FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 26, 2000

Prop 203 Advocates Fail to Respond to Criticisms of California Measure at ASU Law School Debate

 In a room filled to capacity at the ASU Law School today (October 26), proponents of Proposition 203, the English-only schools initiative, did not respond to lucid criticisms from opponents.

"Ron Unz promised to teach children English in a year, but after two years of his one year immersion program, only 5 percent of English learners could pass English proficiency tests statewide," said Jeff MacSwan, assistant professor of education at ASU, who debated Ron Unz and Margaret Dugan along with Sal Gabaldon, a Tucson educator, earlier today.

"Redesignation rates are meaningless. I've always said that," responded Unz.

However, even today the statistic can be found on the front page of Unz's website www.onenation.org. And he used the redesignation rate to criticize California's successful bilingual programs in every campaign speech during his struggle to crush bilingual programs in that state.

"Until now, Unz has defined failure in terms of redesignation rates. But now Renaissance Ron only wants to talk about test scores. That's the oldest trick in the book," said Gabaldon, who charmed the crowd with witty but poignant criticisms of Proposition 203.

Unz offered no responses to criticisms of the redesignation rate apart from claiming, contrary to fact, that he's never believed in it. MacSwan said Unz is a talented public relations person, but "a total failure  as an educational reformer."

"Unz managed to get the New York Times to focus on a single California school district, Oceanside Unified, an immersion school that posted some gains. And he got them to ignore Ninth Street School, where Unz staged his original campaign in California -- an immersion school where scores decreased after the conversion to English-only classes.And he got them to ignore Niemes School, a bilingual school where second grader readers' Stanford 9 scores climbed from the 11th to the 50th percentile -- a gain twice as impression as found in Oceanside," said MacSwan.

In Arizona, children in bilingual education programs consistently outscore peers in English-only classes at every grade level, every year statewide data has been collected. This fact makes the argument against bilingual education in Arizona much harder to make."Unz said nothing of substance; there are no good arguments for this initiative, and he proved that today," said Kellie Rolstad, an ASU assistant professor of education who attended the debate.

Contacts: Jeff MacSwan, (480) 965-4967;
Sal Gabaldon, (520) 617-7412;
Kellie Rolstad, (480) 727-7223.

Immersion "Success Story" Gets Failing Grade

School District Is Violating the Civil Rights of English Learners, According to the California Department of Education; English-Only Initiative Results in Less English Instruction; Students' Needs Are Routinely Neglected

CONTACTS:
Deborah Escobedo,  Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy
(META); 415-546-6382

Jeff MacSwan, College of Education, Arizona State University, 480-965-4967

The Oceanside Unified School District, the celebrated "success story" of a 1998 initiative restricting bilingual education in California, is failing to provide equal educational opportunities for language-minority students, according to the California Department of Education (CDE).

The district has engaged in numerous illegal practices that violate the civil rights of children learning English, the CDE determined in a year-long investigation. As a result, "large numbers of English learners" in Oceanside are "receiving grades of Ds or Fs and [are] also failing to meet grade promotion requirements," state investigators said in a 39-page report.

Sponsors of Proposition 203 in Arizona have hailed rising achievement test scores in Oceanside to vindicate the effectiveness of  "structured English immersion," the approach that their November 7 ballot measure would mandate statewide. That claim is highly questionable in light of the CDE's report.

Investigators found that, in reality, 53 percent of the district's English learners were assigned to regular, "mainstream" classrooms last year, where most received no special help with English. They also noted that Stanford 9 reading scores remained "very low" for a majority of English learners in Oceanside, especially in the middle and upper grades.

The CDE reported that the neglect of children's language needs was particularly severe at the secondary level, where a majority of students were assigned to remedial classes unsuited to their needs. Many were unable to take courses in science and social studies required for high school graduation, investigators said. At the elementary level, many students have been receiving no "structured English Language Development [ELD] instruction." In many schools, an "ELD curriculum was not available and/or the staff had not received training" in how to teach English, the CDE report said.

At all levels, the district violated state and federal laws by:

failing to monitor and address the individual needs of English learners;

failing to provide adequate "ELD instruction or access to the core curriculum";

failing to help students catch up with their English-speaking peers in subjects that were neglected in structured English immersion programs;

failing to employ staff who were qualified to instruct children in a second language; ailing to evaluate its programs for these students to determine whether they were working;

failing to inform parents of their options or to grant their reasonable requests for "waivers" of the English-only rule;

failing to establish parent advisory committees on English learner concerns; and

failing to provide an "alternate course of study" using bilingual methodologies.

The CDE's findings were released on September 29. The district has 60 days to initiate corrective action or it could lose state education subsidies. A parallel investigation is also under way by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Its findings are expected soon.

The state investigation was prompted by a complaint from the Coalicin Unidos por la Educacin de Nuestros Nios, a group of immigrant parents with children in Oceanside schools. The parents are represented by lawyers from Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy (META), and California Rural
Legal Assistance (CRLA).

"The release of this report confirms what the parents have stated all along," said Deborah Escobedo, an attorney for META. "The needs of their children have been flagrantly ignored for some time, while the district reveled in unsubstantiated press reports of success and national recognition for its implementation of its Proposition 227 plan, which has done nothing but hurt language minority children."
"This report may help the public view Oceanside's so-called 'miraculous' test gains a bit more critically," said Jeff MacSwan, a professor of education at Arizona State University.  "There are many competing
explanations for Oceanside's gains, and given the wealth of empirical research on this topic, immersion is the least likely," he added.

In the rush to report California's scores, few noticed that scores actually decreased in some immersion schools, such as Ninth Street School.  And in some bilingual schools, such as Niemes Elementary in the ABC District, second graders' reading scores rose from the 11th to the 50th percentile, an increase nearly double that of Oceanside's.  "These observations make it clear that immersion proponents have given a highly selective account of California's test scores," MacSwan said.

Ron Unz, who authored Prop. 227, likened the California Department of Education to Stalinist Russia and claimed that the report was politically motivated.  Opponents of Prop. 227 said that because the investigation antedates Oceanside's rise to fame, it is much more likely that Oceanside's failing superintendent Ken Noonan was attempting a pre-emptive political strike.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 19, 2000

Contacts:
Sen. Joe Eddie Lopez, (602) 542-4171
Alejandra Sotomayor, (520) 721-2677
Jeff MacSwan, (480) 965-4967

KAET Poll Question on Proposition 203 Misleading

TEMPE, AZ. -- A KAET opinion poll released today on Proposition 203 showed a majority of voters in favor of the proposal to ban bilingual education in our state, but the wording of the poll question was misleading.

Specifically, the poll question incorrectly indicates that Arizona's English learners are now typically provided with bilingual education classes, and it also incorrectly suggests that children would learn English in immersion classes faster than in bilingual education.

In a statewide telephone poll of 400 registered voters, KAET asked this question: "Proposition 203 would require all instruction in public schools to be conducted in English. Rather than bilingual classes, non-English speaking students would attend an intensive one year immersion program to teach English as quickly as possible while taking academic subjects. Will you probably support or oppose this proposition?" 71 percent supported the initiative, 20 percent were opposed, and 9 percent had no opinion.

Unfortunately, most voters do not know that only about 30 percent of English learners attend bilingual education classes, and that the vast majority are already in English immersion, the program model which Proposition 203 would require for all immigrant children in our state. The proposed law specifically repeals current Arizona statute which allows districts and parents to provide a variety of programs for children, bilingual education and English immersion among them, and which now gives parents the authority to request program changes. Under current law, principals are required to comply with a parental request for a change of program within five days.

The question posed in the poll very clearly suggests that immigrant children in Arizona typically attend bilingual classes. How would results have been different if the question were worded this way? "Proposition 203 repeals current Arizona law which gives districts and parents choice over how to best educate their immigrant children, including the option of bilingual education or English immersion, and requires instead that all English learners in the state be limited to the immersion option, in which they will be taught in English only. Will you probably support or oppose this proposition?" This question reflects the true effect of Proposition 203, and one can speculate that respondents would have answered very differently.

"If you support parental rights, you can't reasonably support Proposition 203," said Alejandra Sotomayor, a concerned citizen and Tucson educator. "That's just true by definition."

Stanford 9 scores of children in bilingual education have been consistently higher than those of children in English immersion in our state. Even so, bilingual education advocates want the choice of programs to belong to parents.

"If you don't like bilingual education, that's fine, that's your right," said Sen. Joe Eddie Lopez (D-Phoenix). "You have the right to put your child in a different program if you choose. But don't take the right to choose away from those who feel bilingual education is the best educational program for their child. That's what this initiative does -- it takes away choice for parents."

According to Leonard Basurto, who oversees Tucson Unified School District's bilingual and English immersion programs, only 87 out of 12,000 parents of English learners pulled their child from the district's bilingual education program in 1999. This means 99.3% freely chose to re-select bilingual
education for their children, or a 99.3% approval rating by parents of bilingual education students.

The poll question also incorrectly suggested that immersion will "teach English as quickly as possible" -- by implication, faster than bilingual education programs can do.

However, just a casual look at the rate at which children have been redesignated as "fluent in English" under California's Proposition 227, the model for our 203, shows that in many districts fewer and fewer children are being redesignated each year.

In Oceanside Unified School District, for instance, which English-only advocates point to as a model implementation of Proposition 227, only 4.1 percent of English learners were able to pass English language proficiency tests last year. That's the lowest redesignation rate reported by Oceanside in six years. By contrast, Vista Unified School District, which kept its bilingual program, redesignated 7.8 percent of English learners last year.

"The failure of Proposition 227 is striking," said Sal Gabaldon, an activist in the campaign to defeat Proposition 203. "Two years ago, Unz promised that all children would learn English in a period not normally to exceed one academic year -- that's 180 days in California, 175 in Arizona. That hasn't happened, and nobody seems to have noticed."

"Research indicates that it usually takes immigrant children three to five years to learn English well enough to meet redesignation criteria -- sometimes more time, sometimes less," said Jeff MacSwan, assistant professor of education at Arizona State University. "There's absolutely no evidence that English immersion teaches English faster than bilingual education does."

Suppose that the poll question used by KAET had been different in this regard too, leaving out the promise that immersion will teach English as quickly as possible. With both corrections, we have this:

"Proposition 203 repeals current Arizona law which gives districts and parents choice over how to best educate their immigrant children, including the option of bilingual education or English immersion, and requires instead that all English learners in the state be limited to the immersion option, in which they will be taught in English only. Children are expected to have learned English well enough to receive no further support after 175 school days. Will you probably support or oppose this proposition?"

Next time, KAET might try this one. Odds are good that the answers would be very, very different.

TEMPE. -- As backers of Proposition 203 make deceptive claims about California test scores, here in Arizona there is no doubt that children who learn English in bilingual classrooms are outperforming their counterparts in English-only classrooms.

The pattern is remarkably consistent. At every grade level over the past three years, Arizona children  in bilingual education have scored higher on the Stanford 9 reading test – in English – than children learning English through “immersion” alone, according to the Arizona Department of Education.

It is widely agreed that reading ability is one of the most important predictors of academic success for all students. Thus the superiority of bilingual education in cultivating English literacy is good news for the state’s Latino and Native American students, who have often lagged behind other groups in school achievement and completion rates.

Significantly, the reading advantage for bilingual education students in Arizona increased in the upper grades. This confirms the findings of research at the national level, which has documented the long-term benefits of bilingual approaches.

“There seems to be a significant difference between these two programs in the reading achievement of children learning English, and bilingual education has the edge,” said Dr. Jeff  MacSwan of the Arizona State University College of Education. “It is all the more impressive because the data are so consistent.”

Yet, despite this record of success, Proposition 203 would dismantle virtually all bilingual education programs in the state of Arizona. In their place, it would mandate a statewide, one-year curriculum of  “structured English immersion” – regardless of the individual needs of children learning English, the advice of educators, or the desires of parents. Local school boards would also have no say in the matter – regardless of how well existing programs were working.

Under current law, parents have the right to choose between bilingual education and other educational options. But under Proposition 203, there would be virtually no choice.

“Imposing this type of one-size-fits-all approach would be a terrible mistake,” said Alejandra Sotomayor, co-chair of the Arizona Language Education Council. “English-only programs have a history of failure for Hispanic and Native American students, and the latest Stanford 9 scores confirm that. People who really care about children’s pportunity to learn English effectively should support parents’ right to choose bilingual education.”

The Arizona Language Education Council is a nonprofit association dedicated to educating the public about the historical and present context of the education of language minority children in Arizona. We are parents, teachers, business people, tribal leaders, community volunteers, and researchers. We are united by our concern for the academic success of children learning English and other languages in our state.

TEMPE -- As the saying goes, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Selective use of statistics can be just as dishonest as outright fabrication of evidence.

As Exhibit A, we offer Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley millionaire who has single-handedly bankrolled Proposition 203, the initiative to outlaw bilingual education in Arizona. The measure would deny parents any choice in schooling for children learning English.

Mr. Unz, who sponsored a similar initiative adopted by Californians in 1998, is now claiming credit for "a huge rise" in the achievement test scores of immigrant children there. On this basis he hopes to convince Arizona voters to pass an even more restrictive English-only law here. His pitch sounds plausible -- until you learn the whole story.

It is true that the Stanford 9 test scores of English learners have been increasing in California over the past three years. But so have those of ALL types of students -- rich and poor, white and minority, immigrant and non-immigrant -- a fact that Mr. Unz conveniently fails to mention.

The pattern of steadily rising scores holds just as true for children from English-language backgrounds -- who were not affected by the English-only law, known as Proposition 227 -- as it does for limited-English-proficient
(LEP) children.

What's more, a new study by Stanford University researchers shows that students in bilingual classrooms are performing just as well or better on the Stanford 9 than those in English-only classrooms. About 12 percent of
LEP students in California continue to receive bilingual instruction at parents' request, down from about 30 percent before passage of Proposition 227.

The research team, led by psychologist Kenji Hakuta, randomly sampled the performance of LEP students in three different types of districts:
  - those that had never offered bilingual education;
  - those that eliminated bilingual education beginning in 1998-99; and
  - those that continued to provide substantial amounts of bilingual education after passage of Proposition 227.

It concluded that, over the past three years, Stanford 9 "scores rose for all students" in these districts. The study found "no clear pattern that could be attributable to Proposition 227." Indeed, "the rise for native English speakers from poor performing schools was dramatic and larger than for LEP students." (For more information on the study, see: http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/).

What do the rising scores signify? Researchers with no political axe to grind will cite multiple factors. In California, these include a host of simultaneous school reforms, including sharply reduced class size in the
elementary grades. Many districts, following disappointing results in 1997-98, have also devoted large amounts of time to preparing students to take the Stanford 9.

"Studies show that students always score higher each year on commercial tests," said David Berliner, Dean of the College of Education at Arizona State University. "There were gains of two points each year on the
California Achievement Test in the 1980's, and one and a half points each year on the Iowa test of Basic Skills. Annual gains nearly this high were also seen on the Stanford test. These kinds of test score increases are
likely to be a direct result of teachers knowing more about what is on the test and teaching those things better."

Of course, year-to-year, district-wide comparisons of achievement test data - which involve different students and lack controls for socioeconomic status and other variables - is a  crude way to measure program effectiveness, to say the least. The research base favoring bilingual education is much more solid.

"Controlled, scientific studies have consistently shown that children in properly organized bilingual education programs acquire English at least as well and usually better than children in all-English programs," said Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California. This was the conclusion of a review of research on bilingual education in Arizona by Krashen and two colleagues (available at: http://www.alec2000.org/research2.htm).

The Arizona Language Education Council (http://www.alec2000.org) is a nonprofit association dedicated to educating the public about the historical and present context of the education of language minority children in Arizona. We are parents, teachers, business people, tribal leaders, community volunteers, and researchers. We are united by our concern for the academic success of children learning English and other languages in our state.

PHOENIX -- The official ballot summary for Proposition 203, the initiative to outlaw bilingual education, is inaccurate and misleading, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled today in a lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. According to the three-judge panel, the Legislative Council failed to meet its legal obligation to provide an "impartial description" of the measure, which will appear on the November 7 ballot.

The high court ordered the Council to revise the summary to remove erroneous information before voter information pamphlets are printed next week. At issue was a paragraph in the summary that "mistakes existing law," the court found, by asserting that Arizona requires bilingual education for all children learning English. In fact, state law currently gives the parents of these students a range of options to choose from. These include not only bilingual instruction but also a variety of all-English methodologies, including the "structured immersion" approach that Proposition 203 would mandate statewide.

According to the Arizona Department of Education, less than one-third of eligible children are now in bilingual classrooms. The rest receive various forms of English-only instruction. In other words, the Legislative Council got it backward. Today in Arizona there is no statewide mandate for any particular approach in teaching
students who are limited in English. School choice is a right that is already enjoyed by the parents of these children. And Proposition 203 would eliminate this right, except in very limited circumstances.

On procedural grounds, the Court left intact another paragraph of the summary that, according to MALDEF, also conveyed a false impression. The Legislative Council asserted that "Proposition 203 allows parents to apply for waivers from participation in English immersion programs" under various circumstances, without explaining that their choices would be far more restricted than under current law. For example, the initiative would absolutely prohibit bilingual instruction for English learners under age 10 -- who make up the vast majority of
students now enrolled -- unless parents could prove that a child was "physically- or mentally-impaired." What's more, schools could arbitrarily deny any parent's request for bilingual instruction "without explanation or
legal consequence."

"These so-called 'waivers' are a sham designed to fool the voters," said Alejandra Sotomayor, a party to the lawsuit and a coordinator of the Arizona Language Education Council. "Parents now have the right to choose whether they want their kids in bilingual education or not. Proposition 203 would take away their right to choose in most cases. Simple as that." The initiative is also deceptive in claiming to promote "English for the Children" while limiting English instruction to "a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year." This would seriously disrupt English-as-a-second language programs, which typically last at least three years. "Research shows that most kids need much more than a year to learn English," noted Jeff MacSwan, assistant professor of education at Arizona State University.  "The problem with all-English instruction is that by the time
kids know enough English to understand the teacher they're already too far behind academically."

Indeed, bilingual education does appear to give children an important edge in student achievement. According to data reported by Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, children in bilingual education consistently score significantly higher in English reading than students enrolled in English-only programs statewide.

"We're trying to get the word out that this initiative is bad for kids," said Sal Gabaldon, an administrator with Tucson Unified School District and a concerned citizen. "We hope people will believe experienced educators and the data coming out of our own state department of education over the opinion of the politically ambitious software engineer who authored the initiative."

For more information, contact Alejandra Sotomayor at 520-465-0236 or email at asotomayor@hotmail.com, or the MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND in Los Angeles CA at (213) 629-2512 or Richard M. Martinez in Tucson at (520) 327-4797.

PHOENIX, AZ- Lawyers for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) went to court today to block a misleading summary of Proposition 203, the anti-bilingual initiative, from being presented to the voters. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Alejandra Sotomayor and Salvador Gabaldon, petitions the Arizona Supreme Court to reject the official analysis of Proposition 203, approved by the Legislative Council last month, because it contains inaccurate and misleading statements.

The Council is legally required to produce neutral explanations that fairly and accurately describe initiative proposals and their likely effects. "The Arizona Legislative Council has failed to perform a duty required by
law and have acted in excess of their legal authority in their description of Prop 203 which would appear in the publicity pamphlet for the November 2000 election. This summary would indeed be misleading voters as to the
meaning of Prop 203. The changes it makes and its effects if adopted would be irreparable," said Gabaldon.

The analysis incorrectly states that the existing laws in Arizona require that public schools provide unlimited bilingual education instruction to every student who is not fluent in English. Arizona revised statutes say
that school districts with ten or more Limited English Proficient (LEP) students must provide bilingual education or English as a Second Language (ESL) and that school districts with nine students or less must provide
bilingual education, ESL, or an individual education program.

Secondly, the analysis states, "Proposition 203 allows parents to apply for waivers from participation in English immersion programs if their child already knows English, is at least 10-years-old, or is a special needs
student." In actuality the initiative provides a waiver for children with special physical or psychological needs which take precedent over a child's lack of English proficiency.

The analysis also fails to describe the terms of waiver classes. According to the analysis if a waiver is granted, the student will be transferred to classes that teach English and other subjects through traditional bilingual
education instruction or other educational methods permitted by law. The initiative, however, says that schools with 20 students or more per grade who receive waivers shall be required to offer such classes. If not the
students must be allowed to transfer to a public school in which waiver classes are offered.

The analysis provided by the Arizona Legislative Council overstates the rights that parents would have under the initiative to obtain waiver programs for their children by omitting a significant limitation on the provision of waiver programs, Gabaldon said.

A similar situation in Colorado caused the Supreme Court to remove a proposed initiative to limit bilingual education off the ballot. On July 10 of this year it was ruled that the initiative failed to inform voters that
school districts would not be required to offer bilingual instruction if passed. The Rocky mountain news reported that the omission gave parents the false impression that they would have a choice between bilingual education
and one-year "English-immersion" classes in which students' native languages would be spoken sparingly. In reality, the initiative would have required most students to join mainstream classes after one year of bilingual
education.

"Prop 203 is not just about immigrant children. This punitive proposal would dismantle Native American languages across the state. The Navajo, Tohono O'odham, Pima and Apache tribes have adopted resolutions against this initiative," said Sotomayor, "This isn't about good educational policy. It is a politically motivated proposal that disregards that fact that children in bilingual education programs do better on English standardized tests than those in English immersion."

For more information, contact Alejandra Sotomayor at 520-465-0236 or email at asotomayor@hotmail.com. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND in Los Angeles CA (213) 629-2512 or Richard M. Martinez, Tucson (520) 327-4797