# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Travel ban and uncertain fate for DREAMers stoke fears

President Donald Trump's sweeping order that halted residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States sent shock waves through some of the nation's schools, leaving educators scrambling to assure frightened refugee and immigrant students that their schools should be safe places.

The effort to calm those fears comes as some educators grapple with uncertainty of their own: not knowing the next steps the White House will take on immigration and how it will affect their students. And that uncertainty had heightened even more over the weekend after a federal judge suspended Trump's order, allowing those who had been previously banned to enter. That decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

"[There are] a lot of unknowns right now," said Elizabeth Demchak, the principal at Claremont International High School in New York City. "Anytime you're talking about people's status in the country, there will be fear. We have to try and give [students] as much stability as possible."

Based in the South Bronx, Demchak's school is home to hundreds of Spanish-, Arabic-, and Bengali-speaking students, along with a growing population of refugees from Yemen, whose citizens are banned from U.S. entry for now under Trump's executive order. The school is part of The Internationals Network for Public Schools, a nationwide nonprofit that serves about 9,000 newly arrived immigrant students.

Those students represent a sliver of those who may be gripped by fear and uncertainty. Trump has also signed executive orders to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, strip federal funding from "sanctuary cities" that shield undocumented immigrants, and establish new criteria to make more undocumented immigrants priorities for deportation.

Support for Immigration Orders

Even as many educators publicly express dismay at President Trump, a large number of Americans are supportive of the executive order restricting U.S. entry. In a poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos a few days after the Jan. 27 order, 49 percent of Americans said they agree with the ban; 41 percent said they oppose it.

Foreign-born students represent 6 percent of the population in American schools, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Influxes of immigrant students-who may have large gaps in schooling and whose linguistic and cultural differences can present challenges for educators-have at times caused friction in communities where some parents raised concerns that new arrivals negatively impact their children's education.

The anxiety over Trump's order is particularly acute for students and educators in immigrant-rich communities like Minnesota's Somali strongholds, California's heavily Latino communities, and blooming Syrian enclaves around the country.

The ban also hit home in places like Houston and Nashville, Tenn., both with a growing number of Islamic students. The districts also have large Kurdish communities, many of whom come from countries targeted in the immigration ban.

In Nashville, at least 1,000 students from affected countries are in the city's schools. While schools generally don't track the immigration status of students, they often collect data about students' country of origin and home language if it's not English.

"The United States is supposed to be a country of opportunity and we believe that immigrants bring a richness to our country that we should maximize," Nashville Superintendent Shawn Joseph said. "It starts with educating them."

The Trump administration's aggressive stance has made that job tougher, some educators say.

"It certainly does strain the ability of young people and their families to trust institutions," said Roberto Gonzales, an assistant professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "It behooves schools to take a much more active role in sowing these seeds of trust and really growing them."

As the daughter of Dominican immigrants, Principal Nedda de Castro relates to her students at the International School at Prospect Heights in Brooklyn. Like them, she learned English in school. She recalls school as where she explored what it means to be American.

But many of her students are constantly reminded that they're not. And some are giving up on school.

"Some of the students are assuming that they're just going to be deported anyway and starting to talk about how there's really no point in coming to school anymore," de Castro said. "It's a lot of lost potential."

Trump's order related to U.S. entry blocks citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from coming into the U.S. for 90 days. It bans refugees from any country for 120 days and bars refugees from Syria indefinitely.

Fate for Deferred Action

Nearly 39,000 Muslim refugees entered the United States in fiscal 2016, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department data, and more than half hailed from Somalia and Syria. School districts from Southern California to Connecticut have seen a surge in Syrian enrollment in recent years. Somali refugees continue to flow to metro areas like Minneapolis and Seattle, where already established communities exist.

Minneapolis has more than 4,100 Somali students; many are refugees.

The district "recognizes and shares the pain and fear many of them have felt after recent events," Minneapolis Superintendent Ed Graff wrote to Education Week.

Refugee students face similar obstacles common to some immigrant students new to the country-interrupted education and learning a new language, along with adjusting to stigma tied to their race, religion, and skin color, said Gonzales, the Harvard professor.

Over the weekend, a federal district court judge in Seattle temporarily halted Trump's order to stop the flow of citizens from the Muslim-majority nations. Trump took to Twitter to lambaste the ruling and the judge who issued it. "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned."

Initially, however, Trump's effort to reverse the ruling failed, as a federal appeals court upheld the order of U.S. District Judge James L. Robart.

While Trump's executive orders play out, many are awaiting the fate of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-administration policy that gave temporary deportation reprieves to more than 740,000 undocumented youth.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to repeal DACA. He's also repeatedly said his administration will develop a plan for the young immigrants, but has yet to offer specifics. The uncertainty for DACA recipients-many of them immigrants from Mexico and Central America-is reverberating broadly in Latino communities.

"The fear ... is very present, not just for those who are undocumented, but those who are Latino, as well as their teachers and loved ones who have also felt maligned by the rhetoric used throughout the election and since Trump won," said Marisa Bono, a lawyer with the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

A broad array of K-12 education leaders have called on the Trump administration to continue protections for undocumented immigrant youth brought to the U.S. as children, popularly known as DREAMers.

Richard Carranza, the superintendent in Houston, is one. So is Joseph, the Nashville schools chief. Both men joined more than 1,000 other education leaders in signing a petition calling for saving the DACA policy. The list of supporters also includes Teach For America, the American Federation of Teachers, and charter school organizations.

"It's important to be proactive in reassuring the community that the district is here to educate children, anyone that shows up to our doors," Carranza said.

Federal Aid at Risk?

Trump's order to punish jurisdictions that don't cooperate with immigration authorities has put a target on cities that vow to protect their undocumented residents.

Los Angeles Unified is one district anticipating potential fallout for schools that pledge to shield their students. Its school board has been outspoken about its refusal to cooperate with any immigration enforcement efforts.

Slashing federal aid could deal a blow to any district. In L.A. Unified, roughly $700 million in federal funds flow into the district's coffers each year. Chicago and Clark County, Nev., may also be at risk for declaring their districts as "sanctuary" campuses.

Seattle's mayor allotted $250,000 for undocumented students in the city's schools. The school board directed staff to ban immigration agents from school grounds unless they get permission from the superintendent or the district's lawyers.

Even with a range of leaders pledging support for immigrant youth, it's hard to allay their fears, said Bono, the MALDEF lawyer.

"We want to hope for the best," she said, "but have to expect the worst."

Published in Print: February 8, 2017, as Trump Orders on Immigration Rattle Educators

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Orders on Immigration Rattle Some Educators

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump's sweeping order that halted residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States sent shock waves through some of the nation's schools, leaving educators scrambling to assure frightened refugee and immigrant students that their schools should be safe places.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The IP address used for your Internet connection is part of a subnet that has been blocked from access to PubMed Central. Addresses across the entire subnet were used to download content in bulk, in violation of the terms of the PMC Copyright Notice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration is linked to language policies

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration is linked to language policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's the centennial of America's entry into World War I, time to take a closer look at one of its offshoots, America's little-known War on Language

The United States declared war on Germany on April 7, 1917. In addition to sending troops to fight in Europe, Americans waged war on the language of the enemy at home. German was the second most commonly-spoken language in America, and banning it seemed the way to stop German spies cold. Plus, immigrants had always been encouraged to switch from their mother tongue to English to signal their assimilation and their acceptance of American values. Now, speaking English became a badge of patriotism as well, a way to prove that you were not a spy.

The war on language was fought on two fronts, one legal, the other, in the schools. Its impact was immediate and long-lasting. German was the target, but the other "foreign" tongues suffered collateral damage. Immigrant languages in America went into decline, and there was a precipitous drop in the study of foreign languages in US schools as well.

Speak English, it's the law

Boycotting German was the first step in the campaign, but legislating against the language quickly followed. Scribner's was urged to publish no German titles during the war. Sheet music dealers refused to handle German songs. At least one American Berlin was renamed Liberty. Even German foods were rebranded. Just as later, during the Iraq War, French fries would become freedom fries, in the America of World War I, German fried potatoes became American fries, sauerkraut morphed into liberty cabbage, and superpatriots even caught the liberty measles.

In addition, new laws regulated the use of foreign languages. Responding to a growing sentiment that using anything but English gave aid and comfort to the enemy, the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 USC Appendix), passed in June, 1917, suppressed the American foreign-language press and declared non-English printed matter unmailable without a certified English translation.

Across the country, state and local ordinances forbade the use of foreign languages, urged immigrants to switch to English immediately, and punished those who failed to comply. On May 23, 1918, Iowa Gov. William Harding banned the use of any foreign language in public: in schools, on the streets, in trains, even over the telephone, a more public instrument then than it is today. For Harding, the First Amendment "is not a guaranty of the right to use a language other than the language of this country-the English language."

Harding's English-only order covered freedom of religion as well: "Let those who cannot speak or understand the English language conduct their religious worship in their home." And he told the Des Moines Chamber of Commerce, "Those who insist upon praying in some other language . . . are wasting their time for the good Lord up above is now listening for the voice of English."

Speaking in Des Moines five days later, former president Theodore Roosevelt endorsed Harding's "Babel Proclamation," introducing a phrase that would become a refrain of today's official English movement:

America is a nation-not a polyglot boarding house. . . . There can be but one loyalty-to the Stars and Stripes; one nationality-the American-and therefore only one language-the English language.

Such attitudes had a chilling effect on language use. 18,000 people were charged in the Midwest with violating the various new English-only statutes.

Iowa Gov. William Harding's "Babel Proclamation," May 23, 1918. State Archives of Iowa.

Although some of the wartime English-only laws were later repealed or allowed to expire, the post-war period saw new laws restricting aliens and reinforcing the decline in immigrant languages. In 1921 alone, for example, various states proposed or passed laws making aliens ineligible to own property or to bequeath it to their heirs; to buy stock in American corporations; to hunt, fish, or own firearms; or to work in government offices or on public works projects. 1921 was also the year that New York state instituted English literacy tests for voters and entertained a law to ban any

speech or talk in a public manner, in any language other than English upon any subject relating to the form or character of the government or the administration or enforcement of the laws of this state or the United States.

At the federal level, Congress responded to a new wave of isolationism that was sweeping the country with the Immigration Act of 1924. The law slowed immigration from the nonanglophone countries of Europe to a trickle and denied admission to anyone from just about everywhere else (Asians were banned completely, and in the debate over the bill, Jews were singled out as particularly unassimilable). When immigration re-opened again in 1965, Americans who, after more than 40 years of "reform" simply assumed that their country had always been monolingual, reacted to the new, unfamiliar immigrant languages by declaring English endangered, attacking bilingual education, and passing new laws making English the official language of government, the workplace, and the schools.

Speak the language of your flag

The schools opened up a second front in the Great War on foreign languages in World War I America. In 1918, the New York Times reported that as many as 25 states had already removed German from the curriculum, an action the newspaper applauded as "a matter of polity, of patriotism, of Americanism," and "good hard common sense."

New York Times, July 14, 1918

Schools banned foreign languages from classrooms and schoolyards, promoting English not just as the best way to succeed in life, but also as the language for patriots. In 1918, the Chicago Woman's Club launched Better American Speech Week to further this agenda. With slogans like "Speak the language of your flag"; "American Speech means American loyalty"; and "Better Speech for Better Americans," children were encouraged to learn English, and those who already spoke the language were asked to speak it better.

Schoolchildren had to take a "Watch Your Speech" pledge which began, "I love the United States of America. I love my country's language," and included among its promises, "that I will say a good American 'yes' and 'no' in place of an Indian grunt 'un-hum' and 'nup-um' or a foreign 'ya' or 'yeh' and 'nope.'"

The "Watch Your Speech" pledge. Chicago Woman's Club Archives. Chicago History Museum. Used by permission.

Better American Speech Week reflected the spirit of wartime America, encoding patriotism, the assimilation of immigrants, and a rejection of minority languages and dialects. It resonated with popular opinion and was embraced by schools and by the press from coast to coast. In addition to pledges and posters, schools recruited students to spy on the usage of their peers. Those caught committing crimes against the language were interned, hauled before student tribunals certain to convict them, and made to wear signs testifying to their shame. Exposing the enemies of English was the least that children could do while their parents were busy exposing the enemies of the state.

Above: Court Martial announcement. Better American Speech Week activities included catching "Bad English spies" and trying them before a Court Martial that was almost certain to convict them. Chicago Woman's Club Archives. Chicago History Museum. Used by permission. Below: Secret agent pledge.

Delete

Edit embedded media in the Files Tab and re-insert as needed.

After the war the US Supreme Court threw out laws in Nebraska and Ohio banning foreign-language education ( Meyer v. Nebraska [262 US 390] 1923), but the damage was already done. Before World War I, 25% of American high school students studied German. By 1922, that figure had plummeted to 0.6%, a level from which it never recovered. World War II did not see the same language restrictions as World War I, and by then learning the language of the enemy rather than banning it had become an important tool for national security. Still, in 1948, only 0.8% of American students were studying German in high school.

The War to End All Wars failed to do that. But the Great War on language that began in 1917 rages on despite having met its goals. Today, with immigrants abandoning their first languages faster than ever and foreign-language enrollments still precarious, many Americans still regard English, and therefore America, as under attack. States like California and Arizona, where ongoing immigration creates large numbers of minority-language speakers, ban bilingual education in the mistaken belief that this will hasten the switch to English, and Iowa, where only 3% of residents speak a language other than English (and many in that number speak English as well), revives the Babel Proclamation by declaring English the state's official language to save it from imminent destruction.

American culture has always been hostile to foreign languages, and to native languages that aren't English, so even without World War I, we still wouldn't be celebrating National Heritage Language Day. But even though the war didn't make the world safe for democracy, it did its bit to make the country "safe" for English.

-----

For the whole story on gender-neutral and nonbinary pronouns, click to order your copy of my new book, What's Your Pronoun? Beyond 'he' and 'she.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's the centennial of America's entry into World War I, time to take a closer look at one of its offshoots, America's little-known War on Language The United States declared war on Germany on April 7, 1917. In addition to sending troops to fight in Europe, Americans waged war on the language of the enemy at home.

# data[].attributes.headline
Controlling language through education is a method to change culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Controlling language through education is a method to change culture

# data[].attributes.headline
Metaphors create powerful emotions with voters about bilingual education

# data[].attributes.subject
Metaphors create powerful emotions with voters about bilingual education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Twenty years ago, California public schools were forcing thousands of Latino children into Spanish-almost-only classes against the wishes of their parents.

In 1996, The Los Angeles Times told the story of a group of Latino immigrant parents who began a public protest against their local elementary school for refusing to teach their children English, boycotting classes and marching outside with picket signs.

That protest inspired our "English for the Children" initiative campaign, which began the following year. Our Proposition 227 required California public schools to teach children English from their first day of classes, placing children who didn't know English into an intensive sheltered English immersion program to teach them the language as quickly as possible, then moving them into the regular classes with all the other children.

Our honorary chairman was the late Jaime Escalante of "Stand and Deliver" fame, one of America's most famous teachers, and we attracted enormous public support. Even though almost all the politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, refused to support our initiative, we still won a landslide victory, getting over 61 percent of the vote.

The educational results were tremendous. Most California newspapers had opposed our ballot measure, but once it passed they immediately began reporting how well the new system worked and how quickly and easily hundreds of thousands of Latino children were learning English.

Within four years, the academic test scores of over 1 million immigrant schoolchildren had increased by 30 percent, 50 percent or even 100 percent. Proposition 227 was so successful that its educational results were reported on the front page of The New York Times, with major coverage by CBS News and many other national media outlets.

The founding president of the California Association of Bilingual Educators publicly admitted that he'd been mistaken for 30 years and that intensive English immersion was the best educational policy for immigrant children. He became a leading national advocate of English in the schools.

Because nearly all the Latino children in California schools are now immediately taught English, they're doing much better academically and gaining admission to top colleges. Despite the end of affirmative action in California, there's been a huge increase in the number of Latinos attending the prestigious University of California system.

So-called "Dual-Language Programs" - in which up to 90 percent of the instruction is in Spanish - were never completely outlawed by Proposition 227. However, parents who wanted to place their children in such non-English classes had to sign an annual waiver, and since the overwhelming majority of Latino parents wanted their children taught English, that's exactly what has happened.

Because all these educational changes were so successful, almost everyone in California began supporting them, and the entire issue has been dead and forgotten for the last dozen years.

However, a small group of die-hard bilingual education activists never gave up. They recently hoodwinked some of the politicians in Sacramento into placing Proposition 58 on the ballot, hoping to repeal Proposition 227 and allow the re-establishment of Spanish-almost-only classes throughout California.

The supporters of Proposition 58 have publicly admitted that one of their biggest objections to the current system is that it has been difficult to persuade immigrant parents to sign waivers placing their children in non-English classes. Therefore, Proposition 58 eliminates that requirement and allows children to be placed in non-English classes without the written consent of their parents, just as had been the case 20 years ago.

The overwhelming majority of California voters, immigrant and native-born alike, believe children should be taught English in school. Therefore, the supporters of Proposition 58 are being dishonest and trying to trick the voters. They sought to give their ballot measure the very deceptive official title "English Language Education" even though it actually repeals the requirement that children be taught English in California public schools. Their proposed title of their proposition is the exact opposite of what it actually does.

And the worst part of Proposition 58 is hidden away in Section 8, which repeals all restrictions on the California Legislature to make future changes. This would allow the Legislature to reestablish mandatory Spanish-almost-only instruction in all our public schools by a simple majority vote, once again forcing all Latino children into those classes against their parents' wishes.

Proposition 227 - "English for the Children" - has worked very well in California and has greatly improved the education of millions of immigrant schoolchildren since 1998. The voters should keep this successful system and not be tricked into re-establishing the failed education programs of the past.

Unz, a Silicon Valley software developer, was chairman of the 1998 "English for the Children" campaign to pass Proposition 227.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bilingual Education Programs Fail Our Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twenty years ago, California public schools were forcing thousands of Latino children into Spanish-almost-only classes against the wishes of their parents. In 1996, The Los Angeles Times told the story of a group of Latino immigrant parents who began a public protest against their local elementary school for refusing to teach their children English, boycotting classes and marching outside [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ron K. Unz, the man who beat bilingual education in the nation's most populous state, is no slick demagogue or smooth revolutionary.

At 36, he looks and lives like a harried graduate student, dressed in faded and fraying clothing, fueled by fast food and canned chili, fatigued by late nights in the glow of a computer screen.

But by successfully promoting a statewide initiative that, if it withstands legal challenges, will essentially wipe out bilingual education in California, Mr. Unz emerged last week as a new force and a new kind of figure in California politics, the ardent ideologue who circumvents the telegenic requirements and messy compromises of a traditional candidacy by working his will through a voter referendum.

''Look at Jane Harman and Al Checchi,'' Mr. Unz said, referring to two candidates who lost their bids for the Democratic nomination for governor on June 2, when his initiative passed. Exquisitely groomed and exhaustively coached, they were slaves to focus groups, he said, and have little to show for their efforts.

''Six months from now, will anyone really remember what either of them said in the campaign?'' asked Mr. Unz, a self-made multimillionaire who owns a software company here. ''For a politician, you spend a lot of time and a lot of money and you probably lose. With the initiative process, you can have a lot more direct impact, and if you can get your thing on the ballot, there's a good chance you'll win.''

That was true in California long before Mr. Unz and Proposition 227, supported by 61 percent of voters.

But seldom has a referendum in this initiative-mad state been so entwined with one person -- indeed, Proposition 227 came to be known by many people as the Unz Initiative, and the opposition group that sprang up to oppose it included the phrase ''No on Unz'' in its title.

Mr. Unz, whose campaign employed a support staff of only two people, was arguably more of a lone ranger than Ward Connerly, the principal force behind an anti-affirmative action initiative, Proposition 209, in 1996. Perhaps only Howard Jarvis, the man behind the anti-tax measure Proposition 13 two decades ago, has been so closely identified with an initiative and integral not only to its passage, but to its existence.

Moreover, Mr. Unz, unlike the architects of most initiatives, seems poised to use the same blunt instrument to effect other changes.

He made no bones about it: he is likely to be back with another initiative, and maybe even another after that. He mentioned tax policy, then grew deliberately vague.

To his critics, such words are chilling. They say that the initiative process promotes often extreme ideas, unmitigated by the compromises and consensus building that occur in a legislative body, then asks uninformed voters for a simple yes or no.

And they say that the process provides a ready window of political opportunity for anyone who can afford to hire workers to gather the necessary signatures -- about 430,000 in the case of Proposition 227 -- to put a referendum on the ballot.

The cost of a signature-gathering campaign, from $500,000 to $1 million, is a fraction of the $16 million that Ms. Harman, for example, spent on her failed bid for governor. It is a sum available to a number of individuals in such a wealthy state, political analysts noted.

Although advertising an initiative can raise the financial toll, Mr. Unz, who owns a software company in the Silicon Valley, said he spent less than $300,000 on commercials and paid promotions for Proposition 227. He relied mostly on free news coverage.

In all, Mr. Unz said the bill for the initiative was about $1.2 million, of which he contributed $700,000. The initiative was certainly a more cost-effective strategy for change than his unsuccessful challenge of Gov. Pete Wilson for the Republican nomination for governor four years ago, when he mined his personal wealth for more than $2 million.

''This year, Ron Unz used much less money to qualify an initiative, and he will be a player for a long time in California politics,'' said Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center in San Francisco, a nonprofit advocacy-training group, and an expert on the history of initiatives in California.

Mr. Shultz and other political observers noted that Mr. Unz demonstrated the enormous potential impact that one person can have by tapping a sensitive nerve among voters. Conventional politicians, restrained by the legislative process and the influence of advocacy groups, had not raised the issue.

Mr. Unz did not have to soften or muddy his vision to get people to consider it: He just put it before them in an uncomplicated triumph of will and wealth. ''It's a lot easier to be ideologically pure in an initiative campaign than in office,'' said Dan Schnur, a Republican political analyst in California. ''There is a potential for a lot more of these people.''

If Mr. Unz is any indication, they do not need any special charisma. Although he seems earnest and affable, he also comes across as somewhat goofy and disconnected, caught up in his own frenetic thought processes, his eyes fixed on some indeterminate point in space as his words tumble out in run-on paragraphs.

His voice has slightly nasal, cultured tones, and he laughs in open-mouthed gulps: George Plimpton meets Pee-wee Herman.

Mr. Unz did not have a particularly strong personal connection to the issue of bilingual education. He is unmarried and childless and had never been in a bilingual classroom.

Mr. Unz said he was driven by a pure, unwavering conviction that bilingual education, as a way to acclimate children into English, defied logic and test scores, which showed poor achievement by many students in the programs. Bilingual education struck him as a paradigm of a government program wrapped in lofty theories but miserable results.

But he confessed that he was also excited by the prospect of waging ideological battle on a broad stage and entering the public fray in such a bold manner, which he called ''tremendous fun.'' Some analysts said he may have been paving the path for another run for office, finding a way to seize the kind of clout that eluded him when he ran against Mr. Wilson.

Although his maternal grandparents spoke Yiddish when they came to Los Angeles from the former Soviet Union, he grew up in an English-speaking household, an only child raised by a single mother after his father left when he was a toddler. Bilingual education was not prevalent when he attended Los Angeles public schools.

At Harvard University, he had double majors in theoretical physics and ancient history. But his passion for ideas ranged far and wide.

Eric Reyburn, who lived in a dormitory room that adjoined Mr. Unz's, said Mr. Unz's conservative ideology put him at odds with many of his peers, and he relished debating them and trumping them with his easy command of information. ''Ron loves to be able to state his opinions on things,'' Mr. Reyburn said. ''And he's a very competitive person.''

After graduate courses in theoretical physics at Cambridge University in England and Stanford University in Palo Alto, Mr. Unz moved to New York City to be a software developer, once sending resumes that listed his I.Q. as 214, more than twice the average person's. In 1988, he started Wall Street Analytics, which provides software programs for analyzing mortgage securities. Five years later, he moved the company to Palo Alto.

He also began pumping time and money into conservative organizations. His surprise entry into the 1994 governor's race, however, came in protest of an idea supported by many conservatives and by Mr. Wilson: Proposition 187, which called for the denial of public services to illegal immigrants. Mr. Unz said he saw that initiative, which was passed by voters but is tied up in legal obstacles, as needlessly divisive.

Some opponents have branded Proposition 227 in similar terms. The initiative calls for students with limited skills in English to be given about a year of intensive instruction in the language, then be placed in classes where all subjects are taught in English.

But Mr. Unz was careful to get several prominent Hispanic educators to attach their names to his cause, and political analysts said that by framing his case in educational terms that did not seem to fan the flames of racial conflict, he may have won over moderate voters who would have felt uncomfortable about siding with any referendum that smacked of bigotry.

Mr. Unz said he succeeded because the current system was terribly flawed and voters needed only to be enlightened. Mr. Unz, who attends conferences on public policy as a form of recreation, was happy to be the one to take on that task.

''It's nice to be able to fix broken things, and there are a lot of broken things in California,'' he said. ''I certainly fixed bilingual education. I fixed it but good.''

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The California Entrepreneur Who Beat Bilingual Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ron K Unz successfully promoted Proposition 227 in California; initiative will essentially wipe out bilingual education in state if it withstands legal challenges; Unz, self-made multimillionaire who owns software company, has emerged as new force and new kind of figure in California politics, ardent ideologue who circumvents telegenic requirements and messy compromises of traditional candidacy by working his will through voter referendum; photo (M)

# data[].attributes.headline
English Only education in Massachusetts 

# data[].attributes.subject
English Only education in Massachusetts 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifteen years after Massachusetts voters pushed bilingual education out of most public schools, lawmakers are on the verge of allowing school systems to teach students academic subjects in their own languages if they're not yet fluent in English.

The changes could affect more than 90,000 Massachusetts students classified as "English language learners," a steadily growing portion that now represents nearly 10 percent of the state's public-school enrollment.

Lawmakers are responding to growing calls from educators, parents, students, and immigrant-rights advocates who argue that the requirement voters approved in 2002 to teach all academic classes to non-native speakers in English is harming their classroom performance.

For many advocates, the issue boils down to a simple question: How can you expect students to learn complex concepts in math, science, and other subjects when they don't even yet know how to speak, read, or understand English?

The Senate is scheduled to vote on the proposed changes Thursday. The House approved a similar measure last month, 151 to 2.

"This is an important move by the Legislature to correct a wrong," said Senator Sal DiDomenico, an Everett Democrat. "Kids are falling through the cracks and are not getting the education they need."

Supporters of the measures are optimistic that bilingual education, in which students can learn academic subjects in their native tongue while gaining English fluency, can be a regular feature again in Massachusetts schools. Some advocates say they don't necessarily favor one version of the bill over the other.

"We just want a bill that passes that gives kids a better chance," said Marion Davis, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "Schools and parents should be able to work together and decide what is the best approach for each student."

Brendan Moss, a spokesman for Governor Charlie Baker, said Baker has not taken a position yet on the bills but will carefully review any legislation that reaches his desk.

Massachusetts schools have been struggling for years to boost the performance of students who lack fluency in English - a population that has nearly doubled over the past 15 years as more immigrant families settle in the state. On average, students lacking English fluency have among the lowest standardized test scores and graduation rates.

But some students overcome those dismal statistics. In Boston, for instance, many high school valedictorians each year are immigrant students.

Many educators, advocates, and families blame the so-called English-only law for the low achievement of most students who aren't yet fluent. They argue the law is too restrictive, creating a one-size-fits-all approach to a population of students with vastly different academic needs and fluency levels in English.

On one end of the spectrum, some students who are classified as English-language learners were born in the United States in immigrant households where English is not the primary language, but those students may have gained some understanding of it from relatives who speak English or from TV or neighbors.

On the other end of the spectrum, students themselves may have arrived in the country with no knowledge of English. Some may not even have had any formal schooling for several years and could be suffering trauma from war, political strife, or natural disasters in their home countries.

Under current law, school systems must teach all courses in English and can use a student's native language only occasionally to check for understanding. The law provides some exceptions, such as allowing dual-language programs in which English-speaking students and non-native students learn each other's languages.

But students lacking English fluency also performed poorly under bilingual education, prompting voters in part in 2002 to dismantle that program and replace it with what is officially known as "structured English immersion."

Rosalie Pedalino Porter, a former bilingual education director for the Newton schools who supported the ballot question, said she thinks it would be a mistake to bring back bilingual education wholesale.

"I do not believe there is any problem with the law as it is written," said Porter, who is chairwoman of ProEnglish, a Washington, D.C., organization that advocates for laws that make English the official language. "Any changes to that law is going to be harmful to children."

DiDomenico said he expects the Senate will pass the bill Thursday. He noted that the Senate passed a similar bill last year, and so did the House, but the votes came at the end of the legislative session and time ran out for a compromise.

This time, he said, the two chambers will have up to a year to iron out their differences.

The main difference between the two bills is the amount of flexibility given to school systems. The House measure would loosen current requirements for school systems to seek waivers to the English-only rule, while the Senate bill would abolish the waivers and instead give school systems a choice of specific programs, including English immersion and bilingual education.

Adding urgency for a compromise is a desire among lawmakers to make Massachusetts more welcoming at a time when President Trump's administration has tightened immigration rules and Trump himself has continued anti-immigrant rhetoric.

And the growing presence of English-language learners in school systems across the state makes it tough for policy makers to ignore, some academic experts said.

James Vaznis can be reached at james.vaznis@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @globevaznis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawmakers hope to undo English-only education in Mass. - The Boston Globe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifteen years after Massachusetts voters pushed bilingual education out of most public schools, lawmakers are on the verge of allowing school systems to teach students academic subjects in their own languages if they're not yet fluent in English.

# data[].attributes.body
ELL education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lawmakers in Arizona will try again this year to repeal a 20-year-old law requiring English learners to be separated during the school day for explicit English language instruction - a model many say has left them trailing their peers in core subject areas.

Arizona is also the only state in the country with such a law still on the books.

In the meantime, state education officials are doing what they can to give schools more control over instruction for ELs - flexibility that includes allowing them more chances to participate in the state's growing number of dual-language immersion programs.

On Monday, the Arizona State Board of Education approved a plan allowing schools to choose from one of four models to meet students' needs and potentially give them more time in mainstream classrooms. The new guidelines follow the passage of legislation last year halving the original four-hour block of structured English immersion for ELs required by Proposition 203.

In general, the law "hasn't stopped the creativity and the innovation of Arizona educators," said Tammy Waller, director of K-12 social studies and world languages at the Arizona Department of Education. While the law might "put up some roadblocks, changes in the way programs have developed have met with the law."

Last year, the legislature also came close to approving a proposal by state Rep. John Fillmore, a Republican from Apache Junction, to repeal the law. While it passed overwhelmingly in the House, the session ended before the Senate took action.

In November, Fillmore pre-filed House Concurrent Resolution 2001, which would ask voters to decide in November on doing away with Proposition 203. State Superintendent Kathy Hoffman has also said she supports a repeal.

Lack of improvement under English-only laws

Passed in 2000, Proposition 203 was part of an English-only movement and similar to measures in California and Massachusetts, which have been repealed. The ballot initiative was based on the theory that prohibiting ELs to receive instruction in their home language would help them learn English faster.

The English-only movement still exists. The majority of states have passed legislation naming English as the official language, and similar efforts are continuing this year in New York and Wisconsin. It's also a recurring issue in Congress, with the English Language Unity Act as the current version. And advocacy groups, such as ProEnglish, oppose bilingual education.

But the proposals are viewed as anti-immigrant, and advocates for immigrants criticized former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden earlier this month for suggesting speaking English should be a requirement for obtaining citizenship.

In education, researchers have learned more about effective strategies for teaching ELs, including literacy development and learning content in their home language. The growing view that bilingualism is an important 21st century skill is another reason policymakers and advocates have pushed to keep or restore bilingual education.

Researchers have also found outcomes among English learners - such as dropout rates and special education placement - did not improve under English-only laws.

In Arizona, where about 7% of the state's K-12 students are ELs, recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress is an indicator of the gap between ELs and their English-proficient peers. At 4th grade and 8th grade, average scores for ELs trail the statewide average by at least 30 points in both reading and math.

Limiting 'our kids'

The Arizona law's structured model emphasizes word pronunciation, vocabulary, word order rules and the use of English in different situations. Many argue the requirement has left ELs isolated and with less time for math, science, art and other subjects.

"A four-hour block can be detrimental to students' schedules," said Terri Cota, an English language acquisition specialist with the Mesa Public Schools, near Phoenix. "And when you think about secondary, we limit our kids to be able to take the classes they need for graduation."

At the elementary level, she adds, the requirement limited ELs ability to participate in art, music and other enrichment programs.

When the state reduced the requirement from four hours to two, "we knew that we were going to push forward immediately" with making the change, Cota said. "We knew there was a big shift, but it was truly welcomed by principals and parents."

To satisfy the two-hour requirement in high school, MPS created a writing and grammar class that gives students an English credit and a reading and oral language proficiency class that carries an elective credit.

The role of dual-language instruction

As they have across the country, dual-language immersion programs - in which students become fluent in English and a second language - have also been growing in Arizona districts. In addition to Spanish, languages taught through immersion have included French, Mandarin, Arabic and Navajo.

"Those programs became very popular as a way to create career-ready and college-ready students," Waller said.

The state further encourages bilingualism through its seal of biliteracy, with more than 1,500 graduates earning that recognition last school year. "Biliteracy is a strong part of preparing for the global marketplace," Waller said.

Research shows ELs can benefit from dual-language programs, and some districts view them as a strategy for reducing achievement disparities between ELs and native-English speakers. But ELs in Arizona have had limited access to dual-language programs because students have generally been required to have strong skills in English in order to enroll.

Parents of ELs have been able to apply for a waiver that allows their children to participate. In fact, when Patricia Fernandez, the dual-language immersion specialist for MPS, worked in the Kyrene School District, also in the Phoenix metro area, educators tracked a group of students on waivers who took part in the dual-language program. And they "developed language as if they were in" English language development classes, Fernandez said.

But the waiver process has been "difficult and complicated," making it less likely parents will make the request, Evelyn Baca, now at Bucknell University, wrote in a 2018 article for New America. She called a repeal "long overdue."

The 'best of both worlds'

At the elementary level, dropping to the two-hour requirement has allowed more ELs to participate in dual-language immersion programs in which the day is evenly split between Spanish and English.

"It allows us to service our students in the best of both worlds," Fernandez said. "They are using both languages to reach their academic goals, and when we have students with no English, they are still learning in their primary language. The beauty is that many skills transfer."

The state school board's latest policy, adopted Monday, she adds, "aligns with the goals for dual language." Two of the four models maintain the two-hour block of time (100 minutes for grades 6-12) in targeted English instruction. Another model would have students spend half the block in a structured English language class and the rest in a general classroom with integrated language and content support from teachers.

The fourth model is a half hour of targeted English instruction and the balance of the time with support in the English portion of a dual-language immersion program.

Kate Wright, an associate superintendent for the Arizona Department of Education, said districts would be able to use any of the models at any of their schools and also use different models at different grade levels.

Fillmore's bill would further open opportunities for ELs - often referred to as dual-language learners when they are still young - to participate in dual-language programs.

The bill received a second reading in the House Education Committee last week. As it moves forward, Baca said it's important for lawmakers to consult with EL experts "to ensure that the language of the law, once passed, provides educators with the greatest ability to do what's right for Arizona's [ELs] and bi/multilingual communities."

And if the law is ultimately repealed, bilingual teachers and programs won't "magically return," she said. "It will take years of thoughtful rebuilding to create high-quality bilingual programs for [ELs] in Arizona."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arizona board approves more flexibility for ELs under English-only law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawmakers in Arizona will try again this year to repeal a 20-year-old law requiring English learners to be separated during the school day for explicit English language instruction - a model many say has left them trailing their peers in core subject areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
California's experience with English ONLY

# data[].attributes.subject
California's experience with English ONLY

# data[].attributes.body
18 years of English ONLY education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California voters have reversed a long-time ban on bilingual education in the state, rolling back a law passed 18 years ago that required "English-only" instruction for all students, including those who aren't native speakers of the language.

The Associated Press reported that voters overwhelmingly favored the ballot measure-with more than 72 percent of voters supporting it.

Tuesday's passage of Proposition 58 means that the state's public schools are now free of any restrictions on using various forms of bilingual education, most notably for teaching the state's 1.5 million English-language learners.

The ballot measure essentially repeals Proposition 227, the 1998 law that made it tougher for districts to offer bilingual education; only students whose parents signed a waiver to "opt in" had access to dual language classes.

More than 60 percent of voters backed that proposal in 1998 and the measure essentially put an end to many bilingual education programs in public schools across California.

But public sentiment has changed in the time since: dual-language immersion education and an understanding of its benefits have grown in public schools nationwide.

Around the nation, state legislators and school districts have pushed to graduate students who can speak, read, write, and think in more than one language. Since 2012, 23 states have adopted seals of biliteracy, an award granted to students who graduate high school able to read, write, and speak in two or more languages.

The federal government has also embraced multiliteracy in a bid to better prepare students for a global economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Voters Repeal Ban on Bilingual Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California voters have reversed a long-time ban on bilingual education in the state, rolling back a law passed 18 years ago that required "English-only" instruction for all students, including those who aren't native speakers of the language. The Associated Press reported that voters overwhelmingly favored the ballot measure-with more than 72 percent of voters supporting it.

# data[].attributes.headline
States create language policies in vacuum of federal guidance.

# data[].attributes.subject
States create language policies in vacuum of federal guidance.

# data[].attributes.body
Without a national language, states are left to create their own legislation

# data[].attributes.headline
Dangerous Difference: A critical-Historical Analysis of Language Education Policies in the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Dangerous Difference: A critical-Historical Analysis of Language Education Policies in the United States

# data[].attributes.body
Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, Amy. (2004). Medium of instruction policies which agenda? whose agenda? L. Erlbaum Publishers.

# data[].attributes.headline
English Only education policies in Arizona

# data[].attributes.subject
English Only education policies in Arizona

# data[].attributes.body
Johnson, E. (2005). Proposition 203: A Critical Metaphor Analysis. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2005.10162824

# data[].attributes.headline
Language education is a proxy for political, economic, and personal control over students in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.subject
Language education is a proxy for political, economic, and personal control over students in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Bilingual education in the U.S. is investigated through two papers.