For Immediate Release: May 7, 1998

Revealing Admissions from the Unz Camp

Prop. 227 sponsors are backtracking from several of their more outrageous claims. Gloating about their lead in the polls, perhaps they have relaxed their guard. Or perhaps they are just tired of lying. Whatever the cause, Ron Unz and his cohorts have made some revealing admissions over the past few days:

• Jaime Escalante on Prop. 227's one-year limit on English instruction. From an interview with La Opinión, (29 April):

Escalante ... has allowed his name to be used as honorary chairman of the campaign for the initiative to prohibit bilingual education and limit the instruction of English to a one-year intensive course, but admitted yesterday that this is insufficient, and not all students have the same ability to learn a second language. His own son, he said, took three years to learn English.

According to him, educators know best what is good for children. ... "I suggested to [Ron Unz] that there had to be more time, a minimum of two years, with extra classes after school and during the weekend at the same school ... Sometimes the student needs two or three years, as my son did."

• Alice Callaghan, Los Angeles anti-bilingual activist and leader of the 9th Street School boycott, on the same issue: How long does it take for children to learn the English they need for school? Here's what she said in trying to explain why less than 3 percent of 9th Street students pulled out of bilingual education had become fluent in English after 18 months of "sheltered immersion" (Los Angeles Times, 6 May):

"Granted, language acquisition takes about three years," Callaghan said, but added that the one year of intensive language instruction called for in the ballot measure "is enough to give them the tools to go on from there" and do well academically. ...

"That was a real cheap shot," said Callaghan of the No on 227 campaign's efforts to make hay out of Ninth Street's redesignation track record with its English-only students.

• Ron Unz on Prop. 227's provision inviting lawsuits against teachers who violate the English-only policy. Unz has claimed that teachers would not be sued for using another language occasionally to clarify a lesson when necessary. Opponents have pointed out that the unprecedented threat of "personal liability" and "financial damages" would have a serious chilling effect — intimidating them from providing the help that English learners need. Now Unz concedes to the Contra Costa Times (7 May):

"If this intimidates teachers into obeying the will of the people, obeying the law and obeying the parents, that's exactly why we put it in there."

• Ron Unz on two-way bilingual education. These programs, which have proven effective at cultivating bilingualism for both English- and non-English speaking children, would be outlawed by Prop. 227. Nevertheless, according to Education Week (6 May):

"Most I've read about seem quite successful and are popular with parents," [Unz] said in a recent interview. "My only concern is whether the Spanish-speaking students are learning English, and most people seem to say yes."

---

Excerpts from 29 April La Opinión story by María del Pilar Marrere in the original Spanish:

Escalante ... puso su nombre como presidente honorario de la campana a favor de la medida que busca prohibir la educatión bilingüe y limitar la ensananza del inglés a un curso intensivo de un año escolar, pero ayar admitio que esta plaza es insuficiente y que no todos los estudiantes tienen la misma facilidad para aprender un segundo idioma. A su propio hijo -dice- le tomo tres anos aprender el inglés.

Segun el, nadie mejor que los educadores para determinar que es lo major para los niños. ... "Le sugeri que había que darles mas tiempo, tal vez un minimo de dos anos, con classes extensivas después del horario escolar y durante el fin de semana en la misma escuela ... Hay veces que el alumno necesita de dos a tres años - como mi hijo."

---