The Militant(logo) 
    Vol.62/No.29           August 10, 1998 
 
 
Letters  
Bilingual education debate
We have both worked either as bilingual teachers (Spanish) or as teachers of English as a Second Language. Between us, we have about twenty-five years' teaching experience in various parts of the United States - from the South Bronx to California's Central Valley.

All the programs we have seen are different. The underlying theme of the programs we have observed or worked in use the student's native language to teach core subjects while the student learns English. The hope is that the students do not fall behind academically while learning English.

There are other benefits which defenders of minority or national rights can see in bilingual education-preservation and appreciation of the students' native language and culture, ability to communicate with elders in the community, etc. Needless to say, most programs funded by federal or state money ignore those issues. The state focuses on the ability of the student to learn the dominant language.

One of the criticisms in the Militant article on Proposition 227 was that the movement in opposition to 227 used the argument that bilingual education is an effective way to teach English. We don't think this is a valid criticism. Bilingual education is an effective way to teach English - as well as being the most effective method of teaching academic subjects.

Most parents, especially those who don't speak English fluently, also want their children to learn English. These parents recognize how lack of fluency in the dominant language has cut them off from the positions available to those who speak English. They don't want this to happen to their children. Their children will become a part of the U.S. workforce, in a society where job skills are becoming incredibly competitive. These parents feel that one of the job skills their children will need is the ability to not only speak conversational English, but to be able to understand the technical language workers now need. They don't want their children to have no choice but to work in the fields.

In the course of the fight against Proposition 227, many bilingual teachers were mobilized, as were many parents and many students from the university level on down. In the Central Valley, people were not demoralized by the defeat. They are looking for ways to continue the fight. We do not think they will sit still while a whole school generation is deprived of literacy in English and in Spanish.

The fight for bilingual education is central to the defense of public education. Many people don't realize that the ruling class's attack on bilingual education is merely one facet of their attack on public education for working people.

We expect that the Militant will offer valid and useful ideas to help in the fight for bilingual education. We do think that more thought must go into this. For example, reporting that funds for bilingual education were cut off is misleading. Proposition 227 outlaws the use of the children's native language in school and imposes penalties on teachers who use the child's native language to help them. This is much more devastating than merely cutting off funds.

We look forward to seeing more articles in the Militant about how to fight to restore bilingual education.

Catarino Garza and Vangie Eidsvik-Garza

Modesto, California

On Proposition 226
In her "Discussion with our Readers" column on the recent California referenda, Naomi Crane states that "in the final weeks before the elections, as working people began to smell that Proposition 226 meant deeper employer and government intrusion into the rights of the unions, and their members...the tide began to turn against the measure."

There was more than the nose at work. One need not agree (and I don't) with the political framework the AFL-CIO's $20 million campaign against 226 - multiple direct mailings, phone calls, media ads, presentations to union meetings -to at least note its existence, from which working people drew appropriate conclusions. In the weeks before the election, AFL-CIO staff members spoke before union locals across the state, and leading up to the polls, workplaces (like mine, Los Angeles International Airport) were dosed with literature (in English and Spanish at my worksite). The union tops saw the California vote as a test case, since in as many as 30 states similar ballot measures or legislative initiatives are underway.

Labor's victory here is a wrench in the spokes of this anti-union crusade.

The AFL-CIO effort had an openly reactionary taint, too. The article "California antilabor referendum fails" (Militant, June 15) states that the officialdom "rarely mentioned" that part of 226 outlawing "campaign contributions from so-called `foreign nationals,' including immigrant workers." On the contrary, the labor skates routinely comment on this point, as their campaign stated such a ban wasn't necessary because such "foreign" contributions were already legally barred, a restriction they support. Literature, ads, and talks assailed an architect of the 226 initiative for being a "registered foreign lobbyist."

Jon Hillson

Los Angeles, California

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home