Dear Readers:

Earlier this week we published an issue of "The Democracy Center On-Line" that criticized the Unz anti-bilingual education campaign with misrepresenting statistics to make their case.That article prompted a lot of interest and response from reporters and others.In fairness I shared my article with Mr. Unz and offered him the opportunity to respond.Here is his response to me, in-full and without editing.Following that is a response from me.

Happy reading!

Jim Shultz The Democracy Center

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your note, though I was disappointed that you wrote your piece before giving me a chance to explain and defend my use of the 95% statistic. Although political campaigns may often use distortions for political advantage, I believe my argument is absolutely correct and not misleading whatsoever.Although I would only defend my own precision formulation of the argument---I can't say how others might use or misuse my own statistics---it seems the two other writers whom you quoted, especially Susan Estrich, are also generally accurate.My note is a long one, since the issue is crucial, and it is important to prevent inaccuracies from propogating (sic) and developing a life of their own.

The canonical form of my statement is: "According to official government statistics, only about five percent of California schoolchildren who don't know English learn English by the end of each school year.This implies an annual failure rate for the current system of language instruction of almost 95%" The central issue is my reliance on the official statistics gathered by the State Department of Education's office of Bilingual Instruction (or whatever they call it).In my own opinion, these statistics are UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WORTHLESS AND UNRELIABLE BUT THEY REPRESENT THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF OUR ENTIRE CURRENT SYSTEM OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION.

A few points: (1) the classification methodology used to decide whether children "know English" or not (i.e. are LEP) is ridiculously stupid and inaccurate; (2) partly for this reason, there is a huge amount of anecdotal data that large numbers of children classified as "not knowing English" and therefore earmarked for "bilingual" programs actually speak English as their first and only language; and (3) after 30 years of "bilingual"s existence, neither the Office of Bilingual Instruction (nor the equivalent in any local school district) has ever bothered to gather data on whether children in "bilingual" programs learn English more quickly or more slowly than children in non-bilingual programs.Perhaps children in "bilingual" programs are reclassified more quickly than children in non-bilingual programs, perhaps not---nobody knows!

Thus, the leaders of California "bilingual ed" system could validly attack my statement along the following lines:

"Mr. Unz has criticized the operation of our department based on the performance statistics which our department compiles and distributes, but we know that our own statistics are completely unreliable.We simply have no idea how many children in California public schools are currently fluent in English and how many are not.We also don't have a clue how many children who don't know English learn English each year under our current system. And even if our statistics were accurate (which they're not), we've never in 30 years tried to find out whether "bilingual education" seems to work better than doing nothing at all.Therefore, since Mr. Unz has built his criticism of our policies on our own data, and since we know that our own data is worthless, his criticisms are worthless as well, and our programs should continue indefinitely."

Obviously such a defense of "bilingual ed" would turn its supporters into laughingstocks.

Other points: (1) I have never said that 95% of LEP children are failures, I say that 95% of them fail to learn English each year, a crucial distinction; (2) your use of a "75%" failure rate for high school students to graduate as an analogy is built on a crucial assumption, namely how quickly children "should" be able to learn English; if we expect children to require 20 years to learn English (which is ridiculous), then a 5% annual tranisition (sic) rate is total success; if we expect children to only require one year to learn English (which is my view), then a 5% annual transition rate is horrifying; "bilingual ed" theorists claim children require 7 years to learn English (which is ridiculous), so a 5% annual is still horrifying. Thus, the current system is both ridiculous and horrifying; (3) Interestingly, enough although they are many other nations around the world which have large immigrant populations, no one anywhere seems to be using the "bilingual" approach, and the standard system is something very much along the lines of our proposed one-year immersion program.

Jim, as you certainly agree, our campaign is dealing with a matter of crucial importance for California's educational system, and I hope you will carefully review my own arguments before indicating to others that our campaign's use of statistics is distorted or misleading.

Best,

Ron

P.S. I urge you to take a look at Glenn Garvin's piece in Reason (posted on our web site).I'll also send you a reprint as soon as we receive them.

A RESPONSE

For half a year Mr. Unz has consistently told the press that the "95% failure rate" applies to just bilingual programs, not to all LEP students including those in the English-only classes that Mr. Unz advocates. Again, for the record, here are direct quotes from articles posted on the Unz campaign's own Web site ("www.onenation.org"):

"He [Unz] argues that only about 5% of children who enter the bilingual stream graduate into English-speaking classes each year."

The Economist August 30, 1997

"Unz cites state data which he says prove a '95 percent failure rate' because only 5 percent of bilingual students move into regular classes."

The Washington Post July 21, 1997

"He [Unz] complains that just 5 percent of immigrant children in bilingual education programs exit them each year. 'That's a 95 percent failure rate,' he said."

The San Francisco Chronicle July 18, 1997

"Unz said his proposal was prompted by public opinion polls showing that Latino parents want their children in English-only programs and by statistics indicating that bilingual programs graduate only 5% of their children annually into regular classes. 'That's a 95% failure rate,' he said."

Los Angeles Times July 9, 1997

THE BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line is this.My original article made a simple point - that is is a complete misrepresentation of the facts to say that only 5% of "bilingual class" students become English proficient each year based on data that is specifically about students in BOTH bilingual and English-only classes. Nothing in Mr. Unz's response refutes that basic point.The misleading "95% failure" claim continues to be a widely publicized mantra of the Unz campaign, despite its inaccuracy.

As a parent I agree with Mr. Unz that we ought to have programs in place that help students become proficient in English.That was certainly the goal my wife Lynn and I had for our own immigrant children.We need to make education policy on real facts, not numbers cooked to provide a good campaign sound byte.

THE DEMOCRACY CENTER ON-LINE is an electronic publication of The Democracy Center, distributed on an occasional basis to more than 700 nonprofit organizations, policy makers, journalists and others.

Please consider forwarding it along to those who might be interested. People can request to be added to the distribution list by sending an e-mail note to "JShultz@igc.org".

Permission is granted to copy or excerpt any material in the newsletter, with notice and credit to The Democracy Center.Suggestions and comments are welcome.