The Cupertino Courier

Unz Initiative is unfair to kids

By Amanda Greenhalgh

On June 2, the voters of California will be faced with a decision that may alter the future of education. Proposition 227 mandates an end to bilingual education and forces all second-language learners to accept a one-size-fits-all approach to education. Furthermore, the proposition requires that all children learn their academic courses in English without any assistance in their native language. For children whose primary language is not English, this proposition presents serious repercussions for their academic endeavors and opportunities for success.

Stephen Krashen, one of the leading authors in the field of bilingual education, states that when we give children quality education in their primary language, we give them the foundations of education--math, science, history--in a manner they can understand.

The bottom line is that if we force children to learn academics in a language that they don't comprehend, they will lose the meaning of the instruction.

People often assume that if a child is educated through bilingual instruction, the child will not learn English. This is a misunderstanding due to the fact that bilingual education specifies instruction in two languages. Children learn English through bilingual education at a slower rate, so they do not lose any comprehension of the course curriculum.

There is no denying that learning the English language is essential, but forcing students with limited English proficiency to learn the language by sacrificing their academic instruction is not the answer. The main declaration behind Proposition 227 is that the public schools of California have a constitutional duty to develop productive members of society through education. Ron Unz, the author of Proposition 227, believes the answer lies in the ability to speak English alone. More importantly, how productive will English-speaking citizens be in society if they haven't learned math or science?

Krashen offers a useful analogy to bilingual education. Pretend you have accepted an attractive job offer in Paris, although you've never been to France, know little about Paris and have little knowledge of the French language. Before your departure, you have two options: The company hiring you will send you information in English regarding where and how to find a place to live, where to shop, how French companies function, specific information about your job responsibilities, etc. Or you attempt to learn the previous information through total immersion in the French language while struggling to survive. Sure, you will learn the French language much more quickly, but wouldn't your adjustment to the new situation be easier and more effective via the first option while slowly learning the French language? If you answer yes, you agree with the philosophy underlying bilingual education.

The Cupertino Union School District currently offers English-language development centers, available to students in all of its elementary schools. If Pro- position 227 passes, these programs will be eliminated, and the children who speak the myriad primary languages across Cupertino will be subjected to the biased measures presented in the proposition and will have less chance of academic success in the classroom. Join the California PTA, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Admin- istrators and the California League of Women Voters and vote no on Proposition 227.

Amanda Greenhalgh is a Sunnyvale resident and is currently working toward a multiple-subject teaching credential and an M.A. in education at San Jose State University.

[ Back to Contents Page | Cupertino Courier Home Page | Archives ]