Deukmejian Vetoes Bill on Bilingual Education : Cites Legal Spending Limit, Calls for Review of Programs Set to Expire at End of School Year

Gov. George Deukmejian, citing a legal limit on state spending that could affect next year’s budget, vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have extended bilingual education programs until 1992.

With bilingual education classes scheduled to stop at the end of this school year, Deukmejian called for a study to determine whether this is a cost-effective method of teaching students who do not speak English. He indicated that if the classes were found to be cost-effective, in his view, there still would be time to extend them before they actually expire.

The Republican governor, racing to take action on more than 170 measures by a Tuesday midnight deadline, also signed two bills designed to help produce a vaccine for AIDS. But he again vetoed legislation that would have prohibited discrimination against AIDS victims in employment and housing.

Deukmejian also signed 25 bills aimed at combatting crime, including legislation to protect witnesses from retaliation by gang members, keep violent offenders in prison and allow judges to order convicted criminals to pay up to $10,000 in restitution to their victims.

Deukmejian’s veto of the bilingual education legislation drew immediate criticism from state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), author of the measure.

Brown said studies have already shown that bilingual education is a cost-effective, successful method of teaching English to non-English-speaking students.

“It is unfortunate that the governor has forgotten his own immigrant heritage and his posture as a friend of education,” Brown said. “I’m sorry he does not agree with the position of his appointees--as well as the hundreds of Californians who have endorsed this bill--that bilingual education is the best way to help children quickly gain fluency in English.”

In Orange County, Latino activist Amin David said he was “dumbfounded” at Deukmejian’s veto of the bilingual education bill.

“This is totally unexpected,” said David, an Anaheim businessman who is president of Los Amigos of Orange County. “After the strong support the bill got in the Senate, I didn’t think anything like this would happen,” he said.

“I can’t understand Deukmejian’s doing this, especially since he took such a courageous stand with Proposition 63.” David referred to the governor’s opposition to the proposition, which would make English the “official” language of California.

“I thought we had dispelled the fear that bilingual education is something bringing in a foreign language,” David said. “Bilingual education is actually just something to help children along until they can learn English. I am very surprised and disappointed at the veto. I hope and pray the Legislature will override it.”

In addition to bilingual education, Brown’s bill would have extended four other educational programs scheduled to expire next year. Known as “categorical programs,” the four provide money for Indian schoolchildren, local schools that run innovative programs, and schools in urban areas with a heavy concentration of poor and minority students.

In his brief veto message, Deukmejian did not discuss the issue of bilingual education. Instead, he noted that for the first time the state is nearing a spending limit approved by voters in 1979. And he repeated his desire to eliminate some categorical programs, which are paid for by the state to help special groups of students, such as non-English-speaking, handicapped and gifted pupils.

Review Sought

“In light of the spending limitations imposed on the state of California pursuant to Proposition 4,” Deukmejian said, “I believe that categorical education programs, among others, should be thoroughly reviewed to determine their cost-effectiveness and decide whether any consolidation would be appropriate.

“I have asked the Department of Finance to conduct such a review, which will be completed long before these programs are due to sunset. Until that assessment is performed, it is premature to extend the sunset dates of these programs.”

The state’s bilingual education law, slated to expire on June 30, 1987, requires school districts to give non-English-speaking students instruction in their own language while they learn English.

In an attempt to overcome opposition from critics of the program, Brown’s bill included a number of “reforms” designed to give school districts greater flexibility in operating bilingual education programs. Many of the changes were proposed by an advisory committee that included six Deukmejian appointees.

Honig said the bill had broad support, including Democrats, school officials and some Republicans, as well as advocates of bilingual education.

Tells of Disappointment

“I’m disappointed in the veto,” Honig said. “We had a strong coalition. If you believe support is necessary to help students make the transition to English, then this was a pretty good bill.”

Among the groups that endorsed the measure were the California School Boards Assn., the League of Women Voters, the California School Administrators, the California Board of Education and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Foundation.

According to a study by the Democratic-controlled Assembly Office of Research, more than 80% of the students enrolled in the state’s bilingual education programs are able to become fluent in English within 2 1/2 years, Brown said.

He said that bilingual education has one purpose: to teach English as quickly as possible to pupils who are not fluent in the language.

Deukmejian’s veto could further cut into his support among Latinos as he runs for reelection against Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. The governor has already alienated some Latinos by his insistence on building a new state prison near East Los Angeles and his opposition to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, the high court’s only Latino member.

Additional Difficulty

Although Deukmejian said there would be sufficient time to conduct his review before the five programs expire, his veto could make it substantially more difficult to win an extension of the programs next year.

To extend the programs so close to the expiration date would take urgency legislation, which requires a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority. When the measure passed the Assembly it received only 42 votes, one more than the 41 required for passage.

Supporters of the measure held out little hope that an extension could be won without making drastic concessions that, they say, would essentially spell the end of the state’s bilingual programs.

The veto “opens the way for massive changes in the bilingual education law that are not educationally sound and that will be more politically motivated,” said Rebecca Baumann, a lobbyist for the California School Boards Assn., a major backer of the bill. “That is very disappointing.”

Opinions were mixed among teachers in the Santa Ana Unified School District, which, with about 70% Latino enrollment, is second only to Los Angeles in the state in the percentage of students who speak little or no English.

A committee of the Santa Ana Educators Assn., the teachers’ union, earlier this year had lobbied for extensive changes in the bilingual education bill as originally introduced by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Brown accepted many of those amendments, which allowed for more flexibility in how local districts implement two-language teaching.

Still, some Santa Ana Unified teachers privately said they hoped that the entire bill would be vetoed because they thought that the state’s bilingual program would still be too rigid.

Variety of Reactions

Gail King-Burney, president of the Santa Ana Educators Assn., said Tuesday that teachers expressed a variety of reactions Tuesday afternoon to the governor’s veto.

“Some were pro, some were anti and some were neutral. But since that bill had several other programs in it and all of them involve quite a bit of money for this district, there is some general concern,” King-Burney said, referring to the other programs cut by the veto of the omnibus package.

She added that Deukmejian’s veto of the bill “shows that while he talks about being a supporter of education, he is actually doing something else.”

Some said Tuesday that some form of bilingual education will survive regardless of Tuesday’s gubernatorial veto because it is a federal education requirement.

“The bilingual education law was the Legislature’s response to the (U.S.) Supreme Court ruling in the Lau case,” said Anthony J. Dalessi, an assistant superintendent of the Santa Ana school district. “In that decision, the Supreme Court said that a child must be taught in a language that he can understand. That is federal law, and nothing has changed that.”

Dalessi, however, noted that California’s bilingual education law is “more prescriptive” or more detailed in how two-language teaching must be done than are the guidelines of the federal Office of Civil Rights.

But Gloria Tuchman, who chairs the Santa Ana association’s committee on bilingual education, said she thinks that Deukmejian was correct in vetoing the bill. “The bill still had too many problems,” she said. “It didn’t answer the problem of where the (bilingual) teachers are to come from, or the problem of waivers for teachers who haven’t passed the (two-language) test.

“I want to make this clear: I want to see every child have an equal opportunity with bilingual education, and as it’s now done, that’s not true,” Tuchman said.

Treatment Is Not the Same

“Bilingual education now is only for the Hispanic students, and the other students who don’t speak English don’t get the same treatment. Asian students are not treated the same as Hispanic students, and it makes me wonder if the law is condescending about Hispanics and their ability to learn.”

Tuchman teaches at Taft Elementary in Santa Ana Unified, but she is also an elected trustee on the school board of Tustin Unified School District. She said she believes immigrant students in California can, and will, learn English better if not tied to the guidelines in the state’s bilingual education law.

Republican opponents of bilingual education are expected to press next year for changes that would greatly relax the requirements for a bilingual classroom. Specifically, Republican lawmakers have expressed interest in removing entirely the existing requirement that bilingual classrooms have at least one-third English-speaking students, a provision designed to avoid segregation of non-English speakers. They also have favored lifting the requirement that a bilingual classroom be established whenever there are at least 10 students of one language group in the same grade.

No Override Plans

Because of opposition from Assembly Republicans, Brown has no plans to call the Legislature back in an attempt to override Deukmejian’s veto, a spokeswoman for the Speaker said. The Assembly has never overridden a veto by Deukmejian in his four years in office.

In vetoing the AIDS discrimination bill, Deukmejian repeated his position that existing law provides sufficient protection against housing and job discrimination.

“I believe efforts to provide categories of special rights and benefits based upon having the condition of AIDS is unnecessary, inappropriate and not a good practice,” Deukmejian said in his veto message.

But the governor signed two measures that will provide a total of $10 million to promote the production of a vaccine for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

One bill, by Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), will appropriate $6 million for the testing of experimental vaccines once they are developed. The measure will also limit the financial liability of companies that manufacture a federally approved vaccine.

A second bill by Assemblyman William J. Filante (R-Greenbrae) will provide $4 million in loans to California companies for research on a vaccine.

Times education writer Elaine Woo contributed to this article and staff writer Bill Billiter reported from Orange County.

The governor signed a bill clearing the way for expansion of John Wayne Airport in Orange County. Part II, Page 1.