Finally, a NO on Proposition 227, which...

Finally, a NO on Proposition 227, which would, in effect, eliminate bilingual education. It is not, we believe, a measure driven by the divisive and suspect motives of earlier measures that dealt harshly with immigration and affirmative action. It is favored in the polls. We would like to support it. But we cannot.

Proposition 227 would require all public school instruction to be conducted in English unless parents could demonstrate that a child has special needs or would learn English faster through alternate instructional techniques. Children who are not fluent in English would otherwise be limited to one year of an intensive sheltered-English immersion program before proceeding to regular classes taught in English.

The measure, sponsored by Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz, also would appropriate $50 million per year for 10 years to fund English instruction for individuals who pledge to tutor children in their community.

There’s no doubt that the earlier a language is introduced to a child, the easier it is for that child to become truly fluent. However, the method of English language instruction should not be prescribed by a ballot measure. The initiative requires the same inflexible approach for every public school in California. This is its fatal flaw.

The measure requires classes to be taught overwhelmingly in English, without defining “overwhelmingly” or indicating if a teacher would be allowed to speak another language in the classroom. Although the sponsors describe a very flexible approach when talking about their measure, the written language is anything but; the ultimate interpretation would be left to school districts and no doubt the courts.

Proposition 227 also does not demand accountability for results, which is one of the weaknesses of the current hodge-podge system.