Vantage Point: English learners need options, not obstacles 

I watched with great interest as the debate concerning the development of additional instructional materials for English language learners unfolded this summer. These materials would enable those students to learn English language arts content while they were learning English. President-elect Dr. Kathy Kinley and I were among the many constituents who provided testimony at the special state Board of Education meeting on this topic last April. We were disheartened by the treatment that we received at the meeting. It was very apparent that the board never intended to have an open debate on the issue. In fact, the meeting was structured to severely limit the testimony of those supporting the proposal for additional materials. Kathy and I were each given one minute to speak, and many parents and educators who had traveled great distances from across the state were prevented from speaking at all.

Following the decision of the state Board of Education, Senator Martha Escutia introduced a bill to remedy the situation and support English language learners, SB 1769. I was amazed to see the great misunderstanding that developed around this bill. Sen. Escutia’s legislation was intended to provide instructional materials that are appropriate for entry-level English learners and to be used at the discretion of school districts. It was not part of a partisan Democratic agenda, as portrayed in some newspapers. In fact, we at the California School Boards Association, as well as the Association of California School Administrators and many other educators throughout the state, continue to support the development of these materials.

SB 1769 had a simple purpose: to provide districts with effective choices on how to meet the needs of their English learners through instruction in English. The proposal was never intended to undermine Proposition 227 in any way, as many have implied. This is not a bilingual program. It expressly calls for alignment with the California Reading/Language Arts standards and for instruction in English.

The rhetoric that spun this legislation into being about bilingual education was misguided. Instead, this legislation addressed the core of local decision-making about teaching and learning, by focusing on state standards while allowing flexibility in instructional strategy. Many educators throughout the state have complained about the lack of materials for English language learners, and many of our students currently sit through a large portion of the day unable to understand the lessons that are being taught. Virtually everyone agrees that more needs to be done to increase the achievement of English language learners. These materials are just one more tool to be used to enhance reading, writing and comprehension skills for our students. If the state is serious about accountability, it will hold districts accountable for results while providing them the flexibility and tools needed to meet those standards. Sen. Escutia’s proposal was an important step toward doing just that.

It is very unfortunate that the governor vetoed this bill. The situation that he faced as an English language learner differed greatly from that of our students. He learned English as an educated adult. Our students are learning to read and write at the same time that they are learning a new language. They face very different challenges and we need a variety of materials to help them to be successful.