills? What are the implications of this unprecedented step for other public employees?

Accountability for results — Prop. 227 would be a state mandate covering all school districts in California. Local school boards would be legally bound by it and the state superintendent of public instruction would be required to enforce it. The legislature would be unable to amend or repeal the measure without a 2/3 majority vote. If this dubious experiment fails, who would be held accountable? How could it be fixed?

Civil rights litigation — Would Prop. 227 provide children equal access to the school curriculum while they are learning English? Or would it violate English learners' right to an equal educational opportunity under Lau v. Nichols and other federal court decisions? If the initiative passes, California would likely face years of litigation and potentially the loss of billions in federal education subsidies. The U.S. Office for Civil Rights is currently investigating these questions. Yet the state's news media have entirely ignored it.

Impact on Programs for English Learners
Since the 1960s California has led the way, pioneering some of the nation's most innovative bilingual programs. But Californians remain largely unaware of these success stories. Shouldn't they know something about them before voting on an initiative that would dismantle virtually all bilingual education, whether good, bad, or indifferent? UnzWatch can refer journalists to exemplary bilingual schools in every corner of the state.

Two-way bilingual (a.k.a. dual immersion) education — More than 60 California schools offer programs that allow English-speaking children to learn a second language while minority children are learning English in the same classroom. Research has shown this to be a highly effective model in which both groups achieve fluent bilingualism, at no cost to academic achievement. Not surprisingly, two-way bilingual education has proved popular with parents of many language backgrounds. Now that it's about to be eliminated, these parents are organizing against the Unz initiative. Yet in the debate over Prop. 227, their voices have rarely been heard.

Educational Research on Questions Surrounding Prop. 227
Can children learn English in 180 days? Research has documented no educational program anywhere on this planet that has successfully taught children a second language for academic purposes in that arbitrary period of time.

What is "sheltered English immersion" and how would it differ from "sink or swim"? No one seems to know, including Ron Unz. Research shows that "immersion" can be an effective technique — but only when second-language "input" is comprehensible. That's why native-language instruction, which provides background knowledge that makes English more comprehensible, is a key ingredient in many successful programs.

Are English learners harmed by too many years in special programs? Here's a popular assumption we've noticed in many news stories. But it's unwarranted, as shown by a newly released study. It turns out that students who are "redesignated" as fluent in English — after an average of 4.8 years in special programs — outperform all other groups in the San Francisco Unified School District.

What approaches do other countries use with language-minority students? Various forms of bilingual education are common in many other nations — with excellent results.

Personality Profiles
We have seen a remarkable number of up-close-and-personal stories about Ron Unz, Alice Callaghan, Gloria Matta Tuchman, Jaime Escalante, and Fernando Vega — Prop. 227 leaders who are invariably portrayed as colorful characters. Yet we have not seen a single personality profile of their leading opponents. It's been a bit like a political campaign in which only one candidate gets pictured in the news media.

UnzWatch believes that our side would make equally good copy. We are not "faceless bureaucrats," but teachers, parents, community leaders, school board members, and educational researchers who have interesting stories to tell. Just ask us and we'll highlight a few. To cite one example ...

Prof. Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California has emerged as the chief nemesis of Ron Unz on the debate circuit — a renowned expert in English as a second language who can demolish Unz's spurious claims. Dr. Krashen has been flying all over California at his own expense to campaign against Prop. 227, drawing enthusiastic audiences in Salinas, Visalia, and Modesto, as well as San Francisco and Los Angeles. While his efforts have received coverage in the Fresno Bee and the Bakersfield Californian, they have thus far escaped notice by the state's larger media.