Et tu, Brute? Bilingual Ed’s Allies Helped Do It In

There is enough blame to go around as the death knell for bilingual education sounds in California. The political argument against bilingual education was always clear, articulate, simple and insensitive: sweeping opinions based solely on anecdotal case studies, quoting Latino celebrities who claimed they never needed a bilingual program and one or two angry parents at the Ninth Street School. But despite this, the school board, district administrators and teachers also are responsible.

The original case for bilingual education was strong. LAUSD’s bilingual master plan was developed in 1988 to address the problem of concept development in the student’s first language. Research had demonstrated that when sufficient literacy in first language (Spanish) and English as a second language instruction was completed by third, fourth or fifth grade, students could transition at grade level into full English programs. In the long run, students had higher achievement in the second language (English) than Spanish-language students put immediately in English-only classes. Quality instructional materials were available in Spanish, and bonuses were paid to qualified bilingual and English-only teachers.

Because of a shortage of qualified bilingual teachers, our district and the teachers’ union conceived the team teaching approach. Team teaching required that English-only and bilingual teachers share teaching duties in their respective classes. This assured that students from poor families would get desperately needed concept development in Spanish while simultaneously learning English. In addition, twice as many students would have access to a fully credentialed bilingual teacher.

English-only teachers signed up by the thousands to qualify for the bonus. But team teaching was never popular among teachers. By their education and professional status, teachers reflect one key social value: individualism. Team teaching counters individualism because it involves trusting, cooperating, planning and sharing decisions. The team partner is not just another teacher whom you talk to at lunch but a trusted colleague who sometimes makes decisions affecting your class. The major side effect for students in English-only classrooms was that bilingual instruction was usually subjugated to the back of the classroom with bilingual teaching assistants.

Then, the LAUSD administration took its turn at sabotaging the program. Administrators initiated a new regulation that asked teachers to change grades. To comply with district Master Plan for English Learners rules that bilingual teachers teach the primary grades, bilingual teachers were moved to grades K-2 and the English-only teachers had to teach grades 3-5. Otherwise, the differential bonuses would not be paid. By this time, the master plan bureaucrats were too powerful and complacent. Simultaneously, they alienated and angered supportive teachers and failed to communicate to the voting public and parents the significance of bilingual education. People never understood that English oral instruction was always part of the bilingual program and that if students are literate in Spanish, they could transition those literacy skills into English literacy skills at grade level.

The school board got into the act by cleverly using a supply and demand tactic. By now, 4,000 English-only teachers were receiving the bonus for teaching limited English students. The district decided to phase out this bonus to English-only teachers because all new teachers are required by the state education code to have training to teach limited-English-proficient pupils. With so many English-only teachers who qualified for the bonus to teach limited English students, it became a budget issue. But this bonus was a key factor in teacher support, and the board is getting rid of it.

Proposition 227 is one more slam-dunk proposal that resonates with voters. There is no credible evidence that all limited-English students can learn academic English in one year. To think, comprehend, reason, articulate and write in a second language takes years for most students. Because those of us in education failed to do our job by informing the public, by changing the way we teach literacy to limited English students, by keeping incentives and by refraining from smugness, ignorance and arrogance rule. And opportunists will decide another major educational policy for all of us.

*

Stephen A. Schullo is a third-grade teacher at Leo Politi Elementary School in the Pico-Union area of Los Angeles. From 1987-97, he team taught in the bilingual program at Hoover Street and Leo Politi schools. E-mail: sschullo@lausd.k12.ca.us