Proposition 227's Second Anniversary:
Triumph or Travesty?
Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D
San Diego State University
Click here for a Roadmap to the Bilingual Education Debate
Proposition 227: Two Years Later
During the month of June, 2000 we observed the second anniversary of passage of California's Proposition 227. This ballot initiative that restructured education for language minority students was approved by a majority of the voters in the primary election of June 2, 1998. The new law became part of the Education Code in August, just before the beginning of the 1998-99 academic year. Since the newspapers and television programming have been awash in reflections on historical events, It is appropriate for us to take some time to analyze the impact of the anti-bilingual education initiative. Recently, the proponents of 227 have also been active in putting out articles and editorials touting the "success" of 227 in increasing test scores and redesignation rates for students. An editorial in the Orange County Register (May 18, 2000) called Proposition 227 "one of the best things to happen to the state's immigrant students."
A recent series of articles gave 227 the credit for an increase of 2.5% in the Los Angeles School District in the rate of limited English proficient students being reclassified as fluent English speakers (LEP to FEP). Never mind that redesignation rates in LAUSD have been rising steadily for the past ten years, eight years before passage of 227. The redesignation rate has risen from 4.2% in AY 1990-91 to 10.3% in 1999-2000. Between AY 1994-95 and AY 1995-96 the rate also grew by 2.5%, a full two years before the signature gatherers for Proposition 227 ever hit the shopping malls.
No Empirical Evidence of Benefits from 227
The counter evidence that challenges claims of the "success" of Proposition 227 has hardly been mentioned in the media. Nonetheless, the academic and educational communities have conducted in depth research leading to a clear conclusion after two years under 227's mandate: There is no empirical evidence indicating there has been any benefit to language minority students from passage of Proposition 227. Professor Eugene García, Dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley presented a summary of the findings from 10 studies conducted by research institutes and scholars affiliated with major California universities at the Arizona State University Bilingual Education Institute on September 28, 2000 in Phoenix (García, 2000). Dean García, who is a former director of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Bilingual Education and Language Minority Affairs, concluded that these studies demonstrate considerable disruption to the education of language minority students with no demonstrable benefits in terms of improved teaching and learning conditions or academic achievement.
To the victor go the spoils, as the saying goes. The nature of the initiative process is that a dichotomy must be established in order to voters to make a choice, with a winner-take-all outcome. Such was the case with California's Proposition 227 and bilingual education. The initiative asked the voters to choose between bilingual education or a one-year intensive English program labeled "structured English immersion" (SEI) as the legally mandated model for educating language minority students. A 61% majority chose to restrict bilingual education and to require SEI. The federal court in Valeria G. v. Wilson ruled that the electorate had expressed its "policy preference" and since bilingual education was not required, they were free to prohibit it. Now the media and talk show hosts are intent upon reaffirming the voters that they made the "right choice" and that their "policy preference" is bringing about the desired result, immigrant students' rapid and effective acquisition of English.
Is Proposition 227 Sound Public Policy?
Putting aside the "spin" on statistical data in media reports and opinion pieces for a moment, let us examine the true impact of Proposition 227. The important question that must be answered is this: Is Proposition 227 sound and effective public policy? In reality, 227 is two public policies embedded into one law. Proposition 227 represents an attempt to formulate and enforce language policy. The law also sets out an education policy. In assessing its impact, we must examine Proposition 227's effectiveness as policy in both of these areas. The judgment of many responsible stakeholders in language minority education and in the public policy arena is that 227 fails on both fronts.
Let us look first at why this analysis of Proposition 227 as public policy is important. It is not so easy to judge the efficacy of a shift in public policy. This is especially true when the policy is one where the majority has imposed its idea of "what is best for you" on the minority. What is needed here is an understanding of the minority point of view on this complex issue, remembering that 39% of the California electorate opposed Proposition 227. Fully 63% of Latino voters opposed the initiative (CNN/Los Angeles Times, 1998) We also need to consider the point of view of educators, since our voice was drowned out in the primary election campaign leading up to approval of the new education code by the general populace.
Bilingual educators, and others who share concerns about the short-term and long-range impact of Proposition 227 have been called "sore losers" and "doomsayers robbed of their doom" by the media (Jacobson, San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 30, 1999) who chastise us for not being ecstatic over increases in SAT-9 test scores and redesignation rates in some school districts. These derogatory images of concerned educators are merely an extension of the vituperative attacks on the motives and integrity of opponents of the initiative, who were called greedy and self-serving "ethnic separatists," out of touch with the best interests of their constituency. Politics are often nasty, and ethnic politics take on a particularly distasteful tone, since in order to legitimatize discrimination, politicians and the media must demonize the opposition.
The reasoning of the proponents of 227, as expressed in the language of the law itself, was this:
Bilingual education is the reason for low levels of English proficiency among immigrant students, especially Latinos who are the group served by the vast majority of the bilingual programs. Bilingual education slows down the English language acquisition process or prevents English language learners from becoming fully proficient in English. Therefore, bilingual education contributes to the high dropout rates among Latinos. Since bilingual education is THE PROBLEM, getting rid of it is the solution.
The realities of California's linguistically diverse student population and the challenges of providing them with a meaningful and effective education are quite different. The political battle over bilingual education has merely served to obfuscate the pedagogical issues involved in educating language minority children. We must not forget that 25% of California's total student population is made up of students classified as limited English proficient, now termed English language learners (ELL). Fully 37% of the state's K-12 students speak a language other than English as their native language. However, only 8% of the teaching force hold a bilingual (BCLAD) credential. Not all teachers assigned to classrooms with language minority students hold a Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) credential, thereby demonstrating competency in teaching second-language learners. In fact, 30% of teachers of limited English proficient students are not credentialed and teach under the authorization of an emergency credential (Council of the Great City Schools, 1998).
Before passage of Proposition 227, 30% of the ELL population (8% of the total school population) was enrolled in bilingual programs. Notice that this percentage of bilingual program students paralleled the 8% of the teaching force qualified and available to teach in such classrooms. The remaining 70% of ELL were in English-only programs with varying degrees of specialized instruction. In AY 1998-99 following passage of 227, 12% of the ELL population, or 3% of the total number of students, are enrolled in bilingual education. Consequently, only 18% of limited English proficient students were enrolled in a "new program" following passage of 227.
We must also recognize the level of implementation of bilingual education as an element in the larger educational picture of Latino students. Currently, 41% of California's public school population is Latino. Latinos represent 31% of the high school graduates (California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, 2000) The US Department of Education recently announced that in 1997, 25.3 percent of Latinos age 16 to 24 dropped out of high school, down from 30% in 1995. Less than half, 49% of Latino students in California are classified as limited English proficient. Consequently, only 15% of Latino students were ever enrolled in a bilingual program. The average length of study in a bilingual program is three years, which represents 25% of a students' 12 year school career. Based on these statistics, bilingual instruction represents less than 4% of the total schooling experience of Latinos. The likelihood that 4% of schooling that is conducted partially in children's native language being the single determining factor in the overall long-range outcomes of their education is approximately four percent. The blame for the achievement gap that persists between Latino students and their Anglo-American peers lies squarely at the feet of the English-only education that is 96% of their education in California's public schools.
Educational Outlook for Language Minorities
When we ponder whether or not Proposition 227 has been a good thing to happen to immigrant students, we must examine how many of these students' educational outlook has actually been changed by the restrictions on bilingual education. Although the percentage of students in programs dropped by 59%, the percentage of all California students who receive bilingual education dropped by only 5%. The proponents of Proposition 227 would have us believe that a five percent change in the total panorama of educational programs in California has resulted in great benefits in how the system serves immigrant students. The premise here is that by decreasing the number of students receiving instruction in their primary language with credentialed bilingual teachers, somehow language minority education has been reformed for all 1.4 million limited English proficient students.
Let us take another look at yet another of the realities of educating language minority students in California. Under the new regime, 80% of the ELL students are taught by monolingual teachers who hold either a general or a specialized CLAD credential, or are teaching under an emergency credential. In AY1996-97, 30% of teachers of ELL students did not hold a teaching credential. According to Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), only one out of every three English Language Learners (ELL) are taught by a fully credentialed bilingual (BCLAD) or specialized (CLAD) teacher trained in second-language acquisition and methods (PACE, 2000).
The highest average performance of ELL in reading on the SAT-9 is in second grade, where students performed at 23% National Percentile Ranking (NPR). The reading scores for ELLs descend from this level at second grade to a low of 9% in grade 11. This means that the majority of ELL are reading two grade levels below their average native-English speaking peers. Therefore, thousands of these students are at serious risk of in-grade retention. (For a complete analysis of the meaning of ELL SAT-9 scores, click here.) Meanwhile, the statewide redesignation rate has risen 0.9%, from 6.7% in AY 1997-98 to 7.6% in AY 1998-99. In addition, as of May 2000, 34 school districts throughout the state have unresolved English language learner civil rights complaints against them with the California Department of Education School and District Accountability Division (Escobedo, 2000).
We must again look realistically and honestly at indicators of the effects of Proposition 227 on the overall educational progress and prospects of language minority students.
The redesignation or exit rate in 1997 before passage of 227 was 6.7%. The 1999 exit rate was 7.6%, an increase of 0.9%.
Let us make a comparison of the SAT-9 results for English proficient and limited English proficient students. We must notice that the achievement gap widens as we move up the grades, until ninth grade. Then the gap narrows again, but not because L2 students' scores improve. Rather, the NES/FEP group's scores decline significantly at this level as well. We must keep in mind the fact that as children who begin their schooling in California schools move up through the grades, those who become proficient in English are reclassified as fluent English proficient (FEP).
The Achievement Gap
Comparison of SAT-9 Reading Test Score Averages
AY 2000 National Percentile Rankings
Grade English Proficient 2000 Reading LEP 2000 Reading Difference 2 58 28 30 3 55 21 34 4 56 20 36 5 54 17 37 6 55 19 36 7 54 15 39 8 55 18 37 9 42 12 30 10 39 9 30 11 43 11 32
These statistics do not paint a picture of dramatic improvements in the situation of language minority students. In fact, they demonstrate the great challenges and risks of academic failure faced by these children, regardless of what the law permits or prohibits in regard to the use of their native language as a medium of instruction. In addition, small increases in standardized test scores in English from students who are not proficient in the language of the test are highly questionable as a true measure of their academic progress.
If bilingual education is not the real problem, then eliminating it will not lead to a solution. Proposition 227 is nothing more than a political placebo.
Bilingual Education is a Surrogate
Examining these statistics carefully we are prompted to ask, why has so much political capital been spent on eliminating a program that previously served such a small percentage of California's (8% before 227) students and now serves even fewer (3%)? The answer to this question is deeply imbedded in issues of majority/minority politics and conflicts over who has the power to define what it means to be American in an age of growing cultural and linguistic diversity. Unfortunately, the "English for the Children" initiative is a clear case of political opportunism and demagoguery. As the flagship of the English-only movement, the ballot initiative to ban bilingual education has served as a surrogate for other social, political and economic goals, only tangentially related to improving the academic performance of language minority students.
Proposition 227 did not arise from a groundswell of concern for language minority children in our public schools. Instead, it was manufactured as an issue to further the political ambitions of a few individuals who hoped to propel themselves into public office by championing a conservative cause and manipulating public opinion. Capitalizing on public fears and prejudices against language minorities and immigrants, the sponsors of 227 convinced the public that bilingual educators have only demonic and selfish motives for advocating for native-language instruction. Of course, the fact that native-English speakers have an unquestioned right to be educated in their native language in grades K-12 never seemed to cause a moment's hesitation in the minds of the monolingual majority.
The implications of Proposition 227 and the justice of the ballot initiative process in a culturally and linguistically diverse society such as we have in California are far reaching. For one, the ethnic and racial composition of the state's electorate is not reflective of its population (Love, 2000, May 1, California Department of Finance Demographic Research Bureau). Consider these contrasts in place at the time Proposition 227 was passed in 1998:
72%
of California's voters are White, while only 52% of its residents are White.
16%
of California's voters are Hispanic, while 30% of the total population is Hispanic/Latino.
61% of Latinos are not registered to vote.
28%
of the electorate is comprised of members of minority groups. 48% of the total population
are minorities.
These demographics and the imbalance they reflect in political power mean that if the proponents of 227 and English-only instruction in public schools did nothing more than convince White voters that their own interests were best served by voting to eliminate bilingual education, minorities would invariably lose in a winner-take-all political process. Even if minorities voted as a block, they still could not overcome the superior numbers of White voters. It was unprecedented before Proposition 227 to put an issue of educational program design or methodology to a vote of the general electorate. Traditionally, these issues were only brought to the political arena when decisions needed to be made about funding and resources. These decisions were hammered out through the legislative process or by local school boards, with the competing and complementary interests of different groups within the community given a balanced hearing. Contrarily, Proposition 227 imposes restrictive and ill-conceived mandates based on the collective opinions of uninformed voters without any deliberative process where truth and logic could have a chance to prevail. One insightful editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (1998, June 10) pointed out how Proposition 227 "handcuffs educators" in a manner just slightly more effective than "mob rule."
Certainly, one must question the credentials of the general public in deciding how best to educate language minority children, especially when the electorate is predominantly White. In the case of bilingual education, the White electorate was asked to judge the effectiveness and viability of a program that serves students who are almost exclusively minorities that is staffed by administrators and teachers who are also predominantly minorities. When examined with honesty and a sense of social justice, it is hard to ignore the jingoistic underpinnings of Proposition 227. Minority communities are justified in questioning whether or not they can trust programs created by people who have clearly demonstrated that they have little interest in sharing power with them, or in respecting their rights to fair and equal treatment (Donato, 1997).
For educators the more important question is, what will be the long-range impact of Proposition 227? On the second anniversary of its passage, we have scholarly studies and research by university scholars and public policy institutes that begin to paint a picture of what the future holds for language minority students. The continuation of shrill political rhetoric is very disturbing, especially since very few journalist or members of the public have the knowledge or inclination to assess the accuracy and applicability of these statistics. This is especially worrisome since the optimistic appraisal of the prospects for language minority students under the new law are not supported by sound and credible research findings (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Krashen, 1999; Mora, 2000A; Rumbaut, 1995).
An important study released in April by the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (Gandara et al, 2000) describes implementation of Proposition 227 in 16 school districts and 25 schools throughout the state. The report documents wide variations in the interpretation of 227's requirements within school districts, schools and classrooms. In school districts with a strong English-only stance prior to 227, the mean percent of primary language instruction in 1998 fell from 17% in 1998 to 2% in 1999. In districts with a divided commitment to bilingual education, a drop from 22% to 8% was observed. However, districts with strong primary language instruction programs experienced only a 2% lower rate of use of Spanish, from 33% to 31%. This was accomplished through granting parental exception waivers.
The University of California LMRI report states that "...at least so far, top-down policy such as that prescribed by Proposition 227 has proven to be an extremely flawed instrument for constructing new policy." The new law has increased coercive rather than collaborative relations for schooling language minority students, with an uncertain impact on educational outcomes for English language learners.
An Issue of Fundamental Fairness
In
truth, the struggle now taking place in California, Arizona and other states
where the English Only movement is attempting to eliminate bilingual education
is a matter of fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy. The right
of language minorities to equal access to public school instruction through
the use of the mother tongue is an issue of fundamental fairness. The landmark
Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board
of Education declared that "where a state has undertaken to
provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such
opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal
terms." Proposition
227 is an unjust and unwise law that is wrecking lasting and irreparable harm
to millions of California's public school students. It is an unjust law
because it sets up a system that denies language minority parents and their
children equal access to a meaningful and effective education in our public
schools. Proposition 227 mandates procedures that create obstacles to implementation of
pedagogically
sound and effective programs for students who are classified as limited
English proficient. These are obstacles that do not exist for the parents of
children who speak English.
The
parents of English-speaking children are not compelled to visit the schools
and to solicit waivers to get programs that are effective for their children.
Anglo parents of English speakers do not have to wait for 30 days into the
school year to begin an instructional program they believe to be the best for
their children. They do not have to seek special permissions from school
officials to get programs that they, together with their children's teachers,
have decided are the best for advancing their academic learning and social
development.
Nor
do the parents of native English-speaking children have to petition school
officials at the state or local level to maintain programs with which they are
satisfied that have yielded satisfactory scholastic results based on valid
assessment criteria. This is true of parents of English speakers unless they
are seeking to maintain or establish dual immersion language programs in
conjunction with parents of language minority students. In that case, as in
the case of some waiver petitioners, even these parents face unreasonable
bureaucratic barriers to effective programs that incidentally benefit
non-English speakers under the provisions of Proposition 227.
Proposition
227 is deliberately and unfairly discriminatory toward language minority
parents. It is based on an English-only ideology that is completely
incompatible with sound educational practices and programs for language
minority students. The school districts that are petitioning for waivers know
this, and wish to continue the sound programs that have been developed with
great investments of time, money and effort. An inordinate financial burden
has been thrust upon these school districts as well, since they are required
to set aside expensive and effective instructional materials in which they
have invested, many of which are not being accepted by publishers as returns
for refunds.
It
is indeed amazing to those of us who believe that the desire of every just
society is to educate all of its children, to witness the spectacle now before
us. It is strange and very disturbing to witness school districts having to
beg the California State Board of Education and the powers that be in
Sacramento to keep programs that have proven effective in their communities
for educating language minority students. Is it not the role of the State
Board of Education to ensure that California's school children are provided an
effective education rather than telling school districts that they cannot
provide such programs? Whatever the supposed "will of the people" as
expressed by a majority of votes, in matters of how best to educate students
local decision making should take precedence. Voters were mislead in the
election by proponents of the English-only movement, an ideology that is based
on false assumptions and nativist sentiments that are an anachronism in our
linguistically and culturally diverse community of California.
Parents
and local educators are the ones who are truly accountable for the results of
educational programs. It is wrong for a majority of voters with no real stake
in how we educate language minorities students to superimpose a popular vote
based on "folk wisdom" about language learning on the school
districts and communities that wish to preserve their established successful
programs. The voters at large do not have knowledge of the local demographics
and conditions that exist in every school district. The public school
governance apparatus has become the instrument and extension of an extremist
ideology that seeks to deny valuable and effective instructional programs to
25% of California's students.
What
is at issue here is whether or not it is legitimate for the California
electorate to establish a mechanism that undermines legal safe-guards for the
most vulnerable populations served by the public schools. Arguably, the
majority of voters who supported Proposition 227 had no means of assessing the
issue of bilingual education objectively and reasonably. Nor at this juncture
two years after its passage, do they have the ability to evaluate its negative
impact on education for language minorities. Furthermore, those who are most
directly impacted by this law could not participate equally in the electoral
process. However, members of the language minority community who can vote
expressed their opposition to the measure. Consider the fact that 63% of
Latino voters opposed Proposition 227. This means that undeniably, those most
affected by this law rejected it and instead, expressed their desire for
unencumbered access to bilingual education.
Where are the Constitutional Protections?
In
1987, University of California Boalt Hall School of Law Professor Rachel Moran
wrote an extended analysis of the constitutional basis for bilingual education
(75 Calif. L. Rev. 321). Professor Moran points out that the legal precedence
and court cases surrounding the right to bilingual education represent a
struggle over the allocation of discretion to make educational policy. She
points out how bilingual education has been at the core of a movement to limit
the ability of school officials to impose curricular choices that are
unresponsive to linguistic minority students' needs and to protect minority
groups from biased treatment. Anti-bilingual education laws represent a
significant incursion on state and local educators' decision-making
prerogatives. In a democracy, fair representation of groups in the political
process is necessary in order to assure fair results. Action by popular
initiative, in which any minority group is clearly at a disadvantage, operate to
prevent legislatures from establishing or maintaining programs to serve the
needs of language minorities. Consequently, Moran concludes, such laws may be
invalid because they place an unfair burden on these groups in the
political process." Moran argues this: "Courts should not permit
such declarations to obstruct the provision of bilingual services for which
language minorities lobby successfully in state legislatures…Courts should
find that the presence of established federal programs and the equal
protection clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibit state action limiting
the rights of language minorities."
Bilingual
and Bicultural Communities
Many
Latinos in California live in communities that are completely bilingual and
bicultural. Bilingual education is a natural extension of the cultural
characteristics of the community that supports the schools through their fair
share of the taxes. Bilingual education is a matter of parental choice and
civil rights. Bilingual/bicultural communities must be granted the same rights
to decide how to educate their children as monolingual/monocultural
communities. If bilingual communities can garner the resources, hire the
teachers, design the programs and demonstrate that they are producing results
through the accountability systems established by the state, then the state
nor the voters should be allowed to interfere and tell them that they must do
it some other way. The core principles of democracy in a culturally and
linguistically diverse society are at the heart of this issue. Equal rights to educational opportunities for minorities that should not
be voted away by the majority. Proposition 227 is California's great
experiment with the sort of linguistic oppression that is common throughout
the world, and which is clearly addressed in international treaties protecting the rights of language minorities to self-determination within another
dominant national culture. So far, the proponents of Proposition 227 and its Arizona
cousin, Prop. 203, are examples of how NOT to deal with our diversity in a way
that honors equal rights for all members of society.
Sound Public Policy for Language Minority Education
There are a number of questions we must ask in formulating sound public policy to guide education of language minority students. Consider the following broader questions:
What does society hope to accomplish through language restriction as an official language policy? What is the perceived threat? Is it wise, or even possible, to diminish the presence and influence of Spanish in our border states through laws that deny valuable language services to immigrants and native-born speakers of Spanish? Is it not much more in keeping with reality and the real economic and social needs of our states to accept and promote bilingualism? Will denying children the right to learn in their native language really accelerate their assimilation into mainstream society? Is the use of other languages really a threat to our national unity, or are not intolerance and coercion a far greater threat to our unity?
In regard to education policy, we must encourage people to examine these issues closely: Is centralization of authority, especially in the hands of those who are farthest removed from children, the answer to the educational challenges posed by our linguistic and cultural diversity? What do we really need to do to attract talented college graduates into teaching? Is threatening them with civil lawsuits and coercive restrictions the way to get more qualified teachers for our growing minority populations? Does a reduction in the special services provided to groups who need them the most produce higher levels of educational attainment? Are top-down mandates that produce incoherent program guidelines that teachers reject, or simply can't implement because they go against sound teaching practices, going to result in improved education? And if we make laws that actually make matters much worse, are we not damaging our futures?
Proposition 227's Impact on the Teaching Force
Most troubling of all in documented impact of Proposition 227 are the reports' conclusions regarding its impact on California's teaching force. According to the LMRI study (Gándara et al, 2000), between AY 1997-98 and AY 1998-99, the number of credentialed bilingual teachers in the California using their bilingual credential in a teaching assignment with language minority students dropped by 32%. Approximately one-third of certified bilingual teachers who served in bilingual classrooms before 227 were no longer in bilingual placements one year later. Many of the teachers now assigned to English immersion classrooms were disturbed at not being able to utilize the full range of their teaching skills and knowledge to promote students' learning, due to the severe restrictions on their use of Spanish. Many expressed concerns about the high levels of stress and conflict they were under because of their philosophical incongruity with the English-only instructional mandate. Others described either hopes or plans to leave teaching altogether. See in particular Gándara (2000) on the impact of Proposition 227 on bilingual teachers.
The feelings of stress and anxiety among bilingual teachers are not surprising, given the coercive nature of Proposition 227. In addition to the threat of legal sanctions, bilingual teachers face additional uncertainties and discrimination in their teaching assignments. Proposition 227 mandates that all ELLs be placed in a structured immersion classroom for the first 30 days of each school year. Those whose parents seek and are granted waivers may then be provided instruction in their native language. This 30-day immersion requirement means that bilingual teachers do not know whether they will be teaching in a bilingual program or a structured immersion program until at least a month into the school year. Consequently, they are unable to plan their curriculum in advance, not knowing either who their students will be or what program they will be offered. This level of uncertainty has already caused shifts in staffing patterns in many school districts, as bilingual teachers search for working environments that are more stable or that fit their preferences for teaching in a bilingual or English-only setting. This situation does not arise for monolingual teachers. Consequently, the law puts into place working conditions that are especially onerous and discriminatory for a single class of teachers--BCLAD credential holders. The state of affairs under Proposition 227 is especially ironic, since bilingual teachers were previously highly sought after for their additional skills and training for working effectively with language minority students.
The numbers of teacher candidates preparing for classrooms that require a CTC authorization, either a CLAD or BCLAD credential, also changed dramatically. Prior to passage of 227, there were 10, 894 teacher candidates in bilingual credential programs. In 1999, that number was reduced by 52% to 5,670. The number of teacher candidates earning a CLAD credential, meanwhile, rose only 11% (Gándara et al, 2000).
The impact of Proposition 227 on California's ability to recruit qualified college graduates into teaching is not fully understood by the public. Recently, Governor Davis has called attention to the growing teacher shortage by proposing legislation to exempt public school teachers from state income tax (Mendel, 2000, May 20). The Governor pointed out the fact that California will need to credential and hire 26,000 new teachers each year to replace retiring teachers and those who leave the profession. Currently teacher education programs graduate only 9,000 new teachers per year. Gov. Davis declared that the tax exemption proposal was a signal that "California values its teachers." Such rhetoric rings hollow to bilingual teachers who are now subject to lawsuits for personal liabilities if they are perceived as being in violation of the provisions of Proposition 227. These punitive measures apply exclusively to teachers who are bilingual because monolingual teachers are not capable of providing instruction in students' primary language and therefore, cannot violate the law by failing to teach "overwhelmingly in English." However, the law extends to school administrators and school board members who support primary language instruction. No other category of civil servants are subjected to a threat of personal liability lawsuits. In fact, state law protects civil servants from having to pay indemnities for actions performed within the scope of their professional duties, except in the case of criminal behavior. In other words, bilingual teachers and other public school educators who have specialized language skills and believe in using these to benefit language minority students are singled out under the law for discriminatory treatment.
Governor Davis may claim that California values its teachers, but the clear message of Proposition 227 is that only teachers who are monolingual and who espouse English-only ideology are valued. This double message is especially troublesome when we consider that a large number of prospective teachers must be drawn from the ranks of the growing Latino population that currently comprises 30% of the state's total population (California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, 2000). In addition, a recent survey by Strategy Marketing Corporation (2000) reported that 64% of Latino households in the United States are bilingual. Proposition 227 acts as a long-term deterrent to bilingual college graduates to enter the teaching profession because they wish to avoid not only the law's legal sanctions, but the disrespectful and discriminatory treatment the law institutionalizes in the public schools and legitimizes in the minds of the public.
Education Reform by Grand Jury
Although no lawsuits have been filed against any educators to date, a state court affirmed the law in a lawsuit that attempted to void this provision of 227. Consequently, teachers who are bilingual or who support native-language instruction remain under a threat of legal sanction. A grand jury in Los Angeles and another in San Francisco have also issued reports on 227 compliance that threatened school officials and teachers with civil action. The grand jury findings in Los Angeles condemned the presence of non-English textbooks in classrooms and other forms of "non-compliance. The jury's report "stated that "...the financial liability both to the District and the individuals involved could be significant" for failing to follow their recommendations because "...educators are using their power and influence to circumvent the intent of Proposition 227." One need only imagine the stress bilingual teachers face, knowing that the program models they are required to implement and their day to day professional decisions in the classroom may be scrutinized by an ad hoc jury of citizens. The grand jury has no accountability to school officials or the public and are free to enforce their interpretation of education policy by urging parents to bring a legal action against teachers personally if they disapprove of their teaching methods.
Many members of the general public may not be concerned about low morale among teachers and the prospects of high rates of attrition from the ranks of bilingual educators. In fact, for many the goal of 227 is to diminish the number of bilingual and minority teachers and reassert the power and influence of monolingual teachers. The reality is that there is a looming crisis in education due to the teacher shortage that will strain the entire public school system. Unfortunately, by the time the middle and upper class are deeply affected, there will be few who will make the connections between cause and effect regarding the lack of success of new teacher recruitment and retention efforts. Meanwhile, what recourse do language minority communities have against an Anglo majority that devalues bilingual educators and chooses public policies that discourage bilingual individuals from becoming teachers, whether or not this was their intention?
Proposition 227 not only impacts the current and the future supply of bilingual teachers. The law has dramatically changed the role of monolingual teachers and the demands and expectations placed on them for educating language minorities. The fact is that the challenges are enormous for the monolingual teachers who teach 80% of ELL in raising achievement levels of these students. While 32% of teachers hold a Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) credential (EdSource, 1998), this training may be inadequate for teaching high level and complex curricula in a SEI classroom full of students with very limited English proficiency. Many college graduates who are contemplating a teaching career are aware of the great difficulties inherent in teaching students who are learning English and therefore are not equipped to perform at grade level in literacy and content-area instruction. This is especially threatening to potential teachers when they also face demands for more "accountability" in the form of evaluations and merit pay based on their students' performance on standardized tests. The knowledge that new teachers, especially, are likely to be assigned to schools and classrooms with high numbers of English language learners is yet another disincentive to entering teaching. (Click here for a report on Prop. 227 implementation from the California Teachers Association describing the confusing and discriminatory impact of the law.)
Proposition 227 Fails as Language Policy
There is always a price to pay for any change in public policy. We must be especially demanding when public policy is enacted that impacts the opportunities and participation of disadvantaged minority populations. The question must be asked: Does this policy advance the interests of the minority group as a whole and ameliorate social injustices against them? Or does the policy increase discrimination against the minority group and lead to exclusionary practices that restrict or diminish their opportunities? In the case of language minority education, those who can least afford it are the ones expected to make the sacrifice. And for what purpose, we must ask? Proposition 227 may have served to assuage the fears of the majority that demographic changes will lead to their loss of power and control over the definition of what it means to be American. We are only beginning to weigh the costs of this hegemony.
The Orange County Register proclaimed 227 a triumph of the Melting Pot over multiculturalism through "...policies that unite people rather than divide them along racial and ethnic lines." Certainly, the divisive rhetoric and attacks on minority educators by the supporters of Proposition 227 were predicated on the notion that conservative causes will benefit when ethnic tensions and prejudice are kept at a boiling point, no doubt to turn up the heat under the Melting Pot (Donahue, 1995; Torres, 1998).
We must seriously question the power of Proposition 227 to unify ethnic groups, let alone lead to increased opportunities for their full and equal participation in American society. A majority of the California electorate has chosen a monolingual and monocultural educational system staffed by monolingual teachers to educate an increasingly diverse student population for futures in an expanding and highly competitive global economy. Rather than providing flexibility and multiple approaches to solving the complex problems posed by our diversity, Proposition 227 mandates a rigid and restrictive one-size-fits-all model for educating the growing population of speakers of other languages. There are many of us who question the wisdom of this choice. We challenge the efficacy and fairness of the coercive top-down model of program implementation that works against cooperative relationships and collaborative planning among educators with and without expertise in language minority education. Proposition 227 has given rise to many petty tyrannies within the educational community and in the larger society, where grand juries and political demagogues with no real stake in the outcomes of schooling for language minority students hold authority.
The results of passage of Proposition 227 are yet to be fully documented, but the experiences of many educators in dealing with its implementation have been highly negative and detrimental to students and their families. We recognize that laws can constrain sound educational practices, but they cannot create them. Through the ballot initiative process, the public sector expressed its desire to eliminate the use of languages other than English as a medium of instruction from the public schools. The expressed goal was to accelerate English language learning, in the naive belief that once equipped with English proficiency, language minority students encounter a level playing field in education. This simplistic view of the role of linguistic and cultural in teaching and learning contradicts years of research and the practical experience of thousands of educators (Mora, 2000B; Rumbaut, 1995).
We also question the assessments in the media touting the "success" of Proposition 227 and declaring vindication of the majority by citing miniscule gains in test scores and redesignation rates, which may very well be attributable to other factors. The reality is that the ELL population has not shown greater rates of growth in achievement than the overall population, a small and insignificant average for all grade levels of 1.8% in reading for LEP students and 1.9 for English speakers (Smith & Groves, 1999, August 4). Although anecdotal accounts of dramatic improvements in achievement for students in some highly visible school districts and schools are abundant in news releases, these hardly represent the typical experiences of teachers and students throughout California.
There are many well-crafted pieces of English-only propaganda in the media designed to give the impression that now with Proposition 227 firmly in place, all is well with the education of Latino students in California. Those of us who are close to the problems and the challenges know differently. Newspaper and magazine articles do not deal with the larger issues we face in language minority education. They are merely exercises in scapegoat wrestling.
What is the meaning of a "political" victory for Proposition 227 when it cannot lead to educational solutions? It means that the fears of a majority have been temporarily assuaged at the cost of long range solutions to larger intractable social problems stemming from under-educating a growing minority population. The damage that Proposition 227 has caused to race relations in California has yet to be calculated.
The power of the Melting Pot analogy for garnering political support for candidates among ethnic minority voters, who comprise fully 28% of the state's electorate (Love, 2000), is doubtful. Objective observers of acculturation patterns will readily admit that for many immigrants, the ability to speak English is no guarantee of access to the material and moral resources needed for entry into the American middle-class. This outdated image of the assimilation process ignores the multiple patterns of acculturation for different ethnic groups, many of whom enjoy and preserve their bilingualism as an important cultural and economic resource. There is little incentive for individuals, families and communities of Mexican and Latin American descent that maintain familial and economic ties to their ancestral homelands to supplant their native tongue with English (Guerra, 1998; Portes, 1995). Spanish is the third most widely spoken language in the world, and Spanish/English bilingualism is a distinct competitive advantage in the local and global marketplace. The presence or absence of opportunities to nurture bilingualism in the public schools will not alter demographic and sociolinguistic realities.
Proposition 227 Fails As Education Policy
Superficial media analyses that conclude with claims of Proposition 227's "success" do not address the core issue: How do we teach English to non-proficient students while at the same time teaching them academic content in a language they do not fully speak or understand without having them fall further and further behind as they progress up through the elementary grades?
Proposition 227 has not provided an answer to this difficult question. In fact, it has severely limited the options available to educators, parents and local school communities for achieving this task. Bilingual education is one effective means of accomplishing this in a way that also provides other benefits, such as affirmation of students' culture and biliteracy. Making bilingual education inaccessible to the small percentage who previously received some instruction in their native language does not solve the problems of the majority of language minority students (88% of ELLs) who no longer receive these services or who never received them in the first place.
Reform often fails, and its failure should be understood as a failure of political leadership to generate a sustainable coalition to bring together the political and social resources necessary to effect real change in our public schools. A highly-charged political campaign characterized by stereotypical portrayals of the minority viewpoint was not a conducive climate for far-sighted analysis of a complex educational issue such as the best way to educate a linguistically diverse student population.
Is Proposition 227 a triumph or a travesty? Many educators and informed members of the public believe that the latter is the case. These are the dimensions of this travesty: Valuable educational services and support systems for our most vulnerable and at-risk students have been slashed. Teachers' ability to work cooperatively with administrators and colleagues to examine program models and options has been destroyed. Bilingual teachers are prevented from employing their full range of cultural and linguistic knowledge and expertise in fostering high levels of academic achievement among their students. Their esteem and respect as dedicated and highly-skilled educators has been diminished. The prospects of attracting more such qualified individuals who can serve as role models for their Latino students into teaching is now a dim prospect for our state. Parents who are not proficient in English are excluded from meaningful participation in their children's schooling. Communities have lost their autonomy and local control over how best to educate and integrate their own ethnic populations. The long-range prospects for the majority of our language minority students for academic success leading to high school graduation and higher education are dubious. Policies of exclusion, coercion and legal sanctions are frozen in place.
Now that Proposition 227 is the law of the land, the best we can hope for is an honest appraisal of its true impact on our schools and the children, their families and the communities they serve. Only through depoliticized analyses and reflection on the consequences of legal mandates can we hope to formulate wise and effective public policy that moves us toward our noblest goals as a society. However, the larger issues that will test our constitutional democracy remain. How long will an aggressive anti-immigrant electorate be permitted by the federal courts to vote away the rights of language minorities to self-determination and equal access to education through bilingual instruction? This is a political question in a culturally diverse democracy of great transcendence. Proposition 227 and now Arizona’s Proposition 203 are test cases for our commitment to a fundamental principle of a constitutional democracy: Majority rule, minority rights. If the rights of ethnic-linguistic minorities are undermined in the political process and these groups cannot count on support from the federal courts to protect their rights, we indeed face times of deep conflict and social strife in our nation.
California Department of Education (1999). Language Census Report. [On-line] Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports/#swlep.
Donahue, T. S. (1995). American language policy and compensatory opinion. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and Inequality in Language Education (pp. 112-141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (1997). The other struggle for equal schools: Mexican Americans during the Civil Rights Era. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
EdSource (1998). Election Brief: Proposition 227 "English for the
Children." [On-line] Available:
http://www.edsource.org/htmfiles/bilingual_rep.htm
Escobedo, D. (2000, May 10). In defense of the rights of LEP students. Paper presented at the "Educating Bilingual Students: Research and Strategies for the New Millenium" Conference. University of California at Riverside.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., García, E., Asato, J., Gutiérrez, K. Stritkus, T. & Curry, J. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. Davis, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Center.
García, E. (2000). The best of times and the worst of times: Proposition 227 aftermath in California. 10th Annual Bilingual Education Institute. Arizona State University West, September 28-29, 2000. Phoenix Arizona.
Guerra, J.C. (1998). Close to Home: Oral and literate practices in a transnational Mexicano community. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y, & Witt, D. (2000, January). How long does it take learners to attain English proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1.
Jacobs, J. (1999, December 30). No celebration for success of Proposition 227. San Jose Mercury News.
Krashen, S.D. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Love, D. (2000, May 1). Latino surge among voters snubs GOP. The Sacramento Bee.
Mendel, E. (2000, May 20). Davis turns his focus to teachers' paychecks. San Diego Union Tribune, A-1, A-20.
Mora, J.K. (2000A) Staying the course in times of change: Preparing teachers for linguistically diverse classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (5), 345-357.
Mora, J.K. (2000B). Policy shifts in language-minority education: A mismatch between politics and pedagogy. The Educational Forum, 64 (3), 204-214.
Moran,
R.F. (1995). Bilingual education as a status conflict. In
A. Sedillo López (Ed.). Latino
language and education: Communication
and the dream deferred
(pp.
113-154).
New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2000). Crucial issues in California
education 2000: Are the reform pieces fitting together? Sacramento, CA:
Author.
Portes, A. (1995). Segmented assimilation among new immigrant youth: A conceptual framework. In R. G. Rumbaut & W.A. Cornelius (Eds.), California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for Educational Policy, (71-76). San Diego, CA: University of California Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
Rumbaut, R. G. (1995). The new Californians: Comparative research findings on the education progress of immigrant children. In R. G. Rumbaut & W.A. Cornelius, California's immigrant children: Theory, research, and implications for educational policy, (p. 17-70). San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
Smith, D., & Groves, M. (1999, August 4). Small gains on Stanford 9 scores cut across all levels of language ability. Los Angeles Times.
Strategy Research Corporation (2000). 2000 U.S. Hispanic Market Study.
Torres, C.A. (1998). Democracy, education, and multiculturalism: Dilemmas of citizenship in a global world. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Valdés, G. (1997). Bilinguals and bilingualism: Language policy in an anti-immigrant age. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127, 25-50.
To navigate Dr. Mora's CLAD Website: