Proposition 227 in California

Political Science

Proposition 227 in California

California's public school system serves 5.6 million students in kindergarten through twelfth grades each year. During the 1996-97 school year, it was identified that 1.4 million, or 25%, of these students were limited English proficient (LEP). These are students who do not understand English well enough to keep up with their classes in school. "Eighty-eight percent of the state's schools had at least one LEP student, and 71% had at least 20 LEP students" (Proposition 227: English Language in Public Schools, 1998)

Proposition 227 was introduced in order to address the issue of these LEP students. It significantly changed the way that LEP students are taught in California. Specifically, it:

Requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English, basically eliminating bilingual classes

Shortens the time most LEP students can stay in special classes. The law requires that: (1) LEP students move from special classes to regular classes when they have acquired a good working knowledge of English and (2) these special classes should not normally last longer than one year (Proposition 227:English Language in Public Schools, 1998)

Under limited circumstances schools are permitted to provide classes in a language other than English if the child's parent or guardian asks the school to put him or her in such a class and one of the following is true:

The child is at least ten years old and the school principal and teachers agree that learning in another language would be better for the child

The child has been in a class using English for at least 30 days and the principal, teachers, and head of the school district agree that learning in another language would be better for the student

The child already is fluent in English and the parents want the child to take classes in another language (Proposition 227:English Language in Public Schools, 1998)

Those who have been against Proposition 227 from the beginning have put forth many arguments against the entire idea. Arguments that have been made against it include the following: it imposes one untested method for teaching English on every local school district in California, it limits English speaking children of all ages and languages into one classroom, the California PTA opposes Proposition 227 because it takes away parents' right to choose what's best for their children, the California School Boards Association opposes, Proposition 227 because it outlaws the best local programs for teaching English, California's teachers oppose Proposition 227, because teachers can be sued personally for teaching in the children's language to help them learn English, outlawing decisions by parents, teachers, and school boards on how to teach children English is wrong, children in California must learn English, California should be returning more decisions to parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards, not taking them away (Proposition 227: English Language in Public Schools, 1998)

The second anniversary of the passage of California's Proposition 227 occurred in June of 2000. This new law became part of California's Education Code in August, just before the beginning of the 1998-99 academic years. Since this time there has been no empirical evidence indicating there has been any benefit to language minority students from passage of Proposition 227 (Mora, 2002).

The political battle over bilingual education has only served to confuse the academic issues that are involved in educating language minority children. In California 25% of the total student population is made up of students classified as limited English proficient, or English language learners (ELL). A full 37% of the state's K-12 students speak a language other than English as their native language. Only 8% of the teaching force holds a bilingual (BCLAD) credential, however. Not all teachers that are teaching in classrooms with language minority students have the proper credentials. "In fact, 30% of teachers of limited English proficient students are not credentialed and teach under the authorization of an emergency credential" (Mora, 2002).

In examining these statistics carefully it is important to ask why so much money has been spent on eliminating a program that beforehand only served a small percentage of California's (8%) students and now serves even fewer (3%). The response to this question is deeply rooted in issues of majority/minority politics. And the battle over who has the power to define what it means to be American in an age of growing cultural and linguistic diversity. Unfortunately, this initiative is a clear case of political opportunism. As the anchor of the English-only movement, Proposition 227 has served as a surrogate for other social, political and economic goals, none of which are much related to improving the academic performance of language minority students (Mora, 2002).