Ballot Question 2 is fundamentally wrong 
Thursday, October 31, 2002



Today, I will not speak as an elected official, but as a product of 
our Worcester public schools, and its bilingual program. I urge you 
to read my comments carefully when considering the merits of Question 2.

     There is something fundamentally wrong with an initiative 
petition that attacks the very core of what we are in this country 
and in this commonwealth. For centuries, families much like mine came 
to this country for the promise of "The American Dream." By going along 
with this initiative we are suddenly turning our backs on our heritage 
and the principles upon which our nation was founded. With a quick look 
at the language in Question 2, one is easily able to discern the mean 
spirit with which it was drafted.

     The anti-bilingual education ballot question is against providing 
immigrant children the one tool that allows them to become competitive, 
and that gives them hope that one day they, too, may reach their 
American dream. A sound education is the basis for this promise. Without 
a good education, our immigrant children and non-English-speaking 
citizens are doomed to low-wage, dead-end jobs that will frustrate the 
dreams of many families.

     The way this question came to be is further evidence that it is 
not intended to aid our children in accessing English instruction, but 
as a way to end "just another entitlement" granted to "ungrateful 
Puerto Rican children." This question was brought about under false 
pretenses, and was placed on the ballot by misleading those collecting 
the signatures and those who were asked to sign the petitions. It was 
brought by a handful of headline-grabbing opportunists looking to expand 
their political future by pandering to a growing anti-immigrant sentiment.

     While only 8 percent of Latino students enrolled in the Worcester 
public schools are in the bilingual program, the proponents would have 
the public believe otherwise. Further, more than 88 percent of the 
children enrolled in the bilingual program in the Worcester public schools 
transition out to the regular classroom within three or four years. 
The proponents of this question did not mention the thousands of children 
across the commonwealth who, like my sister, myself and others, are 
examples of what the bilingual program has achieved. They only recite 
the examples of the few children who have spent many years in the program 
without successfully transitioning to the mainstream classroom.

     I am a very proud product of the bilingual program of the Worcester 
public schools. I believe with all my heart that it works and is one of 
the reasons why I am successful today. However, I am not naive. I admit 
that this program, like many across our commonwealth, requires reform. 
I have always agreed with critics that as currently used in many 
communities, and even in Worcester, some children spend far longer than 
necessary in bilingual classrooms. This has limited the ability of these 
children to have an easier transition into mainstream.

     However, to eliminate the program will ensure the already high dropout 
rate among Latino students will be further exacerbated. Much like the 
children in special education, our society has an obligation to provide 
non-English speaking children a good education. This worthy goal would be 
thwarted if Question 2 is approved.

     The Legislature recently approved a change in the law reforming 
bilingual education and instruction to non-English speakers in public 
schools across the commonwealth. It provides for each district to choose 
the best method of instruction for its children. It limits the transition 
period that a child may spend in bilingual classrooms to three years. It 
also provides for some English immersion classrooms, as well as two-way 
bilingual instruction. The proponents of Question 2 know this. If their 
intentions were as honorable as they claim, they would be satisfied in 
knowing that the program will be reformed. I believe that they will only 
be content when bilingual education and other forms of assistance to 
immigrants are eliminated altogether.

     Our society has an obligation to educate every child. If passed, 
this law will ensure that only English speakers and those who are able 
to learn the language in one year will be educated. That is wrong, 
anti-American and repulsive. I urge all those who believe that this is 
still the greatest country in the world, not to turn their backs on the 
thousands of children who will be marginalized if this repressive and 
discriminatory law is passed. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan A. Gomez of Worcester is a businessman and city councilor at large.