Big Lie #1
Bilingual education is a "failure"

"There is overwhelming evidence that bilingual education does not work, and has never worked anywhere in the United States on a large scale in 30 years of trying." — Ron Unz, email message to a bilingual teacher, 19 April 1998

Unz has never produced any evidence, "overwhelming" or otherwise, to substantiate this claim. Nor has he made any attempt to investigate what goes on in bilingual classrooms or to fairly assess their results. He apparently feels the charge of "failure" can be sold to the voters through repetition alone.

On this point Unz is contradicted by numerous scientific panels and researchers who have studied how children acquire second languages. Such research has documented the benefits of well designed and well implemented bilingual programs, not only in teaching English but also in helping students to meet high academic standards and to achieve fluency in two languages. The latest studies are summarized in an April 29 release by the U.S. Department of Education: Research Findings Regarding Schooling for Limited English Proficient Students.

Lacking research data, Unz has nevertheless advanced one "authoritative" sounding charge:

"The current system of language instruction in California has an annual failure rate of 95% in teaching English to young children." — Yes on 227 home page

In fact, 6.7% of state's limited-English-proficient students in grades K-12 were "redesignated" as fluent in English in 1996-97, according to the California Department of Education. Yet the standard of "success" is not redesignating most children in a single year — a feat that has never been documented for any program (see Big Lie #2).

A recent study in San Francisco found that it takes such students, on average, 4.8 years to be redesignated as fully proficient in the English skills they need for school. Yet being taught in special programs certainly does not mean academic "failure." By middle school these students are outscoring all other groups in the district (San Francisco Examiner, 1 May 1998).

Even more outrageous, Unz uses "redesignation rates" to indict bilingual education when he knows that fewer than 30% of  California's English learners are in bilingual classrooms. The remainder are receiving various English-only treatments (similar to what Prop. 227 would impose). Thus it would make more sense to conclude that students are receiving too little native-language instruction rather than too much.

Unz is fully aware that his "95% failure rate" is bogus. He even admitted as much to a state senate committee: "I have no claim that the numbers are realistic or accurate. But they are the only numbers available, and I have to work with them" (Los Angeles Times, 3 December 1997).Translation: OK, you caught me in a lie. But it's a convenient lie and I plan to continue using it.

And he has. After all, he has no other evidence for the "failure" of bilingual education.