English-Only Versus Bilingual

English-Only Versus Bilingual

There are many wonderful aspects of being an American. We are a democracy with many freedoms that make our country one of the most sought out places to live and raise a family. With that comes a sense of pride that we call patriotism. We also have a responsibility to future generations to preserve the legacy of this nation. We do that, primarily at the ballot box by casting our vote for or against propositions or people that have been brought before us. It is our duty as voters to become duly informed about the matters on the ballot. One of the ongoing debates across our nation is how best to educate the immigrants or non-English speaking children that enter our public school system. This has grown into a very emotional battle between “English-Only” and bilingual instruction. There are advocates on both sides that argue the advantages and disadvantages, but the final decision is made at the ballot box. California, Arizona and Massachusetts have already voted to cease bilingual instruction; but was this best for the students? The Propositions set before the people are titled “English for the Children”. It would almost seem unpatriotic to vote against such a thing. But we as voters need to dig a little deeper than the title.

California passed Proposition 227 in 1998, Arizona passed Proposition 203 in 2000 (Crawford, 2000) and Massachusetts passed Referendum Ballot Question 2 in 2002 (Benz, 2005) all were English-only or anti-bilingual initiatives. The text of each was composed by the anti-bilingual coalition headed by Ron Unz, therefore there are many similarities. Each document is broken down into sections; 1) Findings and Declarations, 2) Definitions, 3) English language education, 4) Parental waivers 5) Legal standing and parental enforcement, 6) Community-Based English Tutoring, 7) Severability and finally 8) Interpretation. As California was the first to be passed, Mr. Unz added to the wording of each subsequent proposition.

California had ruled that schools must provide bilingual instruction at the parents request; this was not the original goal of Proposition 227. When Arizona’s Proposition 203 was drafted there were several changes made to further reduce the freedoms of the parents and the school districts and personnel. The first change was made to the definition, no longer was English listed as the “overwhelmingly” language used in instruction, but as “the language of instruction”. Also the clarification of all books and materials were to be in English as well as the students were to be taught how to read and write “solely in English”. (Crawford, 2000)

Proposition 203, like its California predecessor, had stipulations for parental waivers that allowed parents to formally request bilingual instruction for their child. However, Proposition 203 had an added sentence that read; “Teachers and local school districts may reject waiver