Pete Relis, Founder of César Chávez School and Leadership Institute

"It is now our responsibility to translate his legacy into systemic change: a district where outstanding student achievement is the norm for the Latino students."

Why is it "our" (I assume meaning non-Latinos) responsibility to improve the achievement of Latino students? What about the personal responsibility of Latino students to improve their own performance? If English immersion education was good enough for Relis' European immigrant ancestors, and is still good enough for non-Latino immigrants, why is monlingual Spanish instruction needed for Latinos?

"He often stood up in front of the School Board and argued forcefully that the system inherently served middle-class students well and did not respond to the educational needs of Latino children."

This statement is deeply insulting to the many non-Latino immigrants from poor countries in Santa Barbara whose children have been ignored and taken for granted by the system, but who have succeeded academically nonetheless.

The comments made above deserve a retort.

First, Pete and all those involved with children recognize and demand that all students take responsiblity for his/her achievment. Pete often removed students from his class or turned the tables on students who failed to do the work.

Second, it is the responsiblity of the school board and the community along with the individual schools to set up learning environments that optimize the opportunities for all kids to succeed. The elements of a successful school are well known (e.g., Adams School with Ms. Caines, the SB Community Academy).

Note, that the components of these environments will differ in response to differences in the skill sets of the children.Schools do matter.

Third, Pete recognized the need for English instruction.

Fourth, it is not a zero sum game. Children from a myriad of backgrounds can succeed within the right settings with the children and families putting forth a strong effort.

Bob Pohl

To Bob Pohl: I am an immigrant. My parents did not demand that the schools instruct me in their native language. They did not expect the school to provide me with free breakfast and lunch. They did not expect the school to understand or respect their culture, which was quite different from American culture in the 1960s. They expected and wanted the schools to make me assimilate. When today's immigrants start behaving the way my parents did, I will drop my anger towards said immigrants and their enablers.

Bob, your parents' brought you here in what amounts to a totally different time in this country. I think you're making the mistake that's common right now; it's not one immigrant group (in this case Latinos) that are refusing to assimilate or make progress, it's virtually every immigrant as well as natural born US citizens. We live in a time of absolute entitlement. People are "path of less resistance" zombies and it's not limited to one culture or another.

My own husband is an immigrant from Ireland. We find it funny that when people learn that his parents, who live in London, refuse to speak English (they speak Gaelic), they commend them on "preserving their culture" but when Latinos speak native languages, they are accused of not wanting to "better" themselves.

I do agree that when one lives in any country, one should speak the native tongue in public at work and in school. But that doesn't mean that people don't need help to do so. My husband was not taught English in the home when he was young and was terrified and shamed when he arrived at his first day of school. Was that really his fault? Should he have been left out of class and his English-learning been left to his parents, who would not have taught him? I don't think so.

This argument of yours smells a bit like sour grapes, especially when one considers the numerous studies that always show that children with ESL students don't show any lesser scores or potential than if everyone spoke English. The burden is on the ESL student, not the other way around.

Finally, I want you to know that I went to high school with Mr. Relis's two daughters. I had him as a teacher two summers in a row for a great creative writing class he taught. He was a really great guy and I think it's in extremely questionable taste to bring up this sort of thing on his obituary page.

Last comment--Pete would enjoy that his memoriam is generating a discussion as to how to help all kids. He is smiling up there.

Best,

Bob Pohl

Relis was a supporter of bilingual education, as the links below show. At one point, Franklin school had 8th graders who were still non proficient in English despite having been enrolled since 1st grade.

I have no reason to doubt that Relis was a sincere man, and anybody (especially in this day and age) who commits himself to his marriage as Relis did (married to the same woman since he was in his early 20's) gets my respect.

That having been said, I believe Relis, in his sincere desire to make the world a better place, became so emotionally involved in the struggle that he simply didn't see the failure of the program in which he so strongly believed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/27/us/bil...

http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/lingui...

"Fourth, it is not a zero sum game. Children from a myriad of backgrounds can succeed within the right settings with the children and families putting forth a strong effort."
-Bob Pohl-

What this translates to is that Latino/Mexican/Hispanic children cannot succeed in the same academic setting which worked for so long for every single immigrant group on the planet which came to the U.S.

Once again, sincere people fail to see what they are doing here. As long as the perception exists that the U.S. needs to lower its intellectual standards to accomadate people from south of the border, failure among immigrants from those countries will continue on an academic, vocational, and more insidiously--social level. (To wit: Low self esteem)

What is intersting and contradictory is how leftist intellectuals will denounce the Bell Curve Theory and William Shockley as being racist while (perhaps) unwittingly supporting their theories by placing different expectations not only on school kids, but there parents as well.

I forgot to note in my last entry: I reject the Bell Curve Theory as well as Mr. Shockley's views on racial matters.

Never get a job a translator, billclausen.

-- This --

"Fourth, it is not a zero sum game. Children from a myriad of backgrounds can succeed within the right settings with the children and families putting forth a strong effort."
-Bob Pohl-

-- Does not equal this --

"What this translates to is that Latino/Mexican/Hispanic children cannot succeed in the same academic setting which worked for so long for every single immigrant group on the planet which came to the U.S." (billclausen)

Dear Mr. Clausen,

Different approaches to the education of the children acknowledges the differences in children's skill sets. For example, many kids from poor backgrounds lack the vocabulary or the language skills of middle class children, therefore, a very rich language (English) environment is productive for them to do well.

What is not negotiable are expectations. All the kids the district serves should achieve the state standards.

I recognize individual achievement variance within groups but the point I am making is that teachers can figure out how to teach best and not compromise the expectations. This is done time and time again in successful schools.
I suspect that ideological orientations often drive the comments above rather than a substantive discussion of the educational issues.

Best,

Bob Pohl

Mr Pohl: How then, can a kid acquire good skills in the language of the country in which they live when they are being taught in their native language and moreover (the point I keep stressing to the point where I'm sounding like a broken record) their parents are given everything in Spanish?

The point is: They are getting limited English at school, and very little if any at home, and people wonder why they weren't learning English? (!)

Another point: At one of those meetings, there was the usual militant angry threatening rants from the pro-bilingual education faction where one teacher actually compared ending bilingual education to "Hitler's Final Solution" and at least one outright racist threat. After this, a woman got up and made the following comment: "Why is it that you people who want bilingual education only want it for Spanish-speaking immigrants?...are you trying to tell us that you feel that all the other groups are smart enough to learn English without it but Spanish-speakers are less intelligent?" (Or words to that effect) She then walked off the podium and none of the pro-bilingual education contingent dared to address what she said because obviously, they couldn't.

Actually binky, I stand by my comment.

I remember one of the comments from a Latino parent at the board meeting -- "We were here first and we spoke Spanish." The argument over bilingual (Spanish) education is not really based on pedagogy, it has more to do with who will rule California. The articles linked by Bill Clausen have additional revanchist comments by local Latino/Chicano activists. Google for additional quotes by Art Torres, Jose Angel Gutierrez and Fabian Nunez, and you will see that revanchism/Aztlan is not just a figment of the far-right imagination.

However, given California's current economic meltdown, Mexico may not want its former state back.

"Fourth, it is not a zero sum game. Children from a myriad of backgrounds can succeed within the right settings with the children and families putting forth a strong effort."
-Bob Pohl-

Besides the traditional approach, and the relatively new one created for Spanish-speakers which has resulted in so many people being unable to communicate in English, what are the myriad of backgrounds in question and what specific successes can you cite? From what I see, it's simply those who speak English, and those who speak (only) Spanish.

What I also fail to understand is how it is that poor people have immigrated here and their kids managed to assimilate in a country where there native language was not the language of instruction in the schools but we are being told that Spanish-speakers cannot succeed overall in the same setting. Could it be that if the parents of the Spanish-speaking kids were not subjected to the linguistic welfare system of bilingual services they would learn English out of necessity and as such their kids would assimilate much better? Can you address that?

"I suspect that ideological orientations often drive the comments above rather than a substantive discussion of the educational issues." -Bob Pohl-

I don't know if you are referring to my comments or not but let me address this: My comments are based on watching--over a period of years--what *doesn't* work. I know it would be easy to take the path of least resistance and turn a blind eye to the massive failures of our public education system but some of us refuse to do that. Also, when one compares amending a failed program to "Hitler's Final Solution" I'd say *that* is an ideologically based comment or when you see the connection between the Reconquista movement and bilingual education advocates you start to ask yourself questions. When I see and read about militant La Raza people disrupting school board meetings with their threats of how *they* are going to take over, while those who are supposedly peace-loving educators sit by and don't make the slightest effort to distance themselves from these people, I'd say *that* is a case of driven ideology. Have you ever spoken out against this?...if not, why haven't you?

(end of one)

(part two)
The problem is that people cannot separate past injustices from present policy. They don't see the contradictions in their own ideology. As I said before: If the kids are not being instructed in English, and the parents are not learning English because just about everything is being given to them in Spanish, then the kids will not become literate in English.

Here is the twist in my point were I take the Left turn: These people who are consumed by their Rage Against The Machine ideology need to connect the dots and realize that if they *truly* want to help the disenfranchised, they would realize that literacy--both written and spoken--is key to overcoming poverty and racism. Why do you think it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write?

No binky, the "myriad of backgrounds" argument is another way of paving the way for lowering standards whether that is the intent or not. Politicizing education has resulted in test scores sinking. Instead of trying to tear down the system, the goal should be to make sure that all race groups have a shot at it.

True progressives want to see all people have access to the system, and that was the goal of the original civil rights movement. People are tired of seeing a system that worked being torn to pieces by those who cannot separate injustice from the need to make sure that we do not destroy the very system that has attracted people into this country to the point where they are willing to walk across 120-degree heat to access that system.

I know I'm not making many friend by question the educational establishment, but somebody has to be the Bad Guy.

"Here is the twist in my point were I take the Left turn: These people who are consumed by their Rage Against The Machine ideology need to connect the dots and realize that if they *truly* want to help the disenfranchised, they would realize that literacy--both written and spoken--is key to overcoming poverty and racism. Why do you think it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write?"

It was actually a true liberal labor organizer, Alice Callaghan, who started the revolt against bilingual education in the early 90s. She organized Latino garment workers in South LA whose children were in monolingual (not bilingual) Spanish classes. Ron Unz, who sponsored Prop. 227 that sort of ended bilingual education, is also not a doctrinaire right-winger. He supports fairly open borders, and felt that ending bilingual education would solve the problem of Latino immigrants not assimilating. Unfortunately he was wrong.

These issues of bilingualism and immigration cut across liberal and conservative lines. I would remind everyone that it was Samuel Gompers, an immigrant cigar maker, who founded the American Federation of Labor and pushed for restrictions on immigration. Like Cesar Chavez, Gompers realized that the large-scale immigration promoted by business was the worst kind of wage-busting.

The issue of childrens' assimilation into American culture cannot, in my opinion, be addressed without first addressing how the parents assimilate.

R.I.P. Pete you really made a difference in a lot of peoples lives. You cared enough to do something about it. Talked the talk and walked the walk. Hope you are still playing basketball up there in sky like you did at the Boy's Club.