STAFF EDIT: Vote no on Question 2

Question 2 may sound like a simple choice between teaching immigrant children English or not. Proponents have painted the debate as a choice between effective educational solution and an ineffective system that has failed Massachusetts immigrants for more than three decades. But voters should take a closer look at Ballot Question 2, an initiative that would rid the state of bilingual education as we know it. It is an extreme, overly simplistic solution to the complicated problems involved in effectively teaching immigrant children both the language most used in the United States and the concepts they need to succeed. There is no doubt that the state’s bilingual education system needs reform. But Question 2 proposes the wrong solutions and should be defeated on Nov. 5.

The initiative would prohibit students from receiving traditional bilingual education, which separates non-English speaking students into different classrooms for instruction in their own languages and eases them into mainstream classrooms, though waivers would be made available on a limited basis for extenuating circumstances. The most controversial part of the proposed law is a section that would allow parent lawsuits against teachers who persist in teaching students in their native languages. The law has received flack from teacher and minority groups, but is backed, both financially and otherwise, by California millionaire Ron Unz, who has helped pass similar referenda in California and Arizona. A proposition similar to Massachusetts’ is also on the ballot in Colorado.

While immersing non-English speakers in the language may be the best and quickest way to teach them English, Question 2 forgets several important problems bilingual education attempts to address. Not only are immigrant children expected to learn English when they step into the state’s public schools, but they are expected to learn the same educational concepts fluent English speakers are taught at grade level. The state’s current bilingual education law, while possibly not the most efficient way to teach immigrant children English, does teach them the educational concepts they need in a language they can immediately understand. Attempting to jam both a foreign language and entirely new concepts down young children’s throats will undoubtedly be intimidating, discouraging and frustrating for those students. The law’s goals of teaching both English and grade-level concepts in only one year are unrealistic and place far too heavy a burden on the state’s newcomers.

Structured English immersion has also not yet proven effective in California, where the law has been on the books since 1998. Though both sides of the debate claim California’s results back up their respective positions, the system has not been in place long enough to supply conclusive evidence for either side. Bilingual education remains a complex issue with no clearly tested alternatives and to claim otherwise is deceptive.

As the law’s opponents have said repeatedly, Question 2 proposes a “one-size-fits-all” solution to the state’s bilingual education problems. Each child is different. Though one approach may work for some students, the same approach is likely not the most effective for all children. Question 2 allows only structured English immersion, except in limited circumstances, which will likely leave many of the state’s immigrant children out to dry. The proposition does not allow teachers enough flexibility to find the most effective teaching techniques for students with different learning styles and rates of retention.

The law’s provision allowing parents to sue teachers also provides too little leeway for educators and assumes the worst from the state’s educational establishment. Though the initiative’s opponents have blown the provision way out of proportion, it is a significant concern in considering the Question 2. Teachers are some of the most overburdened and underpaid state employees and adding the prospect of increased financial burdens is simply unfair. Bilingual education teachers are already in short supply in the state of Massachusetts. Question 2 will only exacerbate the problem, opening them up to punitive penalties for violating somewhat subjective standards.

Though the initiative is not good bilingual education reform, painting the proposal’s proponents as racist, as the initiative’s opponents have throughout the campaign, is wholly unfair. Though they may hold overly steep expectations of immigrant children, they are not by any means malicious in their intent. The proposition’s proponents truly believe their bilingual education reforms will solve the state’s problems and should be respected.

Question 2 imposes an unfair burden on young immigrant children, their parents and their teachers. Though the state’s current bilingual education system may not be the most effective way to teach children the United States’ dominant language, it is more fair to the two groups that will deal most intimately with changes to the state’s law. Massachusetts citizens should vote no on Question 2 on Nov. 5.