Governor Candidates Avoid Bilingual Education Issue

SACRAMENTO —  Here is cause for a double take: At least two out of three voters say they favor a June ballot initiative to end bilingual education, but not one of the major candidates for governor--Democrat or Republican--supports it.

Don’t they care what voters want? Usually such popular measures have little trouble winning endorsements from candidates eager to boost their campaigns.

This time, however, it appears that many consider Proposition 227 to be the latest sequel in California’s election-year battles over race relations. Candidates are being warned that the issue could be politically dangerous, observers say.

“They are in a difficult position,” acknowledged Ron Unz, the conservative Silicon Valley computer entrepreneur who is sponsoring the measure.

“This initiative does relate to . . . touchy issues for politicians to get tied up in,” he said. “But there is also tremendous dissatisfaction with bilingual education.”

How does a candidate oppose a popular ballot initiative? Very carefully.

So far, all of the candidates for governor have taken a similar course.

The three Democrats--businessman Al Checchi, Lt. Gov. Gray Davis and Rep. Jane Harman--oppose the plan. Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the presumptive Republican nominee, is critical of the measure but has not taken a position.

All four candidates are telling voters that they agree with the initiative’s premise--that the state’s approach to bilingual education is broken and needs to be fixed.

UC Berkeley political science professor Bruce Cain said the candidates are following the strategy President Clinton used when he faced a popular California ballot measure against affirmative action during his 1996 reelection campaign.

Clinton opposed the initiative. Then he adopted an affirmative action policy that he dubbed “mend it, don’t end it.”

“You probably want to play this safe,” Cain said of Proposition 227. “The safe thing to do is to make sure you don’t get caught on the wrong side of the issue.”

Last week, the independent Field Poll reported that 70% of the state’s voters support Proposition 227 while just 20% oppose it--suggesting a significant schism between the voters and all four of the gubernatorial candidates.

But political strategists say that is not necessarily the case. They contend that the poll reflects support for a reform of the state’s bilingual education system--not necessarily the changes recommended by the Unz initiative.

With more than two months left before the June election, strategists said it is still too early for most voters to have analyzed the Unz plan and compared it with alternatives.

“Candidates may look at these things differently than voters are at present,” said Kam Kuwata, a consultant for Harman.

That doesn’t mean the campaigns expect the initiative to fail. But they do expect the margin of support to shrink--perhaps significantly.

There was a similar trend in the two race-related ballot measures that Californians have recently considered: Proposition 209, the 1996 plan to end affirmative action, and Proposition 187, a 1994 measure aimed at ending public benefits for illegal immigrants.

In both cases, polls showed 2-1 support for the measures about two months before the election. In the end, Proposition 209 passed by just 9 points, Proposition 187 by 18 points.

“I think [bilingual education] is an issue that Californians are sort of confused about,” said Jim Margolis, a consultant to Sen. Barbara Boxer’s reelection campaign. “People want kids to be able to come into the [mainstream] . . . but they don’t know what is the best way of doing that.”

Critics of the state’s bilingual education system worry that it allows students to continue instruction without learning the English they will need to compete for jobs. They also charge that some English-speaking students suffer when they are forced to attend bilingual classes.

The Unz initiative would essentially end bilingual classrooms. It would place students who are not fluent in English in an immersion language class. The language instruction would last one year, after which the students would be returned to English-speaking classrooms.

In certain circumstances, parents and school administrators together could agree to continue non-English classes indefinitely for students older than 10.

In general, the candidates for governor have complained that the Unz measure does not give enough authority or flexibility to parents and school districts.

“The Unz initiative is a mistake,” Davis said recently. “It’s a one-size-fits-all. I think parents should determine exactly how their child is educated.”

That is a complex issue that has stymied legislative action on the issue for several years. What decisions should be left to parents, and what should be decided by school officials? Is it practical to let parents choose any language program they want?

Educators are also concerned about how much time students are allowed to study English before they are expected to be fluent. Unz recommends one year, Checchi would limit instruction to two years and Davis would allow three. Harman and Lungren have not suggested a limit.

Proponents of bilingual education worry that if students are forced into English-speaking classrooms before they are ready, they will fall behind and suffer lifelong setbacks.

The State Board of Education voted recently to end much of its role in bilingual education decisions. That vote could clear the way for local districts to teach non-English-speakers as they see fit--as long as those students are not left to founder.

Lungren said recently that the board’s vote might make the Unz initiative “irrelevant.” If it passes, however, the measure would replace other state policies on the issue.

The powerful California Teachers Assn. has sided against the Unz initiative. It is worried about a provision that would allow parents to sue teachers if they don’t follow the law.

Union officials, who traditionally support Democrats, say the initiative opens a new area of law because, although parents are now allowed to sue school districts, they cannot sue individual teachers.

Political observers say the opposition from the union and prominent Latino groups may be another key reason Democrats might avoid the Unz initiative.

“People might say, ‘Isn’t it marvelous that we have these candidates who aren’t pandering to the polls,’ ” said Mervin Field, an independent pollster from San Francisco. “But . . . my suspected reason is that they see that some very powerful interests are opposed to it.”