As the Massachusetts legislature prepares to vote on new state-wide bilingual curriculum, community members and politicians alike came to campus yesterday to attend a conference analyzing the results of California’s recent changes in educating children who are not native English speakers.

Sponsored by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard Law School, the conference presented several different research findings on the results of Structure English Immersion on the achievement of limited English proficient (LEP) students.

In 1998, Californians approved Proposition 227 replacing much of the traditional bilingual education programs in California with a year-long total immersion program.

Though research results are mixed, the panelists said, the proposition did not earn the “excessive praise” it has received from the media.

“In the best case scenario, English learners in Structural English Immersion classes are making progress in closing the achievement gap,” said Patricia Gandara, a professor at University of California, Davis.

But the inconsistency of instruction and emphasis on high stakes achievement tests harm LEP students’ overall education, Gandara added.

A proposal similar to the successful California proposition is planned as a referendum for this fall’s election in Massachusetts.

The effort to get the proposal on the state ballot is led and financed by California millionaire Ron Unz, who led the efforts behind the 1998 California initiative to overhaul bilingual education.

In response, the education committee of the state legislature approved a bill to counter the referendum said Rep. Alice K. Wolf (D-Cambridge).

“One impetus for writing a new law was that the Unz law was coming here,” she said.

The bill approved by the committee gives local school districts control over the type of bilingual education to implement, rather than being forced to provide only Structured English Immersion, as the ballot referendum would require if successful.

This bill also allows LEP students to remain in bilingual programs for three years and calls for increased teacher quality and funding for these classes.

The bill, scheduled to be brought to the House floor on June 18, was passed unanimously by the Joint Committee on Education, Arts and Humanities on the same day it unanimously rejected adopting a California-style system, said Rich J. Lavers, a staff member in the office of Sen. Robert A. Antonioni (D-Leominster).

“We’re admitting the current system has flaws, but we can do better than the Unz proposal,” he said.

Opposition to the bill comes from those who want more parental control in choosing which bilingual system to use, as the bill gives school superintendents final authority over the choice.

“This bill doesn’t have enough parental choice,” Wolf said. “We don’t want baby Unz legislation even before we get to the ballot.”

Rep. Marie P. St. Fleur (D-Boston), who immigrated from Haiti and is herself trilingual, said that the final decision relating to bilingual education should be left to professional educators—though parental involvement is still needed in the development of the program.

“No other type of curriculum choice is made by parents, and neither should bilingual education,” she said.

Lavers expressed similar sentiments.

“If we want sound educational decisions, ultimately we want this made by school districts, not by parents,” he said.

—Staff writer Katherine M. Dimengo can be reached at dimengo@fas.harvard.edu.