Sunday, 15 October 2000
Arizona Daily Star
Prop. 203 stirs harsh memories of immersion English classes  <= Extremely Significant
By Ernesto Portillo Jr.

Sunday, 15 October 2000
Bilingual Education, What voters need to know
Arizona Daily Star
Sarah Prall / Staff

Prop. 203 costs could be high
By Pat Kossan
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 14, 2000

Native Americans rally against anti-bilingual ed initiative  <= Historical
By Daniel Gonzalez
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 13, 2000

Judge orders prompt action by Arizona on bilingual education
Arizona Republic
Associated Press
Oct. 13, 2000 15:13

Indians protest push for English
By Daniel González
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 13, 2000

12 Oct 2000 08:53:24 -0700
Ironic apology
U.S. government's mistreatment of American Indians continues today,
Navajo leaders say
Navajo Times
By Marley Shebala

"Support us on Oct 13"
10 Oct 2000
Touching Message From Navajo Elder

Story by José Luis Santos
Tucson Citizen
Oct. 10, 2000
Pleading case for keeping bilingual education

The Citizen's Opinion on 203
October 9, 2000
Tucson Citizen
Our Opinion
No on 203: Don't eliminate parental choice

October 9, 2000 | Updated Oct. 8, 2000
Window Rock,
Navajo Times, Navajo Nation
Dine´ College official blasts English Only

Test Exemption Random Between Bilingual Ed and English-only
From: Jeff MacSwan <macswan@asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Misinformation and more lies
09 Oct 2000

Prop 203 attacks the children of our newest citizens
Subject: Letter to Arizona Republic
08 Oct 2000

Why the paranoia over 6% of student population
Subject: Thank you for your NO on 203!
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000

Saturday, 7 October 2000
Indians fear Prop. 203 may destroy languages
By Carmen Duarte
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

CDE findings against Oceanside USD
From: Jill Kerper Mora [SMTP:jmora@MAIL.SDSU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 9:02 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 5, 2000
Immersion "Success Story" Gets Failing Grade

Letters to the Editor
Des Moines Register; Des Moines, Iowa; Oct 2, 2000;
`English only' sends message of intolerance

Mon, Sep 25, 2000
A LANGUAGE IS NEVER A LIABILITY
By Carolyn Alessio. Special to the Tribune.

[English Only] OCEANSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUND IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW BY DENYING IMMIGRANT PARENTS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR  CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM UNDER PROP.  227
Contacts:    Deborah Escobedo, META, (415) 546-6382, Cynthia L. Rice, CRLA, Inc. (415) 777-2752. Ismael Aviles (760) 439-5375, Dr. Alberto Ochoa (619) 594-6676

Ludicrous 203 would end your right to choose
by José Luis Santos, Tucson Citizen, Oct. 3, 2000

Prop. 203: It's about choice, not curriculum
by Joanie L. Flatt, Tribune, Oct. 1, 2000

Prop 203 would be step back, foes say
by Eric Westlander, Tucson Citizen, Sept. 25, 2000

Let's stand up for bilingual education, save parental choice
by Ernesto Portillo Jr., Arizona Daily Star, Sept. 24, 2000

English immersion, Proposition 203 opposed
Arizona Daily Star, Sept. 24, 2000

Ban on bilingual ed poisonous for state,
California import should head back west  <= Excellent Editorial
Arizona Republic Editorial, Sept. 17, 2000

Bilingual-ban Initiative Stirs Strong Emotions
By Daniel González, The Arizona Republic, Sept. 17, 2000

Tribes Oppose Arizona Bilingual Ed. Measure  <= Extremely Important !
by Mary Ann Zehr, Education Week, September 13, 2000

Bilingual Debate Gets Heated
by Daniel González, The Arizona Republic, Sept. 13, 2000

A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education  <= Very Important
by G. Richard Tucker, ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington DC, Aug 1999

New Diversity Has Firms Rethinking Language Issue
by Charles W. Holmes, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer, Sep 3, 2000

An Issue of Fundamental Fairness
by Jill Kerper Mora, Education News, Sep 9, 2000

Anti-bilingual education laws represent a significant incursion on
state and local educators’ dicisionmaking prerogatives
by Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.; Sep 9, 2000

Indians Hear BIA Apology, Arizona Tribes Want Action, Not Words  <= Very Important
by Mark Shaffer, Carol Sowers and Judi Villa, Arizona Republic, Sept 9, 2000

Arizona Saying Sí To Coast Trend   [ or, Why are we copying California? ]
by Richard Ruelas, Arizona Republic, September 8, 2000

Proposed English-only law opposed by Oklahoma tribal leaders
by Mary Pierpoint, Indian Country Today, Sep 7, 2000

Professor Defends Bilingual Programs
by Howard Fischer, Arizona Daily Star, Sep 9, 2000

California's English Immersion a Failure, Bilingual Education a Better Option
by John Petrovic, Alabama Mobile Register, Sept. 10, 2000

Cause of Higher Calif. Scores Sore Point In Bilingual Ed. Debate <= Very Important
by Mary Ann Zehr, Education Week, September 6, 2000

Test Scores Show Students in Bilingual Education Programs
Meeting or Exceeding the Performance of
Students in English Immersion Classrooms, <= Very Important
by Californians Together: A Roundtable for Quality Education, August 23, 2000

Test Scores Validate Bilingual Education
by Angelo I. Amador, Washington Times, Sept. 4, 2000

Lawsuit Protection For Teachers,
New Pay Scale Called For By State Superintendent Candidate
by Michael Barrick, Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sept 4, 2000

Second Language: In Bilingual Education, English Is Introduced The First Day
by Dr. Stephen Krashen, Chicago Tribunem, August 30, 2000

Research Commissioned By President Reagan And Released In 1991
Reveals Bilingual Education Leads To Academic Success
by Julie Neff-Encinas, Arizona Language Education Council, Sept. 3, 2000

Native Language Fluency Aids Academic Success  <= Very Important
by Brian Stockes, Indian Country Today, Sept 2, 2000

Going Global, International Schools Offer Overseas Education -- At Home
by Julie N. Lynem, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 30, 2000

A Rush to Judgment On Bilingual Education
San Francisco Chronicle, Sept 3, 2000

Bilingual Method Works,
by Delia Pompa, U.S.A Today, Aug 28, 2000

Group Says Bilingual Education Initiative Wording Still Misleading
by Daniel González, The Arizona Republic, Aug 26, 2000

Test Scores Don't Make Case For Banning Bilingual Ed  <= Very Important
by O. Ricardo Pimentel, The Arizona Republic, August 24, 2000

Test Scores Don't Tell It All,
North County Times (California) Editorial, Aug 24, 2000

Bilingual Initiative Case Goes Before State Justices
by Howard Fischer, The Arizona Republic / Capital Media Services, August 17, 2000

2 Additional Initiatives Face Lawsuits
by Kathleen Ingley and Daniel Gonzalez, The Arizona Republic, Aug 16, 2000

Bilingual Kids Have An Academic Edge
by Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen, May 1, 2000

2 Languages Better Than 1
by Linda Borg, Providence Journal, April 2000

Sunday, 15 October 2000
Arizona Daily Star
Prop. 203 stirs harsh memories of immersion English classes
By Ernesto Portillo Jr.

Nearly 50 years after Irene Escarcega entered a first-grade immersion English  class, she can still feel the sting of that experience.

"The teacher hit me with a ruler because I asked to go to the bathroom," she recalled of her 1-C class, the moniker given to immersion classes.

Her crime? She spoke Spanish.

Escarcega had violated the restrictive English-only rule that governed behavior in her classroom in Pirtleville, near the border city of Douglas. Escarcega would feel the teacher's heavy hand several times again in 1952.

"It's something I'd rather not remember," said Escarcega, a bilingual education teacher at Hollinger Elementary School on West Ajo Way.

In the emotional tug-of-war over Proposition 203, harsh memories from the days of immersion are resurfacing.

"If it passes, history will repeat itself," Escarcega said.

If the state's voters pass the initiative on Nov. 7, the one-size-fits-all immersion instruction method will again hamper future generations of limited-English students, said Escarcega and other bilingual education supporters.

The proposition was brought to Arizona by Ron Unz, a California millionaire, a non-educator.

It would end bilingual education. It would require English-only instruction in public schools.

Unlike California's 1998 ban on bilingual education, Arizona's version allows no option. Parents can't choose to have their children taught in their native tongue.

Today about 5 percent of Arizona's students are in bilingual education programs. Next year, all those children could be in immersion classes.

Many proponents of immersion went through similar programs themselves. They say: "We were immersed in English and we succeeded, so therefore it works."

But others, like Escarcega, say they succeeded in spite of immersion, not because of it. Immersion gave students just enough English to survive in a world of menial labor, they say.

In the Tucson Unified School District from 1917 to 1967, limited English-speaking students were all placed in 1-C classes. Sixty percent of those students did not finish school.

"The legacy of 1-C is that it was a misguided instructional curriculum," said former Pima Community College President Diego Navarrette, who was himself placed in 1-C.

"It worked at the premise that your (native) language was not worthy," he said. “I was lucky, I guess. When I entered first grade at Menlo Park Elementary School in 1962, I was not put in 1-C. I suppose I spoke English well enough to pass. Many of my neighborhood friends, however, were placed in 1-C. They were labeled as inferior from the get-go. They were ridiculed by fellow students and tagged as underachievers by teachers. They lost a year or more in laying a strong educational foundation. Many of them either struggled through high school or gave up.”

"It was a tracking system," said Navarrette, who attended Elizabeth Borton Elementary School. The stigma followed you through your career at school. "It produced fractured students," he said.

For many Hispanic, American Indian and Chinese students, placement in 1-C was automatic, "whether they knew English or not," said professor Mary Carol Combs of the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. There were major psychological consequences from being placed in 1-C, said Combs, who is co-authoring a comparative study on bilingual education policy in Arizona and Colorado.

* Contact Ernesto Portillo Jr. at 573-4242 or e-mail at netopjr@azstarnet.com.

http://www.azstarnet.com/public/dnews/001015BILINGUAL.html

Sunday, 15 October 2000
Bilingual Education

What voters need to know
Arizona Daily Star
Sarah Prall / Staff

Paying rapt attention to their teacher at Hollinger Elementary are, from left, Mark Cara, Vanessa Ramos and Myah Bellestri

To find out what information voters might need to make a decision about Proposition 203, the Arizona Daily Star brought together a panel of voters this month who were undecided but interested in the issue. The following questions were raised by the seven people who participated.

By Hipolito R. Corella and Carmen Duarte
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Q What would happen to the state's bilingual programs if Proposition 203 passes?
A Existing bilingual programs, in which a student's native language may be used in addition to English, would be dismantled, and all public school instruction would be conducted in English only. Children not sufficiently fluent in English would be placed in intensive English, or English immersion, classes "for a period not normally intended to exceed one year," the proposition says.

Q How can parents get bilingual education for their children if Proposition 203 passes?
A Parents may request waivers under very limited conditions, but teachers and districts "may reject waiver requests without explanation or legal consequence," the proposition says.

Parents may request a waiver if their child:
* Already speaks English OR
* Is 10 years old or older OR
* Has spent at least 30 days in an English language classroom and is found to have special physical or psychological needs above and beyond a lack of English proficiency.

Q How many students in Pima County are classified as not fluent in English, or Limited English Proficient (LEP)?
A According to the most recent state data, the numbers of LEP students in the county's six largest school districts are:

Tucson Unified - 12,345 of 66,234 total students.
Sunnyside - 4,214 of 14,338 total students.
Amphitheater - 1,531 of 17,355 total students.
Marana - 406 of 12,017 total students.
Flowing Wells - 264 of 6,079 total students.
Catalina Foothills - 77 of 4,855 total students.
Total number of students in the state classified as Limited English Proficient - 139,599.

Q What bilingual education programs exist in the Tucson and Sunnyside districts?
A In TUSD:
* The Bilingual-Bicultural Program, available from kindergarten through 12th grade, uses both English and Spanish for instruction. It is intended to teach competency in both languages.
* The English as a Second Language (ESL) Program, available from kindergarten through 12th grade, consists of daily instruction in English language development, including reading and speaking skills, and the development of academic skills in English. The program also develops an understanding of the history and culture of the United States.

At Sunnyside:
 * A transitional bilingual program, available from kindergarten through 12th grade, uses both English and Spanish for instruction. Under this program, the amount of Spanish used in instruction decreases as the student moves up in grade.
* English as a Second Language, same as TUSD.

* Individual education programs also are available at both TUSD and Sunnyside, as well as other districts, if parents request them or when there are fewer than 10 LEP students per grade per school. In them, the student's primary language is used for instruction in other subjects, to the extent possible. Community members, students and paraprofessionals assist students under the supervision of a bilingual- or ESL-qualified instructor.

Q How many Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in the state are in bilingual education programs?
A Of the 132,806 LEP students reported to be participating in programs:
* 18,175 participated in a K-6 transitional bilingual program.
* 3,239 participated in a 7-12 secondary bilingual program.
* 23,505 participated in a K-12 bilingual-bicultural program.
* 89,972 participated in an ESL program.
* 7,413 participated in an individual education program.
* 1,442 participated in an individual education program at a parent's request.

Q Do parents have a choice now over whether their children are placed in bilingual education programs?
A Yes.  According to Tucson Unified and Sunnyside school district officials, all requests parents submit to get their children out of bilingual education are granted.

Last year TUSD received 87 such requests, and Sunnyside received about 20.

But two Tucson parents contacted by the Star with the help of English for the Children, the group supporting the ballot measure, say it was not easy to remove their children from bilingual education programs.

Adriana Fernandez said she felt pressured by Leonard Basurto, TUSD's bilingual education director, and others to re-think her push to put her daughter in an English-only classroom at Keen Elementary.

"My daughter is very timid, but she is fine. My daughter is now in second grade and she is learning. She is learning English in school and speaks Spanish at home," Fernandez said.

Amparo Martinez, who has a son and a daughter at Lynn- Urquides Elementary, said she faced similar hurdles. She said her desire to have the children in English-only classrooms was ignored by school leaders for two years.

 "My daughter was learning English and Spanish. I liked that. When my son was in kindergarten, they only spoke Spanish. They only did the Pledge of Allegiance in English. I thought to myself, he could be going to school in Mexico," Martinez said.

 "I told my children we have to be superior in English so that we do better in life. My children are doing well in English," she added. "They speak Spanish with me at home."

Q How long are students in bilingual education programs now?
A Both TUSD and Sunnyside officials said that, on average, students stay in bilingual programs from five to seven years.

In 1998-99, 132,806 LEP students in the state were in bilingual programs; 54,320 were assessed for English proficiency; and 7,312 were reclassified as English-proficient.

Of the 7,312, 48.8 percent were in bilingual programs four years or less before being reclassified.

Q How do standardized test scores of graduates of, or students in, bilingual education compare to average students' scores?
 A For the 1998-1999 school year, the TUSD averages on the Stanford 9 test
were:
* Reading - 48, language - 47 and math - 50.

In that same year, students who were originally classified as Limited English Proficient and later reclassified for mainstream classes scored:
* Reading - 48, language - 49 and math - 52.

Q What impact does bilingual education have on dropout rates, if any?
A Students at TUSD's Pueblo High Magnet School are the most likely in the district to have had bilingual classes sometime during their schooling. There,  the dropout rate among Hispanic ninth-graders has been:

19.59 percent in 1995-1996
16 percent in 1996-1997
8.6 percent in 1997-1998
6.2 percent in 1998-1999
5.1 percent in 1999-2000

By comparison, Hispanic students at TUSD's Rincon High School are less likely to have taken bilingual education classes. There, the dropout rate among Hispanic ninth-graders has been:

10.45 percent in 1995-1996
 4.4 percent in 1996-1997
 8.6 percent in 1997-1998
10.5 percent in 1998-1999
10.4 percent in 1999-2000

There are myriad reasons students quit school, and schools across the city tackle prevention efforts differently. The comparison in this answer is not a full picture of what occurs at Pueblo or Rincon.

Q What languages do Arizona students primarily speak?
A State figures of student-reported language show:

* Primary English speakers - 528,264
* Some home language other than English - 200,980
* Primary Spanish speakers - 162,538
* Primary speakers of Navajo - 18,695
* Speakers of other than Spanish or Navajo - 19,702

Q When would Proposition 203 take effect?
A A spokeswoman for Gov. Jane Hull said the law becomes effective as soon as the governor signs a proclamation. Generally that occurs about a month after the election.

Hector Ayala, co-chair of English for the Children, said he believes the measure would take effect next school year.

A state Department of Education spokeswoman said officials from the department and the Attorney General's Office would meet soon to figure out when and how Proposition 203 would affect classroom instruction.

Q What happens to students after one year of English immersion if they still don't know English well enough to be placed in mainstream classes?

 A The proposition does not address this. It does say that students will be put in mainstream classes "after they have acquired a good working knowledge of English and are able to do regular school work in English."

 Q Do school districts provide bilingual education for limited-English students whose native language is other than Spanish?

 A No. Most non-English-speaking students who speak languages other than Spanish receive ESL instruction.

 * Contact Hipolito R. Corella and Carmen Duarte at 573-4191.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Star's special report from April 9-12, English for the Children, is still
 available online at StarNet.

By Pat Kossan
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 14, 2000

A November ballot proposal to replace bilingual education with a one-year English immersion program could cost school districts more, not less, money, an education researcher warned school administrators gathered Friday in Tempe.

The bad news came the same day a federal judge in Tucson ordered the state to  start figuring out - right now - how much it would cost to bolster already under-funded bilingual education programs. Study results must be ready for legislators in January.

A year ago, in a case filed against the state by Nogales Unified School District parents, the court ruled the state's underfunded bilingual program violates federal law

The court order stands whether or not voters decide to dismantle the state's existing bilingual education in the Nov. 7 election. Any new funding instead would be put into English immersion classes and teacher training.

J. David Ramirez, a researcher from California State University at Long Beach, can't understand why the measure would pass in Arizona. In a state where parents can choose to educate their children at home or send them to the country's widest selection of charter schools, why would residents vote to limit educational choices for kids who don't speak English? Ramirez asked. He was here to share his early research from a similar California law passed two years ago.

"It's a major violation of parental rights and local control," Ramirez said about Proposition 203. "If we do it to this group, what other group can we start disenfranchising. Why not special education?"

If Prop. 203 passes, Arizona school administrators should be prepared for more lawsuits, Ramirez said.

For his part, the federal judge plans further rulings on the lawsuit, which also demands that teachers of limited-English students be trained and certified.

Ramirez said that will be costly. If children are limited to English immersion classes, those teachers must be trained to ensure children get core math, reading, science, and history subjects at the same time, he said.

All teachers also need to be trained to help children catch up in their language skills after they are moved into mainstream classes, Ramirez said. It takes about five years for kids new to English to catch up with English-proficient classmates, he said.

Reach the reporter at pat.kossan@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8960. The Associated Press contributed to this article.

[ In today's Tribune EV entitled "Ariz. ordered to properly fund bilingual education: Judge gives state until end of next legislative session; move may cost $65 million," by Howard Fischer at Capitol Media Services. Excerpt:"However, Judge Marquez said that even if Arizona voters approve Propostion 203 and abolish bilingual education programs there is evidence the state will still need to spend more than the $19.5 million it now allocates for students with limited English-speaking skills." ]

By Daniel Gonzalez
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 13, 2000

Several hundred Native Americans rallied at the state Capitol today against a ballot initiative to dismantle bilingual education in Arizona, the largest Indian protest there in memory.

The two-hour rally, preceded by a march through downtown Phoenix, brought together children, elders, and tribal leaders representing many of the state's 21 federally recognized tribes in a demonstration of unity against the anti-bilingual education initiative.

Several aging members of the Navajo Nation who served as "code talkers" during World War II also participated as reminders of the role their language played in winning the war when messages transmitted in Navajo could not be deciphered by the Japanese.

"The Navajo language won the war," said a sign carried by one of the protestors against Proposition 203, which would replace bilingual education in Arizona with a one-year English immersion program.

Although targeted primarily at Latino children classified as limited English speakers, many Native Americans fear the initiative could have the unintended consequence of eliminating programs on or near reservation schools aimed saving tribal languages from extinction.

The timing of Proposition 203 is unfortunate, they said, because it comes just as Native American tribes in Arizona were beginning to gain state support for language revitalization programs.

They said the measure represents a throwback to the days when Native Americans were forced to abandon their centuries-old languages and cultures, a policy which they said led to many of the social ills plaguing reservations today.

"It's that 'kill the Indian save the man' viewpoint," said Rick Leonard, a member of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Leonard develops learning materials for the tribe's O'Odham Piipaash language program.

The leaders of English for the Children, the group spearheading the campaign to pass Proposition 203, contend Native American tribes will be able to continue their language programs because tribal sovereignty will override the state measure.

But that assumption remains far from certain.

So far, a similar anti-bilingual education initiative approved by California voters in 1998 has had no effect on language programs on Indian reservations in that state, said Andrew Andreoli, who oversees Native American education for the California Department of Education, and is a member of the Hupa tribe.

The Hupa and the Yurok tribes in northern California have continued language revitalization programs under the assumption that tribal sovereignty supercedes the state law, but no one has challenged them in court, Andreoli said.

He pointed out, however, that unlike in Arizona, the vast majority of the Native Americans belonging to the 104 federally recognized tribes in California speak English, and very few speak their native tongue, eliminating the need for bilingual education programs on reservations.

In Arizona, there are 19,000 children on the Navajo Nation classified as limited English speakers who could be affected by Proposition 203, said William Holm, an education specialist for the tribe.

Many of the children from the Pascua Yaqui Tribe near Tucson attend bilingual Spanish-English programs in the public schools and also receive instruction in their native Yaqui language, said Amelia Reyes, the tribe's language and cultural preservation specialist.

State Sen. Jack Jackson, D-Window Rock, said he could not recall a larger Native American protest at the state Capitol since he was elected 16 years ago. Crowd estimates ranged from 400 to 750 people, said Debra Krol, of the Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs.

Ron Carlos, a member of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, said the tribe started programs on the reservation five years ago to help children learn native languages - Maricopa and Pima - before they are lost forever.

Carlos said he is afraid those tribal language programs could be dismantled if Proposition 203 passes.

That would be a shame, said Larry Schurz, special assistant to the superintendent of education - only about 20 speakers of Maricopa remain.

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1013bilingulalorder-ON.html
 
Judge orders prompt action by Arizona on bilingual education
Arizona Republic
Associated Press
Oct. 13, 2000 15:13
 
Criticizing proposed additional years of delay, a judge today ordered the state to quickly study how much it would cost to bolster underfunded bilingual education programs.
 
Senior District Judge Alfredo Marquez ordered that the study results be ready for legislators when they start work on the next state budget in January.

"The only answer we can come up with right now is we'll go faster," state Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan said. "I don't think it will be as meaningful a number."
 
Marquez ruled in January that state underfunding of bilingual education violates federal laws on civil rights and equal funding of education. The case stems from a lawsuit filed against the state by parents in the Nogales Unified School District.
 
The Education Department had proposed that it go to the Legislature during next year's session to get $300,000 for the study, which would be finished by mid-2002. The Legislature then would consider bilingual education funding needs in 2003 when it approves the next two-year budget.
 
"The court is not surprised" by the proposed delay, Marquez wrote, citing the years it took the Legislature to replace an unconstitutional system for school construction finance.
 
However, the state's "brazen argument" that it needs more time to study the effectiveness of various bilingual education methods ignores that state-approved methods are generally regarded as sound if properly funded, Marquez wrote.
 
The problem, he wrote, is that the state has not provided adequate funding for teachers, teacher aides, classrooms, tutoring and instruction material in bilingual education and general courses.
 
Marquez noted that legislators this year rejected several proposals to proceed with the study and to fund it.
 
"Contrary to the information provided this court in January of 2000, the state has not even taken the first step of conducting the cost study," he wrote.

Tim Hogan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the order. "This is another case where the Legislature is ignoring their responsibility," he said.
 
Keegan said the state will not appeal. "We're arguing over a timeline. We don't disagree that these kids have been left behind. Where we disagree is what is most effective for these kids."
 
Marquez noted that Arizona voters will decide in November whether to dismantle bilingual education. He said the cost study still would be needed because students would be put in one-year English-immersion programs in Proposition 203 passes.
 
The state in June settled much of the lawsuit by promising to strengthen policies on testing, individual plans for students and monitoring of schools' efforts.
 
Marquez plans further proceedings on a remaining part of the case: the lawsuit's demand that teachers of students learning English have special training and certification.
 
The state agrees they should but contends that a short supply of such teachers makes it impossible for the state to guarantee they can be provided.

By Daniel González
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 13, 2000

Native American communities are mobilizing against a Nov. 7 ballot initiative to dismantle bilingual education in Arizona, saying it could harm their efforts to preserve tribal languages.

Proposition 203, which would replace bilingual education in Arizona with a one-year English immersion program, is aimed primarily at the 140,000 Latino children classified as limited English speakers. But some Native Americans fear that the measure could end or restrict programs aimed at saving tribal languages that are nearing extinction.

Maria Mendoza, chairwoman of English for the Children, the group spearheading the campaign to pass Proposition 203, said the measure was not intended to include Native Americans.

"In all honesty, we were not thinking it would affect them in this way," she said.

The group assumed that the tribes would be able to exercise tribal sovereignty to override Proposition 203 and, therefore, did not include language in the proposed law exempting them, she said.

Nevertheless, Mendoza said, she believes that dismantling bilingual education in Arizona would benefit Native Americans and argued that the role of public education is to teach children to read, write and speak in English, not preserve native languages.

"These children need to learn English, too, and we cannot keep them isolated so that they can enjoy the American dream that all others are enjoying except them and Hispanics," she said.

"I think the tribal leaders should be focusing on getting their children to learn English. Why do they want to keep them as prisoners in their culture and their heritage? Don't they realize their kids have dreams, too, and the only way you can get ahead in this country is to learn English?"

That attitude inflames several Native American leaders in Arizona, who view Proposition 203 as the latest in a long history of attempts to strip Indians of their languages.

"The language is part of the culture. All the traditional teachings, the way of life, the culture, are all embedded in the language," said LeNora Fulton, an administrator for the Division of Dine Education on the Navajo Nation, the largest of the state's 21 federally recognized tribes.

The governments of four tribes have passed resolutions opposing Proposition 203, and hundreds of Native Americans are expected to march against the measure this morning in downtown Phoenix. The march will end with a rally at the state Capitol.

There are 17 distinct tribal languages spoken in Arizona.

Some Native Americans fear that Proposition 203 could dismantle programs at many schools on or near reservations where students are either taught in their native tongue or spend part of the day studying their tribal language. These programs are designed to keep such languages alive.

As many as 19,000 children in the Navajo Nation could be affected by Proposition 203, says Wayne Holm, an education specialist for the Navajo Nation.

Robert Russell, a retired Arizona State University professor considered one of the state's foremost experts on Indian education, said research has repeatedly indicated that Native American children thrive best when their language and culture are maintained.

"All the education will be worthless if the child doesn't know who they are," he said. "It's an asset, not a liability, and the people who are saying it's a liability don't know what they are talking about."

Kelsey Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation, said there is no clear legal opinion on whether federally recognized tribal sovereignty would allow the Navajo Nation or any tribe in Arizona to override Proposition 203.

Eleven lawyers are studying the matter, but none has reached a decision, he said.

Ron Unz, a California millionaire bankrolling Proposition 203, says that the California Department of Education obtained a legal opinion stating that a similar initiative passed by voters there in 1998 would have no effect on Native Americans because of tribal sovereignty.

But Begaye said no one has been able to locate that legal opinion, and even if one exists, there is no evidence it would apply to Arizona.

California Department of Education officials could not be reached for comment.

Debra Krol, who edits the Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs newsletter, said the issue regarding tribal sovereignty in California had not been legally tested. The California Board of Education had advised tribes to assume sovereignty and ignore the law, she said. But there is no guarantee that would happen in Arizona, she said.

Patti Likens, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Education, said state officials have yet to determine whether Proposition 203 would affect tribes. Officials plan to meet with lawyers from the state Attorney General's Office to discuss it, she said.

Attorney General spokeswoman Patty Urias said the office has a policy of not giving legal opinions on initiatives until after elections.

The Hopi Nation last week passed a resolution opposing Proposition 203. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Navajo Nation also have done so.

The Navajo Nation is paying for two buses to transport people from the reservation in northern Arizona to Phoenix to take part in the march and the rally, said Margorie Thomas, a Navajo who serves on the Chinle Unified School District's Board of Education and is a retired teacher and school administrator.

"A lot of the Navajo parents don't speak the language anymore, and we are losing the language," Thomas said. "We are trying to keep the language alive."

Teachers instruct in Navajo to reinforce language skills and to help children grasp concepts they don't understand in English, she said.

If Proposition 203 passes, Thomas said, she plans to stop speaking English .

"I'm going to throw out the English language," she said. "I'm not going to speak it anymore. I'm not going to hear it. I'm only going to speak my language."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.navajotimes.com/National/national.html

Ironic apology
U.S. government's mistreatment of American Indians continues today,
Navajo leaders say
Navajo Times
By Marley Shebala
Staff Reporter

WINDOW ROCK - Navajo Nation leaders aren't satisfied with an apology from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs for historical massacres and the forced relocation of American Indians.

Navajo Nation Council Speaker Edward T. Begay said, "It's sad that Indian people had to wait so long to get this apology and ironic that, when it finally comes, it is from a federal official who is an Indian himself.

"The entire government needs to put forth this apology rather than an Indian accepting moral responsibility for crimes that were committed against Indian people by non-Indians," Begay added. Begay and the council's Government Services Committee Chairperson, Ervin Keeswood Sr., also noted that the mistreatment of American Indians by the federal government is not a problem of the distant past.

The Government Services Committee has oversight responsibility over the Navajo Nation executive offices, which includes the president's office and the Division of General Services.

Begay said, "The chronic under-funding of Indian programs, the lack of serious economic development initiatives on Indian lands, and the direct attacks on Indian sovereignty by politicians like Slade Gorton, show that the attitudes which led to the crimes that Mr. Gover is now taking blame for are alive and well in American political society."

Keeswood, Sr. said, "What Indian people really need are assurances that there has been a real change in the hearts of federal politicians so that this mistreatment will never again occur.
 
"Navajo people have been subjected to forced relocation by the United States government since 1975, and it's still going on right now in the Hopi Partitioned Lands," he said.

Keeswood was referring to the Navajo-Hopi-US Land Dispute, which the federal, Navajo and Hopi governments claimed had ended in 1997 with the implementation of "accommodation agreements" - the 75-year leases between the Hopi Tribe and Navajo families on Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL).

Kee Shay, 85, a relocation resister living on the HPL, is  currently in Hopi tribal administrative court fighting an exclusion order issued by the Hopi Tribe to prohibit him from continuing to live on his ancestral homeland.

Keeswood said, "Gover's apology is about historical mistreatment and what Indian people need is to have an end to the current mistreatment. We don't want to have to wait for another apology in another 100 years."

Gover, a Pawnee Indian, apologized on behalf of the BIA during a ceremony in Washington, D.C., that marked the BIA's 175th anniversary, which was attended by hundreds of American Indian leaders, federal administrators and BIA employees on Friday (Sept. 8).

He recalled that from the very beginning, the U.S. used the Office of Indian Affairs, which later became the BIA, to enforce the removal of the southeastern tribal nations. Gover said, "By threat, deceit, and force, these great tribal nations were made to march 1,000 miles to the west, leaving thousands of their old, their young and their infirm in hasty graves along the Trail of Tears."

He said, "As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes. War necessarily begets tragedy; the war for the West was no exception."

The Navajo Times contacted Navajo Nation President Kelsey Begaye, Hopi Chairman Wayne Taylor, Zuni Gov. Malcolm Bowekaty and the White House for their comment on Gover's apology but none had responded by press time.

Touching Message From Navajo Elder

I've received this touching message from Marjorie "Grandma" Thomas, a Navajo elder. Marjorie is an incredible person.ALL should support her request!

I urge you to rearrange your schedules, take time off work and travel to Phoenix to support this extremely important historical event.Bring your children, your family and your colleagues.This is an opportunity to defend basic human rights for all children and their parents.

Please read the following message.
 

Dear Friends,

Please forward this message to everyone youcan.We need help with press releases, we need speakers, we need donations and we need you to show your support.

Ron Unz says that Proposition 203 does not apply to Native Americans. Proposition 203 does apply to all Native American students in all of Arizona's public schools.It does apply to all of Arizona's languages. I urge everyone to support us in a march to the state capitol on Friday, October 13 to let Arizona know.Native American languages need to be protected.

Don't the supporters of Prop 203 know that our Navajo Code talkers were instrumental in winning World War II for the United States by using our language, the Navajo language?Whydon't they appreciate the contributions our veterans made to keep our country free? Why don't they leave our language and our schools alone.

We, Native Americans love our language.Without our language we won't have a culture.We want to pass our language and our culture to our children and grandchildren.Native American grandmothers want to tell their grandchildren their stories.This gives our youth self identity, pride and confidence.Without our language we are nobody.

Many people ask, "Why can't parents teach their children the language at home?"Many parents can't.They need help from the schools.Schools once tried English Immersion on us.Many of us were severely punished when we spoke our langue in schools.Some of us didn't want our children to be punished so we did not teach them our Native Languages.Today not all parents know how to speak the language and are unable to teach their children.

Join me on October 13 at 9:00 am to take our message to the state capitol. Support us.Help us.Our language is so important I will do anything I can to protect it.

Grandma Thomas
Grandmother, language teacher, youth advocate and school board member. Details: The march in Phoenix to the state capitol will begin at 2nd Ave and Washington Street at 9:00 AM.

Story by José Luis Santos
Tucson Citizen
Oct. 10, 2000

Pleading case for keeping bilingual education

Twenty-eight days until Election Day, and the fate of bilingual education rests in your hands. I urge you to look to the experts on Proposition 203.

How was Proposition 203 conceived, and by whom? Ron Unz, the California magnate who spearheaded the anti-bilingual education movement in California, brought his campaign to Arizona when he preyed upon and successfully persuaded Mary Mendoza of Tucson and Margaret Garcia of Glendale to file the "Application for Initiative."

The California millionaire provided the template used to complete the application, set up the headquarters for the campaign and stocked it with hard cash. It was a seamless process akin to a corporation entering a neighborhood community overnight and setting up shop unbeknownst to the community.

The financier persuaded the two anti-bilingual education promoters to write into the initiative application a section that denies parents the right to choose bilingual education, and outlaws it altogether. Clearly, the two disciples were puppeteered into writing a much more pernicious initiative. The inclusion of the expanded, damaging section was a case in "lessons learned" from California.

In fact, it is a strategic section that attempts to eliminate bilingual education once and for all. That is enough of Proposition 203's genesis.

How are we going to vote in Arizona? The voters should be aware that there are opposing views on the proposition. Non-experts in education hold one view, and experts in education hold another. Their views are diametrically opposed. The non-experts gave birth to the proposition absent any evidence. The experts are trying desperately to present the facts to the voters.

Unz leads the cast of non-experts under the guise of "English for the Children." The pseudonym group is deliberately providing voters with misinformation. Unz is not an Arizona resident. He is not an educator. He is not an expert. Yet the campaign that is being waged has managed to put into action a masterful strategy that is deceitful, much more destructive than its predecessor in California and as cancerous as its clone in Colorado. The strategy was effective in California and has the potential to be more effective in Arizona.

The premise of the proposition is that immersion is a technique that is superior to bilingual education. The campaign asks you to accept Unz's premise based on a single report from Oceanside, Calif. The report is hardly any evidence for immersion. It is devoid of any testable facts.

Obtaining Arizona residency requires more proof than the proof provided by Unz and others. Moreover, educational experts have already debunked this sole "proof," citing various confounding factors and various untruths.

The Arizona Language Education Council leads the cast of experts in Arizona. The group is a non-profit association dedicated to educating the public regarding education of language-minority children in Arizona. They are parents, teachers, business people, tribal leaders, community volunteers and researchers.

Specifically, the group is interested in the academic success of children learning English and other languages in our state. Researchers in Arizona and in the education field, particularly in the language-acquisition area, are experts. They devote their entire lives to researching the best pedagogical techniques. They conduct empirical studies that yield testable results. They challenge each  other and continuously advance the knowledge base in this area.

Most important, they have reached almost unanimous consensus on how best to transition non-English monolingual students to English proficiency. They are the most qualified individuals to speak to language-acquisition methods and their effectiveness. They are the experts.

In Arizona, the experts have pointed the voters directly to the evidence that bilingual education programs are successfully producing English-literate students. According to the Arizona Department of Education, students in bilingual education programs consistently outperformed their English-only counterparts for the past three academic years in English reading on the Stanford 9 test.

I implore you to re-evaluate your position on Proposition 203 if you currently support the measure. I urge you to look toward educational researchers who have almost unanimously agreed that well-implemented bilingual education programs produce English-literate students. They are the experts. Make a sound and educated decision by considering what the experts have to say.

Sound decision-making requires you to look to the evidence. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Proposition 203. Moreover, the fact that an entire research community on bilingual education has reached near consensus is astonishing.

Experts agree! I contend, and so should sensible people of Arizona, that we should look to educational researchers who spend their lives advancing an educational knowledge base for our children.

Voters and legislators should seek expert advice when shaping Arizona's educational policies.

José Luis Santos is a Ph.D. candidate at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. His column appears on Tuesdays. E-mail: jsantos@tucsoncitizen.com.

It seems like a noble undertaking: Require Arizona children who don't speak English fluently to learn it as quickly as possible so they can be assimilated into the mainstream of American life. And supporters of Proposition 203 hope voters will probe no deeper into the measure before next month's general election.

But take a look at the details of the proposition and it immediately becomes apparent that this is a hateful, divisive initiative designed to force all children to be taught the same way - regardless of the needs of individual children, the professional opinions of educators or the wishes of parents. If passed by voters, the proposition would repeal bilingual education laws and require that all classes be taught in English. Pupils not fluent in English would be given one year to learn the language - a year during which they also would be expected to learn other subjects and keep up with their English-speaking peers.
Fix bilingual education, don't eliminate it

There is no doubt that there are serious problems with Arizona's bilingual education system. Students can languish in the programs for years, never becoming proficient enough in English to move into regular classes. There have been attempts in the Legislature to put a limit on how long students can be in bilingual education classes. Three years has been seen as a reasonable period. But those efforts have failed.

Nonetheless, Proposition 203's approach - to force all children to learn English in only one year - is not the answer.  This is not a new idea. It is a throwback to a way of teaching that has been tried and rejected. From 1917 to 1967, the Tucson Unified School District had a virtually identical "learn-it-quick-or-else" program. More than 60 percent of Hispanic students dropped out of school.

Under current bilingual education programs, which would be banned by Proposition 203, the Hispanic dropout rate is 17 percent. And only 6 percent of Hispanic students in bilingual programs drop out.

Proposition would eliminate parents' choice  Parents who do not want their children taught in bilingual education classes can now opt out. But the initiative would forbid more than one year of bilingual instruction unless a parent wrote a 250-word statement explaining what "special needs" the child has that require more time. Schools could accept or reject the request "without explanation or legal consequence."

Why should parents be denied the opportunity to place their children in any legitimate education program they wish? Teachers would also be prohibited from using their professional judgment in deciding how best to teach individual students.

Arizonans did not ask for this polarizing measure to be placed on the ballot. It is on only because a California multimillionaire got a similar measure passed in California. Thus emboldened, he came to Arizona, wrote a more restrictive initiative and has spent more than $130,000 to tell us how to teach our children. He is the only person who has contributed money to the passage of Proposition 203.

Bilingual education should be improved, not junked. Arizona does not need this divisive measure cleaving our state. The Citizen strongly urges a "No" vote on Proposition 203.

****
[ We should point out two things:
(1) There has been no official report documenting failures or problems in bilingual education. It is heresay and anecdotal. There are probably more stories about bad algebra classes.
(2) If 203 passes,there is no going back. If it passes, it is nearly impossible to get it modified, let alone removed:
Sec. 5 of Prop 203. Application
"The provisions of this act cannot be waived, modified, or set aside by any elected or appointed official or administrator, except as through the amendment process provided for in the Arizona constitution. " ]

Navajo Times
Navajo Nation

Dine´ College official blasts English Only

TSAILE, Ariz. - If you ask Benjamin Barney, interim vice president for Academic Affairs at Dine´ College, how he feels about the English Only Proposition 203, you'd better have some extra time on your hands for the answer. Barney has some strong feelings about this subject.

"This makes no sense," he said. "What's wrong with these people? Is Tucson all English? We should not be limited to just English. I believe students at Dine´ College, for example, should be proficient in at least two languages at graduation. This proposal threatens the rights of teachers, principals, and superintendents. If this passes, these individuals could be sued for teaching any other language than English."

Barney believes this issue strikes at the heart of a person's identity and that it is also a nationality issue. He believes kids have a right to be bilingual and that knowing more than one language is a great benefit for students' learning and their ability to be proficient in language.

"Language is self identity," he said. "Speaking and understanding Navajo has become very important from a psychology and sociology point of view. Linguists say it is important to have more than one language. This 'English Only' proposal is a very narrow minded point of view. It would be like if we said, 'Sheep are the only important animals. We should get rid of cattle. We should destroy all coyotes and other animals. Sheep are the only animals worth preserving.' This is a terrible way to think."

Barney pointed out that at the Olympics being held in Sydney, Australia, English is not the most prominent language being used.

"I use Navajo language at least a quarter or a third of my time at work talking with students, staff, and faculty," he said. "There are many bi-literate, bilingual teachers, principals and superintendents. How can
 you shut down an experienced group of professionals of this size when they have been trained to perform this work?

"People will be sued for speaking their own language if his proposition is passed," he said. "We want our children to have the opportunity and the right to understand and function in their first language as well as other languages. We want them to be able to survive in Phoenix, Europe, Africa, China, or anywhere they may choose to travel. This is not a good idea. This is oppressive and divisive."

It's important to talk about these items of misinformation,

Dugan said: "All students should be tested on the Stanford 9. Fifty percent of more than 100,000 bilingual students in the state are not tested."

In 1999, there were 103,110 LEP students enrolled in grades 2-11. Of these, the state reports that districts exempted 28,359.That means that 27.5% of students were exempted. But that year the test switched from a grades 3-12 testing program to a 2-11 testing program, and that may have caused lots of data to have gotten lost.35.8% of students who might have been tested in 1999 have no data reported to the state. We don't know whether they were tested or not, and we don't know their test results. So it's not quite right to say that 50% weren't tested, but it is right to say we only know the results of 49.4% of the 1999 LEP students.

Unfortunately, we only have this information as a statewide aggregate. We don't know what the breakdown is by program type, but there's no reason to think that more bilingual education students were exempted than ESL students, or that data was lost for more bilingual education students than ESL students.

In 1998, things went much better. 16.5% of data was unreported, and 15.4% of students were exempted, from a total of 71,042 students who could have been tested.In 1997, 26.3% of 64,586 students were exempted.We don't know about lost data that year, as far as I can see.

In California, the proportion of students tested was a bit higher, but not great.In 1998, 20.6% of students were exempted; in 1999, 13.1% were exempted; and in 2000, 9.1% were exempted.

I think three important points should be emphasized with regard to exemptions:
1. If some of the Arizona data was lost, we can guess that the loss occurred randomly and was not associated with particular programs. As such, there is no reason to doubt that the results are representative of statewide differences between bilingual and ESL programs.
2. In Arizona, the exemption law makes sense from a design/measurement point of view, but in California it does not.Arizona's LEP kids can be exempted for up to three years because the test is given in English and its results are not valid for non-English speakers.In California, exemptions are made at the request of parents, and could be solicited, for all we know, by districts eager to raise scores.
3. The results in Arizona give us a good picture of how students do academically after they've learned enough English to show us the true effects of our programs.Kids in bilingual education consistently outperform kids in ESL.

Sent to Arizona Republic:

Thank you Arizona Republic.It is scary to see that a group of seemingly non interested people would attack a proven means for teaching children.As you point out in your EDITORIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NOV. 7 GENERAL ELECTION, Prop. 203 will be bad for Arizona.

Imagine teaching in a state which has already fallen for the misled finger pointing.I have seen students who were progressing in the seventh grade, falling behind in English, Spanish and academics in the eighth grade because I was not allowed to reinforce the classes in a language the students could understand. I left that district for a district who does allow parental choice. For those who claimed that I and other bilingual teachers were only in it for the money, I am proud to say that I took a $5,000 decrease in pay to make the move.

Now California is exporting our failed law.One school district has been advertised as the prime example of achievement, yet if our anti bilingual education law had worked as promised, all districts would not have to be promoted by Mr. Ron Unz.

This is a political movement to promote a political extremism.Mr. Ron Unz has written in conservative media inviting Republicans to follow his lead.Bilingual education seems to have been the perfect target, it misleads many who don’t know the facts and only hurts a small group who for the most part have no vote yet or political voice.What a shame: attacking the children of immigrant and migrant students.Not much political money for this group to defend its demand to progress their children in our society.And in California, not much political backbone from the population to protect the interest of educating our newest citizens.

Again, thank you Arizona Republic.You have studied the issues and decided a no vote on 203 was best for Arizona.I agree, from California I ask: Vote no on 203.

Denis O’Leary
Bilingual Teacher

Dear Arizona Republic:

Your editorial today gave an excellent review of the many fine reasons to vote no on Proposition 203.As a parent of very successful students in quality bilingual education programs, I hope to not lose my right to select this option.Although as many as 1/3 of students who are limited English proficient use bilingual education, there are also children like mine, bilingual from birth, who want this option. Overall the population of Arizona students who are in bilingual education is less than 10% (I've heard as low as 6%).Why all the fuss over such a small group?Why the paranoia?

Reasonable, thoughtful Arizonans who believe in individual civil rights and choice in public schools must vote NO on Prop. 203.Thank you for letting them know so clearly why that is true.

Sincerely,
Julie G. Neff-Encinas
Tucson, Arizona

[ The insensitivity of the English-only advocates is astonishing: Notice what Hector Ayala stated about Native American languages being at risk: ”The tragedy with the Navajo is not that they are losing their language. It is a problem they can solve on their own.” Because of past BIA policies of relocation, boarding schools, and language and culture eradication programs many of the Native American languages have been lost, and many are now in danger. To have an attitude of insensitivity and letting them “solve it on their own” we are committing the same old oppression against the Native Americans as our forefathers did. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STOP OPPRESSING NATIVE AMERICANS? PLEASE, LET US HELP THE FIRST RESIDENTS OF THIS GREAT CONTINENT AND VOTE TO HELP AND PRESERVE NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES -- VOTE NO ON PROP 203. ]

Keep in mind that Oceanside USD is the "stellar" school district offered to us by the ECHAR campaign as the  model of Proposition 227's "success." Yet, after two years of "strict implementation" of Proposition 227 and structured English immersion in OUSD, the results are these:
 
Standardized test scores in reading have risen only to the average state for all ELL students. The OUSD redesignation rate has fallen from 7.9% in 1996 to 4.1% in 2000.
 
The school district is in violation of state and federal law that guarantee LEP students access to the core curriculum and assurances that they will recoup any academic deficits they incur while they are learning
English.
 
Latino parents have been marginalized and denied full and equal participation in decision making regarding their children's education, including through formation and participation in state mandated parent advisory groups. These parents were forced to seek legal redress for these violations of their civil rights because the district would not respond to their concerns.
 
The school district has an incoherent and poorly implemented program for teaching students "as rapidly and effectively as possible" as the law requires.

The district does not have a sound and effective program for recouping the academic deficit students incur while learning English.

The progress of ELL students is not being carefully assessed and monitored to ensure that they are making academic progress. This includes a failure to disaggregate data on students' progress according to the type and duration of special services they receive.
 
Oceanside's administrative and program implementation decisions demonstrate that school districts will carry out discriminatory acts that deny students equal access to the core curriculum under the aegis of Proposition 227.
 
Eliminating instruction in students' native language, mostly Spanish speakers in Oceanside, has not resulted in a quick fix for the challenges of educating language minority children.
 
These are important talking points for our side. What we can conclude from the Oceanside case is that this is the best we can hope for under 227.

Average performance for ELLs, really no better than before 227 and certainly no better and even worse than well implemented bilingual programs. Violations of parents' and students' civil rights. Denial of parental choice and marginalization of parents in decision making. Incoherent programs. No  recuperation of academic deficits. Lower redesignation rates, indicated slowed, not accelerated, English language learning. It must be judged and FAILURE when 227 not only fails to keep any of its lofty promises, it in fact makes matters worse for parents, students and communities.
 
I believe that the whole 227 thing is becoming to come unraveled. Yesterday I gave an inservice presentation for teachers at a middle school that has an upcoming CDE compliance review. I met with a resistance, even some hostility, as I showed them the data on HOW LONG IT TAKES TO LEARN ACADEMIC ENGLISH. These teachers are just waking up to the fact that they have been sold a bill of goods. Many were angry because they have bought into the propaganda that by eliminating bilingual education the "problem" of language minority education would be solved.

I was the bearer of bad news in this regard, telling them that in fact the problems they face as middle school teachers of a "majority minority" school population are even worse than before following 227 and elimination of bilingual programs in the elementary grades and in their own school. They are now the ones who are complaining about this rather than my having to point it out. They are feeling dumped on by still having the responsibility for responding to federal and state legal requirements for ELL students and haven't yet figured out who exactly is to blame for their dilemma.

As my dear mother used to tell her daughters, "Don't be mad at me. I didn't create reality, I am only pointing it out."
 
Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education
San Diego State University
Phone 619 594-6110
FAX 619 594-7828
Website http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 5, 2000

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.