My Problem with English-Only Ballot Initiatives (like Oregon Measure 58)

My Problem with English-Only Ballot Initiatives (like Oregon Measure 58)

English-Only mandates are a symptom of the current national backlash against immigration. While passing these kinds of measures may make people feel like they're "doing something" to stop illegal immigration, they fail to address the fact that these measures affect just as many legal immigrants (people who have obtained citizenship and by law are just as "American" as you are). Since nobody seems to acknowledge this, to me it's just a way of imposing one's thinly-veiled xenophobia and racism in the guise of public policy.

Most of these kinds of English-only ballot initiatives are introduced by "losers": wealthy but unsuccessful politicians (people who can't get elected to office, so they spend the rest of their time and money pushing wacky ballot measures in retaliation--can we say Ron Unz and Bill Sizemore?). The problem I have is that people who aren't particularly successful in some area of their life (politics) decide they need to tell educators how to do their job despite having no experience in education. People who vote in favor of these things often have the same problem-they know nothing about how children learn, and either don't care, or don't realize that to educators, making sure children get whatever help they need is OUR most important priority (some of us even need help remembering to have a life of our own outside of school).

English-Only instruction tends to drive children away from school. These laws encourage kids to drop out of school because they realize they can't get the help they need there, and indirectly tells them that they are second-class citizens (I realize some readers feel that non-English speakers are, by default, second-class citizens, but I think these readers forget that people come to the US from a variety of places, for a variety of reasons). Regardless of how you may personally feel about immigrants (and other people different from you) is that people who grow up believing they are second-class citizens and have little opportunity to succeed tend to have poor adult outcomes. I'd rather have kids in schools than in jails--it's a whole cheaper for one thing.

Another problem with English-Only mandates is they collide with a wide variety of Supreme Court rulings on the right to equal opportunity in education. This leaves these ballot measures vulnerable to court challenges by anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge about their civil rights. Frankly I think the money and time could be better spent elsewhere.

Most English-Only mandates allow for something called "sheltered English immersion" where students are sequestered in special English development classes during a transition period (not to exceed one year). That sounds reasonable and fair unless you realize that very few people learn English, especially academic English in one year. Even for young children, this is not helpful, as even in kindergarten, their classmates still have a considerable head start in the area of spoken language and grammar knowledge. For older students, especially, this is an academic death sentence--talk about being "left behind". Either way, after one year, students get tossed out into mainstream classes, and sink or swim. Most students sink, by the way, and the numbers prove this.

Another problem is that English-Only initiatives take away the parent's ability to choose language services for their children. Some parents want English-Only instruction, fine, great, they can have that--it's universally available. Others don't. Why should the first group get to decide for everyone? Even more importantly, why should people who don't know or care about English-language instruction get to decide what's best for other people's children?

English-Only instruction is generally intended to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. It's not like anyone is being deprived of opportunities to learn English. The reality is that most people in the US who are learning English right now in a school setting are in some kind of English-only instructional program. Few people even have access to bilingual education resources. In Oregon, a lot of this so-called "bilingual instruction" is really dual-immersion, it takes place in high-profile opt-in programs that wealthy white parents clamor to have their children enrolled in (so their children will grow up speaking more than one language--an attractive feature for those seeking admission to the more discerning colleges).

One thorny problem that's apparent since NCLB was passed is that nearly seven years later, there's still a considerable performance gap between native and non-native English speakers on standardized tests--duh! Why anyone would be surprised by this escapes me. The kids are pretty much set up to fail by this system. But is English-Only instruction the answer? No scientific evidence supports this notion. No researchers (besides the lackeys affiliated with US-English) claim that English Immersion (English-Only instruction) is going to make children fluent in English in one year. Why not? Because it's pure fantasy. It hasn't worked particularly well in the past 40 years, why does anyone really think it would suddenly start working now?

Let's go back to the issue of ability and age. Children come to school with a wide range of abilities and needs. The problem with these English-Only ballot initiatives is that they ignore this reality, and don't specify how schools are supposed to deal with language differences, except by prescribing an one-size-fits-all mandate. This is essentially saying that a newcomer from China who is 16 years old should be placed in a first grade classroom because that's what her English language ability suggests! Umm, I don't see that solution making ANYONE happy.

The biggest problem with these English-Only ballot initiatives is that they don't help teachers do their jobs (ostensibly the point)--they make it harder. Aside from the financial implications of having to scrap successful existing programs and waste money on ordering new materials to comply with legal mandates (which takes time and money away from everyone in the building), it invites parental litigation, wastes teacher's time, and takes attention and resources away from other valuable school reforms.