SACRAMENTO, CA -- Shocked by the overwhelming popular support for the “English for the Children” ballot measure (the initiative authored by businessman Ron Unz that would replace native-language bilingual education with English immersion in most classrooms), Democrats in the State Legislature are circling
the wagons around bilingual education.

State Sen. Dede Alpert (D-Coronado) is introducing a bill that would allow local school districts to decide how to teach students not fluent in English. Alpert had previously introduced her bill last year, but it was bottled up in
a Democrat-controlled State Assembly committee. Now, however, with bilingual education facing armegeddon at the hands of fed-up voters, legislative Democrats view Alpert’s minor reform as a tool to hold back the surging
anti-bilingual-ed political tide. Quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Assemblyman Mike Honda (D-San Jose), a leading foe of the “English for the Children” initiative, admits, “There is a sense of urgency. A lot of people want to point to something and say, ‘See, we have something. We don’t need Unz.’”

The Democrats’ allies in the press have also rallied. Fearing what the public will do at the ballot box, the Los Angeles Times recently editorialized that, “Alpert’s bill provides the best opportunity for the Legislature to prove it can mandate reform before the voters tackle the job.”

Although superficially appealing, the Alpert bill is fatally flawed because it doesn’t address the fundamental problem afflicting the public education system. Public education remains a virtual monopoly. Thus, giving one part of that monopoly, local school districts, the ability to choose teaching methods merely guarantees that local district bureaucrats, local bilingual education teachers, and local special interest groups are empowered to ensure that bilingual education continues undisturbed in the classroom. Sure, Alpert’s bill tries to hold districts accountable by requiring limited-English-proficient students demonstrate achievement in English and core subjects every two years, but that doesn’t guarantee that English immersion will enter the classroom if bilingual education flunks out. Bilingual education is a matter of religious faith for its a dvocates and one can be assured that when it performs poorly, it will simply be tweaked and repackaged under a different name. The end result will be more of the same.

For the Alpert bill to foster real change in the classroom, the public school monopoly would have to be dismantled. Unlimited numbers of charter schools and widespread public-private school choice would force local districts to pay attention to the concerns, not of local bureaucrats and special interests, but of parents. In a competitive market, public schools which adhere to failed bilingual education methodologies would find parents and their children leaving the system. Only then would one see English immersion enter the public school classroom.

Since, however, the Legislature won’t dismantle the public education monopoly, the Alpert bill guarantees the preservation of the bilingual education status quo. That’s why the Alpert bill won’t stop Californians from voting for the “English for the Children” initiative.

--By Lance Izumi

You are here: > Publications > Capital Ideas