The Canadian Record (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 108, No. 26, Ed. 1 Thursday, June 25, 1998 Page: 2 of 32
thirty two pages : ill. ; page 19 x 13 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THURSDAY 25 IUNE 1998
76e ^mwiainRECORD
opinion
page
WW-VTSEHASUKE.
OKU/ VfifiTBWf TW$W6
iwMMRHUft.....
'•’Nrtfc
88
■
r\
r* .fli
L
IIP
M
mm
\Y\WVi'
«
Mi.
...*k*'N : -h :
Bilingual education
Reprinted from the Washington Post National Weekly Edition
THE SUCCESS OF CALIFORNIA’S Proposi- interesting: It radically alters the basic educational
I lion 227, which is generally described as abolish- assumptions about how best to move non-Englush-
ing bilingual education, in fact does something more speaking students toward success in school, n a
h h ♦resounding 60 percent victory, proponents of the
. . i i it. _• ... — ,. ♦ ilw.t nmir incti.
*74e
RECORD
INCORPORATED FEBRUARY 1998
USPS 087-960
P.O. Box 898, Canadian (Hemphill) Texas 79014
Fax #: (806)323-5738
E-mail address: lrbrown@well.com
BEN EZZELL Editor & Publisher 1948-1993
NANCY EZZELL Editor & Publisher
LAURIE EZZELL BROWN
Editor
GRETA BASS Advertising Manager
STAFF:
Leslie Fry, Kim McKinney,
Mary Smithee, Gabriel Brown
PHOTOGRAPHY:
Laurie Ezzell Brown, Leslie Fry
Periodicals postage paid at the Post Office in
Canadian, Texas. Published each Thursday after-
noon in Canadian by Nancy M. Ezzell.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
The Canadian Record, Box 898. Canadian, TX 79014
SUBSCRIPTION RATES:
$20/Year in Hemphill County
$25/Year in adjoining counties
$30/Year elsewhere
change signaled their agreement that the now insti-
tutionalized means of reaching that goal should be
scrapped and something new tried instead.
That the “something new” has a somewhat old-
fashioned sound to it—a year of intensive English
immersion for all children—does not necessarily
mean that the new approach must duplicate the
weaknesses of the past. Those weaknesses included
the notorious sink-or-swim approach by which stu-
dents simply struggled, the strong catching on, the
rest falling farther and farther behind.
The question to be tested by the new programs,
assuming they survive court challenge and threats of
teachers resistance, is more narrowly pedagogical: Is
a year of intensive English instruction enough, if not
for mastery then at least for a level of comfort that
will leave students ready for functioning in a regular
English classroom? As a starting assumption, is fast
better than slow, challenge better than coddle—es-
pecially for children, whose language-learning abili-
ties are at their peak?
Many who have struggled to learn foreign lan-
guages will see a basic common sense in this assump-
tion, much as voters Hispanic and non-Hispanic
seem to have done, while still worrying whether the
scheme would afford enough safety and flexibility to
children w’ho can’t rise to the challenge. California
has a strong obligation, not to mention self-interest,
in educating those children too. But it’s by no means
obvious that the California result signals a wide-
spread desire to abandon them. Proponents insisted
that, on the contrary, they wish only to save such
children from educational limbo. And that is a worthy
goal.
by laurie ezzell brown
WHAT SHOULD A CITIZEN DO when his or her request to be placed
on the agenda of an open meeting of a taxing entity is denied? Raise
hell would be my short answer. The rest of this column is my long-and
considerably more thoughtful—answer, the point of which is exactly the
same: Raise hell.
I’ve received several accounts, recently, of citizens being denied such
a hearing when issues of very real public concern were at stake. Even
more disturbing to me both personally and professionally were the
reasons offered for the denial in each of three cases—that such a public
healing would be reported in the newspaper.
Yes, it would be. And yes, it should be. That’s our job, and we take
This is not the first time I have addressed the open meeting process
in these opinion pages, nor will it be the last. The First Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States is a favorite of journalists every-
where, and one we quote often. “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” the Amendment reads
Neither, it concludes, should Congress make any law abridging
“...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.”
You have to admit that the First Amendment is a fine piece of work.
Congress, in its great wisdom, expected the people to have concerns and
complaints about their government, and guaranteed the people’s access
to their elected representatives. Congress also guaranteed that the
citizenry would not be denied access to information about what their
elected officials are doing, even going so far as to restate the guiding
principle of representative government: that “government is the ser -
vant of the people, and not the master of them.”
All the tools of democracy have been provided, but it falls to us to
use them. To that end, I thought I might offer a few tips to anyone who
has found the board room or council room or commissioners’ courtroom
doors closed to them.
First: Know the law. Be aware of the requirements for posting an
agenda 72 hours in advance of the meeting of any governmental body.
Make your request to be placed on the agenda in a timely fashion to the
proper office. It wouldn’t hurt—especially if you have encountered
resistance—to make the request in waiting, and to mail or deliver copies
of your request to each member of the governmental body. A list of
names, addresses and phone numbers is published on the following
page, and will be published from this day forward regularly in the pages
of this newspaper.
Two: If you are refused placement on the agenda, and you believe
the matter you wish to address is a legitimate concern which falls within
the authority of that governmental body, don’t take no for an answ'ei.
If the administrator w'hose responsibility it is to prepare the agenda
refuses your request, call one of your elected representatives. They
work for you. They should be made aware of your request and the
subsequent denial, and they should be responsive to your concerns.
Three: Every open meeting of a governmental body begins with a
public comment period. Any citizen has the right to speak, although no
official action can be taken on any matter not specifically listed on the
agenda. It would, however, he appropriate at this time to inform the
elected representatives that a request to be placed on the agenda has
been denied, and to ask them to address this matter.
Four: It is The Record’s policy to have a reporter present at all open
meetings. We report not only the official actions of that governmental
entity, but also its deliberations and—on those rare occasions when
citizens address their representatives—the comments and concerns o)
Continued on Page 3
■ F THE CHAIRMAN of a sUmi commission has this much
I difficulty with the world of ‘customer service,’ how in hell can
we expect the customers to navigate thus maze? I had hoped
that a competitive marketplace in long distance w-ould have
resulted in more high-quality customer service by now.
PUC Commissioner PAT WOOD,
V Asking AT&T why his father’s business lines had been "slammed^
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Ezzell, Nancy & Brown, Laurie Ezzell. The Canadian Record (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 108, No. 26, Ed. 1 Thursday, June 25, 1998, newspaper, June 25, 1998; Canadian, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth520694/m1/2/: accessed June 12, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Hemphill County Library.