With Election Day nearly upon us one issue that stands out to educators, parents, and students alike, particularly those with an immigrant background, is the controversial ballot question number 2, also known as the Unz initiative. If passed, this proposition will mean replacing the existing bilingual education programs in public schools with a one-year immersion program in English for all immigrant students.
The Human Rights Working Group at UMass Boston recently held a dialogue focusing on the impact of this new system. Panelists discussed how it would replace a working, although imperfect, program with one that is potentially harmful. It would take away the ability of parents and teachers to determine how best to educate children and most disturbingly, will allow the parent of any child’s legal standing to sue for enforcement of the provision, opening the door to lawsuits against teachers.
Ron Unz, a multimillionaire from California, began the English for the Children initiative in 1997 after learning of boycotts by Hispanic parents against Spanish-language programs in Los Angeles. He drafted Proposition 227 and personally led the campaign to pass the measure, achieving a victory in his home state in 1998. He then assisted activists in Arizona to pass their anti-bilingual education initiative. Mr. Unz has now established a national advocacy organization, English for the Children, which is currently working to eliminate bilingual education in Massachusetts and Colorado and plans to do so throughout the country.
The forum titled “Language is a Human Right! Save Parental Choice in Bilingual Education,” called for Massachusetts’s residents to vote no on question 2. The forum began with a group of high school students, members of the Coalition for Asian Pacific American Youth (CAPAY), performing an entertaining skit illustrating the difficulty foreign students face throughout their schooling experience if they are unable to achieve fluency in English at a young age.
Margaret Adams, department head of Bilingual and ESL services in Brockton Public Schools, then took the stage to dispel what she explained were the “top ten lies of the Unz Initiative.”
Proposition 227 claims to correct issues concerning the state’s weak bilingual education system by replacing it with a one-year English immersion program. Unz asserts this will be more effective and efficient than bilingual classes that can last as long as five years, unnecessarily cost the State money, and aim to develop a student’s native language ability rather than English. Unz claims that his program is working in California, improving test scores among young immigrants by 50%. He also claims that Latino’s especially are falling behind in schooling because of the current bilingual system and that most immigrant parents prefer their children not be given special treatment.
Ms. Adams countered each of these points explaining that, on average, students spend only 2.7 years in the bilingual education programs and up to 80% leave the program after three years, ready to attend mainstream classes. Also, Adams stated that bilingual programs aim to teach English and employ native languages only for support. She doesn’t believe Latino students who are falling behind were ever in bilingual programs, and she discussed studies that prove these programs increase the chance of a student graduating. Statistically she illustrated that the current bilingual system in Boston is far more effective than the immersion program in California while concurring that there is much room for improvement.
Ms. Adams challenged Unz’s claim that immigrant children in California have rising test scores, because scores of all students in the state went up. In fact, students in English immersion programs showed less improvement than mainstream students.
On the issue of parental opinion, Adams explained that parental consent is vital in every program, and that parents can remove their children by simply asking. If question 2 passes, there is only one choice left for all parents and teachers.
She doesn’t believe the initiative will save the state money. Rather, it will spend more money due to dropouts, and on special education of children falling behind in mainstream classes. Training teachers for the new program will be another added expense.
She explained that although Unz is trying to downplay the fact that teachers may be taken to court for breaking rules laid down by the proposal, it is a central issue. The referendum will allow teachers to be sued up to the child’s eighteenth birthday. She fears, “teachers will lose their homes and go bankrupt over this,” for the crime of teaching a child in a language other than English.
She concluded by stating, “The biggest lie is that this is about teaching children English,” exclaiming that in fact, “this is about people furthering their own political agendas and pushing that agenda against immigrants and people of color.”
Berta Berriz, a bilingual educator for Boston Public Schools, explained her own background in biculturalism, being a Cuban American, and she provided comparative data of students in Boston and California that suggested implementing the Unz initiative would be counter productive to local students.
Berta feels, “The Unz initiative is in violation of democratic principle [as] voters will be taking away choices of a few parents whom this affects.” Most immigrant parents don’t have the right to vote and so will not be able to participate in the decision.
She also discussed The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University that studied the initiative and concluded, “One year is not enough time to become proficient in English, one type of program shouldn’t be imposed on all schools and that more effort should be spent improving existing programs rather than debating how to replace them.”
Finally, Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, took the podium to give his opinion on the Unz initiative. He took a broad view of the subject drawing parallels between it and the voting down of affordable housing, and pointed out the recent trend of the government targeting immigrants, outlining some of the horror wrought by the Patriot Act.
Mr. Tuner said, “The education committee of the District 7 Round table studied Unz’s proposal and found it racist, anti-immigrant, and a perversion of the democratic process.”
He explained that since individuals unaffected by this proposition will decide its fate, it isn’t unlike the “well financed campaign orchestrated by large property owners that brought down affordable housing programs in 1994 by winning the support of predominantly white middle class suburban electorate, most of whom were not effected by the outcome.”
Chuck Turner illustrated the bigger picture claiming, “This not only relates to the education of children, but to the soul of our country. The values that underline the laws we develop as a society. If the laws are not reflecting the principles of human rights, justice, and the diversity of culture, then we are losing our moral caucus as a country.”
He turned to recent actions of the American government that he saw as anti-immigrant. He said the Patriot Act, “has eliminated constitutional protection that we hold dear for good reason as human beings, and is being focused on the immigrant community. There are thousands of immigrants being held incognito in jails across the country.”
He concluded by saying “we need to assure that human beings are respected no matter their gender, color, or how recently they were immigrants. We have to fight the Unz initiative, [the] Patriot Act and President Bush’s warlord policies.”