This e-mail was sent by Ron Unz to supporters of Prop. 227 on Fri. 31 Aug 2001
06:33:21
Dear Friends,
Yesterday's papers carried several brief accounts
of the decision of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court
of Appeals eliminating the last significant
remaining legal challenge to Proposition 227.
That measure had required that under normal
circumstances "nearly all" classroom instruction
for immigrant students be in English. Teachers and
administrators who violate these provisions may be
sued by parents and held personally liable.
Unsurprisingly, this extremely potent enforcement
provision was immediately denounced as monstrously
unconstitutional and challenged in federal court by
the powerful California Teachers Association, which
lost its last plausible appeal yesterday.
Once again, a major public event---the complete
victory of Proposition 227 and its unprecedented
enforcement mechanism over California's most
powerful union in the important and generally
liberal Ninth Circuit---went almost unnoticed in
the media. The once-controversial Proposition 227,
which inspired so much alarmist rhetoric in 1997
and 1998, has now become a completely established
part of California's education landscape, with an
unbroken series of favorable federal court rulings
underpinning its legitimacy. A defeat in court
would have made headlines; just another victory is
"no new news."
This underlying reality is even acknowledged by the
small and dwindling band of California's fanatic
bilingual education holdouts, who---much like those
Japanese soldiers who continued to fight the Second
World War long after Sony and Toyota had conquered
America in a far different manner---refuse to
acknowledge that their religious cult has been
unmasked as fraudulent and rejected by almost
everyone except themselves.
One of the most energetic of these cult members is
Jill Kerper Mora, an intellectually unimpressive
professor of bilingual education studies who lives
in the same general area where other cult members
committed mass suicide in 1997 when their expected
UFO failed to arrive in the tail of a comet.
However, instead of drinking poison, Prof. Mora
chooses to write endless letters to the editor,
typically denouncing all the national media for its
completely biased coverage of her bilingual faith.
Her op-ed below continues that tradition, also
citing the recent work of Prof. Kenji Hakuta of
Stanford allegedly "debunking" the media's
unanimous verdict on the success of "English." The
extraordinary hunger of these bilingual activists
for even the smallest shred of hope is shown by the
recent reaction to a short note which Prof. Hakuta
added to his personal web page while on vacation in
Hawaii: without closely checking the facts, he
mistakenly suggested that pro-"English" Oceanside
had performed poorly on this year's test scores.
Within just 48 hours, that casual and mistaken
internet posting was being distributed by bilingual
activists throughout Arizona and the rest of
America as formal research conclusively "proving"
the failure of Proposition 227, a development that
astonished and horrified the good professor when we
recently had lunch at the Stanford Faculty Club.
UFO-worshippers are notoriously desperate to see
their rescue ship in the tail of every approaching
comet, and bilingual worshippers in every casual
internet posting.
Sincerely,
Ron Unz, Chairman
English for the Children
=======================
"Appeals court backs right to sue teachers for not
teaching in English"
Matt Sebastian, Contra Costa Times,
Thursday, August 30, 2001
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. _ Parents can sue their
children's teachers if they don't speak English in
the classroom, a federal appeals court ruled
Wednesday, upholding a key enforcement provision of
California's controversial Proposition 227.
The measure, adopted by voters in 1998, dismantled
the state's bilingual education system and included
a provision allowing teachers to be held personally
liable for not implementing the new law. The
California Teachers Association and several
bilingual education groups sued the State Board of
Education, alleging the liability provision
infringes on teachers' First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
decision, ruled Prop. 227's enforcement provision
is constitutional and not too vague, as the
teachers had argued.
"We do not believe that the situations where Prop.
227's application is uncertain will cause a
substantial chilling effect on legitimate speech,"
Judge Robert Boochever wrote for the majority.
But Judge A. Wallace Tashima complained the law is
insufficiently clear, so much so that enforcement
will be left up to parents' notions of whether
teachers are in compliance.
"The parental enforcement provision of Prop. 227
allows for what can best be described as a means of
legalistic ambush," Tashima wrote in his dissent.
Backed by 61 percent of the state's voters, Prop.
227 mandates that "all children in California
public schools shall be taught English by being
taught in English." The law also allows parents to
sue teachers or administrators who "willfully and
repeatedly" refuse to offer students "the option of
an English language instructional curriculum in
public school."
No parent, however, has ever sued a teacher for
violating Prop. 227.
"This really isn't an issue and I don't think it
ever will be," said Randall Olson, superintendent
of the Acalanes Union High School District.
"Besides, people can already sue you for any reason
they want."
Under the proposition, the state's 1.4 million non-
English speaking students are to be taught through
"sheltered English immersion," a transitionary
process during which classroom instruction is
"overwhelmingly" or "nearly all" in English.
The California Teachers Association, in its
lawsuit, argued Prop. 227 didn't clearly establish
when non-English languages could be used in the
classroom. The teachers alleged the law would have
a chilling affect on their right to free speech.
Priscilla Winslow, an attorney for the teachers
association, said she was disappointed by the
ruling, but pleased that the court at least made it
clear that Prop. 227 applies only to classroom
instruction, and not disciplinary action or outside
tutoring.
"Our members are also relieved that the majority
found that as long as teachers are following the
directives of the school district, they can't be
held to be willfully disobeying the provisions of
227," she said.
The association hasn't yet decided whether to
appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court,
Winslow said.
===============
"Teachers group loses challenge to portion of
Proposition 227"
Staff, Associated Press,
Wednesday, August 29, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO---The California Teachers Association
lost a federal court lawsuit Wednesday challenging
a provision of Proposition 227, the voter-approved
initiative requiring students be taught in English.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in agreeing
with a lower court, left intact the right of
parents and guardians to sue a teacher if the
teacher "willfully and repeatedly" violates
Proposition 227. The appeals court, ruling 2-1,
agreed with U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie,
who in 1999 rejected the CTA contentions that the
lawsuit provision is vague and violated teacher's
free speech rights.
No teacher has been sued for alleged violation of
Proposition 227, approved by 61 percent of
California voters in 1998. The measure abolished
most bilingual education programs for California's
1.4 million children who speak little if any
English, replacing them with English-only
instruction. In some cases, students can receive a
waiver to continue with bilingual classes.
The appellate panel ruled that the initiative
requires that teachers present the curriculum
"overwhelmingly" in English or "nearly all" in
English, Judge Robert Boochever wrote.
The CTA argued that such parameters make it unclear
when a teacher could be breaking the law. Boochever
ruled that, even if the law is vague, "the
Constitution must tolerate a certain amount of
vagueness."
In dissent, Judge Wallace Tashima disagreed.
"Teachers do not have fair notice of when and how
much English is required to avoid personal
liability."
===========
"Restricting bilingual education a public policy
failure"
Proposition 227 is a policy failure
Jill Kerper Mora, San Diego Union-Tribune
Thursday, August 30, 2001
Three years ago, in the June 1998 primary election,
61 percent of the California electorate approved
Proposition 227, a ballot initiative intended to
restrict bilingual education in the public schools
and replace it with English immersion.
An exit poll conducted by CNN/Los Angeles Times
estimated that 63 percent of Latino voters opposed
the initiative. School districts are required under
federal law to provide special language instruction
services for students with limited English
proficiency so they can learn English and also
recoup academic deficits they may incur while
learning the language. Proposition 227 did not
alter federal law requirements stemming from the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 for public schools to take
"appropriate action" to overcome language minority
students' barriers to equal access to the
curriculum due to lack of English proficiency.
Proposition 227 went into force beginning with the
1998-1999 school year. The law regulates education
for 1.4 million students who are classified as
limited English proficient, termed English language
learners (ELLs). ELLs comprise 25 percent of
California's total student population. Eighty-two
percent of these students are native Spanish
speakers.
We are now in the third year of implementation of
Proposition 227. A number of editorials and
commentaries have been published recently
proclaiming Proposition 227 and English immersion a
resounding success. However, the public is largely
unaware that many university researchers,
educators, parents and community leaders do not
agree with these editorial opinions regarding
Proposition 227's impact. In fact, educators and
professional organizations with expertise in
programs for educating language minority students
have declared Proposition 227 a public policy
failure.
Proposition 227's objective was to end the practice
of using languages other than English,
predominantly Spanish, as a medium of instruction
in public schools. Proponents claimed that
bilingual education was retarding students' English
language learning and therefore causing academic
failure and increased school dropout rates,
especially among Latinos.
The media rarely informed the public that
respectable, controlled scientific studies
consistently show that well-implemented bilingual
programs are effective. Accounts of bilingual
education's successes appeared infrequently in the
media, which focused on the politics of educating
immigrant students as a "wedge issue" in the
primary election campaign. Proposition 227's impact
on local control and decision-making power of
Latino parents in choosing how best to educate
their children was lost amid strong jingoistic
rhetoric about the importance of English and
assimilation of immigrants into mainstream American
culture.
In truth, bilingual education was never the
problem, so eliminating it as a means of educating
our growing language minority population has not
led to a solution. Most analyses of the bilingual
education controversy in the media fail to point
out the fact that only 15 percent of all Latino
students were ever enrolled in a bilingual program.
Yet, voters were led to believe that dismantling
bilingual programs would be the solution to the
educational problems facing Latino youth.
In a comprehensive study of the SAT-9 test results,
Professor Kenji Hakuta and his colleagues at
Stanford University found that reports attributing
score increases to implementation of Proposition
227 by politicians and the press are baseless and
that it is "misleading" to use SAT-9 data to
evaluate the impact of the law. Only 18 percent of
the ELLs in California schools moved from bilingual
classrooms into English immersion following passage
of Proposition 227. However, SAT-9 scores increased
at the same rate for all students, including those
in bilingual programs and those who never had
bilingual education. Hakuta found several school
reform factors that could account for test score
improvements for all California's students, as were
evidenced in the overall test results.
Proposition 227 has made bilingual education a
scapegoat for fears about immigration and society's
ambivalence about our growing cultural diversity.
It is disingenuous and irresponsible to declare the
anti-bilingual education policy a success based on
inadequate assessment and misleading information.
We must consider factual evidence and expert
opinions in evaluating its broader educational and
societal consequences.
Policy-makers, together with educators, parents and
community leaders, must reassess the impact of
Proposition 227 and garner the courage to repudiate
a law that limits the educational opportunities of
thousands of our most disadvantaged students in our
public schools.
Mora is associate professor of teacher education at
San Diego State University.