Prop. 58: A Trojan Horse to stop
English instruction
By Doug Lasken
Re-posted from the Orange County Register- https://www.ocregister.com/2016/10/20/guest-commentary-prop-58-is-a-trojan-horse-to-stop-english-instruction/"[The link will only work cut-and-pasted into a browser]
Re-posted from the Orange County Register- https://www.ocregister.com/2016/10/20/guest-commentary-prop-58-is-a-trojan-horse-to-stop-english-instruction/"[The link will only work cut-and-pasted into a browser]
Public memory is short when it comes
to complex education policy, such as that concerning bilingual education.
That is why the backers of Proposition 58, which would gut key provisions
of California’s landmark Prop. 227 (1998) feel free to re-write pre-227
history.
I was there and this is the true history.
Prior to passage of 227, native
Spanish speaking students in California were placed in classes where the only
language of instruction permitted was
Spanish. Prop. 58 supporters deny this, but I taught in such
classes for Los Angeles Unified and it is true. The district Bilingual
Master Plan decreed that all textbooks for native Spanish speakers must be in
Spanish and the language of instruction must be Spanish only. If the
teacher was not fluent in Spanish, an aide, usually without a college degree,
taught the academic subjects- math, social studies, history- in Spanish.
Thirty minutes per day was set aside for English as a Second Language (ESL), but this was conversational
only: No phonics, spelling, grammar or advanced English vocabulary could be used or
taught. The only way for Spanish-speaking students to study English was
to pass an extremely difficult test in Spanish. Most kids could not pass
this test until middle or high school, if ever. The result: the majority of Spanish speaking kids received almost no English instruction.
LAUSD had its own flourishes: Native
Spanish speaking parents were advised not to speak English
with their children because it would confuse them. At one staff
development we heard about “research” showing that people acquire languages
better the older they are. Yes, you read that right.
No wonder then, as a high school
teacher several years later, I encountered Hispanic teenagers who asked me why
they had not been taught English in elementary or middle school. I had to
explain that 227 had come too late for them.
The forces behind the misnamed
"bilingual education" policies included the textbook publishing lobby,
which procured vast fortunes printing Spanish textbooks, and lobbies within
teachers unions on behalf of Spanish speaking teachers who made $5,000 a year
extra. The system was also a job creator for administrators, with
hundreds of positions like “bilingual coordinator.”
It is disingenuous of Prop. 58 author
State Senator Ricardo Lara to say that Prop. 227 prohibited “multilingual
education”. On the contrary, 227 mandated study of more than one’s
native language. Lara also throws the phrase “English only” at 227, one
of the great slanders from “bilingual” supporters. 227 had nothing to do
with “English Only.”
Voters should read the text
of Prop. 58 carefully. It starts on a soothing note:
“(Prop. 58) preserves the requirement that public schools ensure students
become proficient in English.”
A problem soon appears:
“(Prop. 58) requires that school districts provide students with limited
English proficiency the option to be taught English nearly all in
English.” Under 227, learning English is not an “option,” but a
right. This significant and unsettling change is followed up with calls
for dual-immersion programs (though they are already allowed by 227), and for
parents’ right to pick how their children learn English (also provided in 227).
Because of the distortions of 227
from Prop. 58’s author and the lack of clear need for any of its
provisions, voters should be wary of this proposition. On November
8, vote No on Prop. 58.
Doug Lasken is a retired Los Angeles
Unified teacher, current debate coach and freelancer. Reach him at doug.lasken@gmail.com.
