Bilingual Education and the Struggle for Reform

Testimony Before Boston City Council (25 March 2003)

Good evening esteemed Councilors, fellow Boston residents and supporters of social justice, bilingual instruction and authentic education reform. My name is Ty dePass, a resident of Jamaica Plain (ward 11/pct.8/district-6)--represented in Council by Councilman Tobin. I also co-chair the Education Committee of the District-7 Roundtable organized by Councilman Turner. And, tonight, I am testifying on behalf of the Organizing Committee of Boston Families for Education Reform, a new family-school-community coalition concerned with how the City of Boston plans to respond to the implementation of Unz Initiative/Question-2.

Others will no doubt speak to the ambiguities, contradictions and hardships posed by implementing an essentially suburban-based mandate to dismantle bilingual education in Massachusetts. But I will speak to the question of what we should reasonably expect from the promise of democracy—and why our laws and public policies so rarely yield any even approaching justice and equity.  In fact, re-examining the recent ballot initiative on bilingual education seems particularly appropriate at a time when we are told, repeatedly, that US troops committed to the hostilities against Iraq are there to defend our freedoms.

Specifically, we believe that the vote violated basic democratic principles by deliberately diluting or denying a voice to those most affected by the ballot outcome. And just as the 1996 vote to abandon rent controls favored the biases and ignorance of white, middle class suburbanites who neither gained nor loss anything from the outcome, November 5’s vote against bilingual education replicated this disturbing pattern of gerrymandered policy making.

In saying this, we recognize that language, culture and race have always been prominent as factors defining what “being an American” means. Yet, too often, immigrants and refugees to the US have confronted the bitter irony of having to renounce their homelands, customs and languages as part of the price of entry—checking who they are and what they bring to our society at the border. That said, it’s hardly surprising that researchers with Harvard’s Civil Rights Project would describe current debates over bilingual education as “contentious because they have turned into arguments over what type of society America should be, rather than, simply, over the best way to help children learn.” (“What Works for the Children?” June 2002),   

Proponents of “English for the Children” in Massachusetts built their electoral base on myths, half-truths and cynical misrepresentation of educational alternatives. In fact, the rhetoric of “English for the Children” intentionally obscures the critical public policy question: whether or not a child has the right to learn in a language s-he understands? Bilingual education has always emphasized recognizing and using the student’s cultural assets as the foundation for developing new academic competencies—including literacy in English as a second language.

“English for the Children” presented Massachusetts voters with a false choice between what they called “a failed experiment,” and a tested “common-sense” teaching approach. Yet, after five years, the annual rate of transition for LEP students in California is barely eight percent; the miraculous claims for “sheltered English-immersion” have proved disappointing in practice. By contrast, in Boston before Question-2, the annual transition rate from bilingual to mainstream classes was 25 percent, with nearly 80 percent exiting the program within three years. A reasonable person, comparing the performance of the Unz-endorsed immersion model in California to the program currently in place in Boston, might ask what “problem” is Question-2 supposed to fix?

For these reasons, Boston Families for Education Reform challenges the very legitimacy of November’s vote on this initiative. From our perspective, if voters in Hamilton, Wenham or Essex really want English-immersion, so be it (we can’t live there anyway)—but in Boston, this proposition was rightly rejected and we shouldn’t have to suffer for another’s ill-informed choice.

We’re asking the parents, many of whom are non-citizens barred from voting last time around, to state their position on the issue through a city referendum limited to bilingual families. To this end, we will request the cooperation of the School, Elections and other appropriate City departments. We are also seeking an exemption from implementation of this statute in the Boston school district.

We believe that, in a democracy, everyone affected by a public policy decision must be allowed the opportunity to influence or block that decision—and, failing that, parents and affected communities have the right and responsibility to resist implementation through all available institutional and non-institutional means.

In closing, we ask that Council, the Boston School Committee and Mayor Menino aggressively seek an exemption from the provisions of Unz/Question-2, saving programs that work for English language learners and reaffirming the City’s commitment to building a vibrant, equitable and inclusive democracy for all who live in this city.

 Finally, we ask that our local elected and appointed officials act immediately to visibly and publicly pressure the State Department of Education for a streamlined waiver process that will respect the needs of bilingual students and their families.  

#   #   #   #   #