New Democrat Update - October 2002
NO TO 31
New Democrats should oppose Amendment 31 because the debate over this ballot initiative has clearly demonstrated the need for a Third Way that achieves English fluency for all students. Approving this proposed constitutional amendment (effectively making it permanent) will preemptively prevent new and innovative solutions that help accomplish the critical New Democrat goals of equal opportunity and upward mobility.
Amendment 31's proponents insist that English fluency is only possible exclusively through one method - nine months of sheltered English immersion classes for “limited English proficiency” (LEP) children. After immersion, the kids are mainstreamed in regular courses taught entirely in English.
Some 31 opponents believe LEP children learn best when educated in their native language, acknowledge the importance of mainstreaming but then casually dismiss the less-than-stellar performance of bilingual education programs. Some of that opposition is fueled by counterproductive incentives which provide additional funding based on the number of students enrolled in bilingual education - more students mean more money. That’s why entering is much easier than exiting these programs.
Extremists within the opposition fight mainstreaming because they genuinely detest American language and culture. They engage in "identity politics," a divisive ideology that makes race and ethnicity the primary lenses through which people view themselves and society. They portray American civic culture as an elite trick or imposition upon minorities on behalf of an oppressive "Eurocentric," agenda, stirring up victimization and separatist sentiment.
New Democrats strongly believe that learning English is essential to our core values of equal opportunity and upward mobility for everyone. The aim of public education must be assimilation - achieving English fluency in speaking, writing, talking and listening must be the primary goals.
The problem with Amendment 31 is its exclusive focus on process rather than performance, and developing rules rather than delivering results. In reality, improving English fluency requires pushing authority, responsibility and accountability to those doing the job on the front line - principals, teachers and parents. Micro-managing from the state constitution will only make matters worse.
31's strident and narrow focus on exclusively requiring one particular educational methodology dismisses individual student needs and local conditions. Its overly punitive measures toward school boards, teachers and administrators will significantly discourage bottom-up innovation, barring “guilty” educators from holding public positions for five years and making officials personally financially liable (it prohibits the purchase of malpractice insurance). That represents less protection than someone serving on a company’s board of directors.
In the real world, each school faces a very different set of perplexing challenges. The students at one school may need more intense individualized instruction, another smaller class sizes, another more professional development training for teachers, another additional preschool opportunities, and still another, yes, immersion courses. There is no one, magical "silver bullet."
As the private sector has recognized, the people actually doing the job are best positioned to figure out and actually implement the right solutions. But, just like in the private sector, there must be consequences for poor performance.
Colorado’s public education system should place much more emphasis on reforms that promote autonomous individual schools, true policy-setting school boards, clear school missions, strong leadership, parental involvement, and a high degree of freedom and respect for teachers. The other necessary ingredients - standards-based accountability, annualized student testing, and parental public choice - are already in place.
If Amendment 31 is defeated, progressives must make English education fluency reform a top priority. Implementation issues, including a highly mobile student population and a scarcity of well-trained teachers, make bilingual education programs impractical for many Colorado school districts (only 14 percent have them) and far from the only or most effective way to ensure that students with limited English proficiency learn English.
In fact, one exhaustive review of 300 programs failed to find any studies showing bilingual education to be superior to other methods of teaching English to LEP students. Research has also found that bilingual education participants earned less money than those who received instruction in programs that did not emphasize native languages.
The system should be about truly holding schools accountable for English language learner students, ensuring bilingual education teachers are proficient in English, and requiring parental involvement in decisions about bilingual programs. The state should also evaluate implementing stronger student English language proficiency standards, setting tougher annual year-to-year performance goals, reviewing the adequacy of current testing and intensifying the professional development of bilingual education teachers. Funding should be based on successful and timely transitions to English, rather than the number of students enrolled in bilingual programs.
While sometimes divisive, the debate over 31 has produced some positive unintended side effects. Most on the left had reflexively defended ineffective bilingual programs and questioned the necessity of English fluency. Fortunately, that is no longer the case. Many more now recognize that bilingual programs often grow into separate and unequal educational systems, wrongly encouraging permanent education in one’s native language and preventing thousands of students from preparing for life and work in an English-language society. In addition, many more Democrats have become much stronger advocates of charter schools (some offer dual language instruction) and supporters of parental choice within the public education system.
Meanwhile, irreconcilable political and ideological objectives have tongue-tied the right. Some conservatives worry that 31 undermines their parental empowerment argument in favor of private school vouchers. Other Republicans, while tempted by 31's visceral appeal to a significant majority of white voters, fear support might send an intolerant message to an important group it sees as a potential source of new political strength - Hispanic voters.
Colorado Republicans certainly do not want a replay of what happened in the Golden State. There, the GOP suffered from a strong Latino backlash after voters approved initiatives targeting illegal immigrants and disbanding affirmative action. As a result, Democrats now virtually dominate the politics of California. All of which explains Governor Bill Owens’ deafening silence and absent leadership in this important debate.
But the politics is only a sideshow. Coloradans must end this false choice between one-size-fits-all English immersion and the failed status quo. Voters should reject Amendment 31 and demand performance-based radical reforms that first and foremost help LEP students learn English and reach high levels of achievement in all subjects.
AN EMERGING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY?
The latest edition of Blueprint analyzes the important demographic shifts that could produce a progressive majority, but warns that Democrats must also develop the right agenda to seize this opportunity. Read the magazine online or contact Jim Gibson for a hard copy.