Implementing Prop. 227

* Re “Wave of Waivers,” editorial, Oct. 23: You are correct when you say that Prop. 227 is a giant educational experiment. My question is why the people of California would experiment on their children with an unvalidated procedure that flies in the face of what we know about how kids learn? The over 1 million minority-language kids of California deserve better than to be somebody’s guinea pigs. You are wrong when you say that the voters were unhappy with the outcome of traditional bilingual programs. I talked to many people over the years and they didn’t have a clue about the outcomes of bilingual programs or the research supporting their use. What it came down to was that they just didn’t think it was right to teach kids in their native language in the good old U.S.A., no matter what the outcome.

JOSEPH DAYAN

Bilingual School Psychologist

Bakersfield

*

As a supporter of bilingual instruction, I was appalled when Prop. 227 was passed by the electorate. I am again appalled, but not surprised, to read your Oct. 22 story about how school districts, unchecked and seemingly accountable to none but themselves, are evading the requirements of Prop. 227.

The violation of laws by school districts, which routinely solicit waivers of educational rights, duties and laws, is a familiar pattern of arrogance and sleight-of-hand. Beginning with the implementation of desegregation laws, if not before, too many school districts have violated a sizable body of other laws governing the education and welfare of minorities and children with disabilities.

We hear much talk about the public’s wanting to take charge of its government. Perhaps the time to begin is at the simpler level--in taking back the charge of the public schools from the arrogant educrats.

SUZANNE GORENFELD, Chair

Children’s Rights Coalition

Ventura

*

In 1967 I was legislative assistant to Sen. Ralph Yarborough (D-Texas), the author of the Bilingual Education Act, which for many years has provided federal dollars for bilingual education programs and encouraged the growth of bilingual programs all over the country. Your excellent article gives the reader the impression that for Hispanic youngsters the choice today in California is largely between being educated in English (English immersion programs) or in Spanish (bilingual education instruction). If so, this is a perversion of the original intent of the act, which was to turn out students fluent in both English and their native tongue, in this case Spanish.

To be bilingual means to be able to use two languages with equal fluency. The result of bilingual education, at least in some California school districts, appears to be a sad illustration of unintended consequences.

ALLAN MANDEL

Accokeek, Md.