Role of the Regulators: Analysis of the READ Littlejohn Report

READ Institute's Complaint Against
CDE Proposition 227 Regulations

Jill Kerper Mora
San Diego State University

The READ Institute recently published a report titled "Confusion and Obfuscation: The New California Guidelines for Proposition 227 (Littlejohn, 1999, November). The report is a critique of the State Program for English Learners Coordinate Compliance Review Training Guide 2000-2001 issued by the California Department of Education (CDE) outlining requirements for school districts to comply with Proposition 227. The training guide is based on the Regulations for 227 implementation adopted by the State Board of Education on November 20, 1998. In the first pages of the Executive Summary, Littlejohn quotes an unnamed consultant who estimates that 70% of the state's 1000 school districts are not in compliance with 227, 15% are in partial compliance and 15% are in full compliance. The main point of the READ report is that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is pressuring school districts to water down the Proposition 227 requirements for English immersion instruction, with the support and cooperation of the CDE. Consequently, the state is allegedly not carrying out its "responsibility" to English learners.

The reality is that the READ Institute is much more concerned with meeting a "responsibility" to the California electorate, 61% of which passed 227, and lightening the alleged burdens on school districts and teachers than about responsibility to English learners. READ decries OCR's "advocacy approach to national civil rights policy related to English learners" through "onerous requirements" on school districts. These are the principle arguments contained in READ's criticisms of the CDE regulations and OCR's intervention on behalf of language minority students:

1. The previously established identification procedures, including the Home Language Survey and language assessment in students' primary language, are being used to identify as many LEP students as possible. READ argues that Prop 227 only requires students to have the ability to "perform ordinary classroom work in English." Therefore, any further assessment of students' language is needlessly costly and resource-consuming for school districts. In particular, READ objects to language testing in any language other than English.

2. READ claims that CDE has overextended the reclassification or "redesignation" criteria by requiring that special services to ELLs continue until they reach the same language proficiency and academic achievement levels as their average native English speaking peers. They claim that a parity of academic performance is not required by federal law or court rulings such as Castañeda v. Pickard. Further, they argue that disparities among students' levels of achievement will always exist, so it is burdensome to school districts to be expected to provide special services to language minority students until they catch up--an admirable goal but not a legal requirement.

3. READ objects to stringent redesignation (or termination of special services) requirements because these remove the impetus to move English learners quickly out of English immersion and into mainstream classrooms. This means that low exit rates of from 4-6 percent will continue because "artificially high exit standards" are maintained far beyond the point when students can "understand ordinary classroom work in English."

4. READ is concerned that these extended services to ELLs burden school districts because they are required to have teachers who are certified to provide services to these students with the B/CLAD credentials. They object to requiring teachers who do not hold credentials for ELLs to attend inservice training programs, equivalent to three college courses. This is especially onerous for physical education and home economics teachers and school staff who only have a few ELLs in their classes.

5. READ objects to CDE's "revisions" to the waiver process because it burdens school administrators with the requirement that they "prove a negative" when they deny waivers to parents. The Institute alleges that the intent of 227 is to allow waivers only for programs that would be "better suited to the child's rapid acquisition of basic English language skills." This does not coincide with CDE's allowing waivers for parents seeking better "overall educational development" of their child, even though both exact terms are used in different sections of the waiver provisions of Proposition 227.

The larger issue raised by the READ Littlejohn report is this: Who is responsible for protecting the civil rights of language minority students? READ would have us believe that the California electorate is qualified to determine those rights through processes of restrictions and limitations that supposedly "guarantee" their rights to be taught in English. The CDE is looking to federal law and court rulings for definition of its role in civil rights protections. Remember the analogy for the role of the California Department of Education used in the plaintiff's brief in Valeria G. v. Wilson case: Proposition 227 converts a "watchdog into a wolf"? The READ report is clearly a first attempt to chastise the watchdog for not being wolfish enough.

What READ advocates here is the abandonment of identification procedures and uniform and objective reclassification or "exit" criteria for ELLs that have served for 30 years to ensure that they received special language and instructional services until they were in fact capable of equal participation in the regular academic curriculum. This concern was raised by plaintiffs in Valeria G. v. Wilson. Attorneys for plaintiffs argued that the consequences of entering mainstream academic classes with both an English language and academic deficit are cumulative and long-term in nature as they progress from grade to grade.

READ suffers from the same monolithic conception of what California classrooms are like. They image programs with distinct characteristics that students move in and out of according to when they meet certain objectives or master certain skills and content. This is the three-program paradigm: sheltered English immersion, mainstream classrooms and bilingual education. The mainstream classroom is where every child most wants to be. The others are transitional, temporary and remedial.

Herein lies the push to move students quickly out of SEI and into mainstream classes. Along with this quick transition idea is the concept that the best teachers are the mainstream teachers, who do not need a CLAD credential because their students already speak English. In the mind of the public, most of these children are native English speakers. Consequently, children "have arrived" when they make it through the hoops and into a mainstream classroom. The reality of most California schools is not so neat and tidy, especially in areas where there are concentrations of ethnic and language groups. In many schools along the U.S.-Mexico border, there are very few classrooms that fit the popular image of the mainstream. Consequently, a one-size-fits-all mandate for programs to conform to this model is neither effective nor practical. This fact must explain, at least in part, the focus taken by CDE on the duration of special language services and means for recouping academic deficits rather than program classifications.

Let us play along with READ's arguments for a moment to examine the possible consequences of eliminating identification procedures and exit criteria for ELLs. Suppose that schools just plunk students down, no questions asked, into classrooms for the first 30 days of instruction and leave it up to teachers to determine which of them can do "ordinary classroom work in English" (OCWE). At the end of the 30 days, schools sort them out into English immersion and mainstream classes. Meanwhile, school officials are supposed to deny waivers for bilingual education based on the "informed belief" of administrators that is superior to the beliefs of their parents. What is the problem with this scheme?

For one, there is no objective empirical definition of the ability to perform "ordinary classroom work in English" to guide decision making. One would suppose that READ has a definition in mind, but they are not telling us. Of course, this definition would have to be based on standardized test scores, since that is the only state-mandated evaluation of students' progress available. Or perhaps, we can define "ordinary classroom work in English" based on the state curriculum standards. The challenge in the first 30 days of school would be for teachers to determine which students can meet those standards. If they cannot, they are possibly ELLs--but teachers won't know if they are just below average or if there is a language factor involved because we don't have the Home Language Survey to give us a clue. Heaven forbid we base our guesses on ethnic or racial characteristics!

In fact, opponents of bilingual education in New Mexico represented by the Center for Equal Opportunity came before the federal court in Carbajal et al v. Albuquerque Public Schools arguing against subjective criteria for placing students in bilingual education based on teacher judgments rather than language test scores. Their allegation was that the school district was using a "catch and keep" scheme to raise the number of LEP students and keep them in the program so that it could receive federal and state funds attached to special programs. The Carbajal court ruled that the Center for Equal Opportunity plaintiffs had failed to prove these allegations. Consequently, we must question whether READ's demand that California abandon formerly articulated identification procedures stems from other motivations.

It is very unclear how READ's placement of systematic and objective language assessment with the OCWE criteria will help us meet our "responsibilities" to language minority students. These requirements exist through federal civil rights enforcement provisions established in 1980 and more clearly delineated in California based on extensive research. READ claim is that reclassification criteria are set "artificially high." If a school district uses just standardized test scores, it would be very convenient for those who wanted to have fewer LEP classified students to set the cut-off score at one point below the mean for the LEP population in the district on last year's SAT-9 and automatically "reclassify" 49% of their LEP population. Thus, they could rationalize a termination of services and evade their responsibility to ensure equity for these students. If one puts faith in standardized test scores, the conclusion is that "ordinary classroom work in English" is what the average student can do, as shown by the test. Thus, once again, we face the dilemma of exit criteria based on comparisons of ELLs with average native English speaking peers. The debate over clearly defined exit criteria is further complicated by the elaborate system of rewards promised under AB 1116 (Ducheny & Alarcon). This bill provides funding to grant a one-time per student payment to districts for each LEP student who is reclassified as fluent English proficient (FEP).

The problems caused by a mode of thinking about programs and teaching translated into rigid mandates that does not fit the realities of California's public schools are monumental. Underlying the READ Institute's complaints against CDE is the recognition that the numbers are not favoring claims of success that are important to sustaining 227's political viability.

According to the CDE Language Census, before passage of 227, there were 400,000 students enrolled in programs where they received instruction in their native language. In 1998-99 there were 170,000. This figure represents a 57% decrease in the number of students in bilingual programs. This is 12% of the LEP student population in bilingual programs, as opposed to 30% before passage of 227.

Ron Unz made the "low" exit rate a centerpiece of his campaign against bilingual education. The California Department of Education Language Census indicated that the exit rate for the 1998-99 school year was 7.8%, up a percentage point from pre-227 years. If 227 does not appreciably alter that rate and SEI is unable to produce accelerated growth in English, the tide of public opinion may begin to turn. So far, the media "hype" around alleged increases in SAT-9 test scores for LEP students has been effectively defused and contradicted. Dramatic decreased in the total number of students classified as LEP and higher exit rates due to lowered criteria would be just the sort of statistical manipulations that the proponents of 227 could use to bolster false claims of success.

The problem for advocates of English-only instruction is that the federal civil rights protections are still in place that guarantee a "meaningful and effective education" for language minority students. CDE seems to be more concerned with OCR compliance than they are with threats from the READ Institute. In the final analysis, the state agencies in charge of the 1000 school districts have to accommodate parental options and meet the pressing educational needs of 1.4 million students. Ultimately, these school districts are accountable to the federal courts and the obligations to language minority students outlined in Judge Legge's decision denying the injunction against 227 implementation in Valeria G. v. Wilson. These exigencies may prove more powerful than 61% of the electorate in determining the fate of Proposition 227.

In regard to READ's objections to waivers and claims that the waiver provision is being abused, they are caught up in their own contradictory claims. A complete analysis of the statements made by the proponents of Proposition 227 in public documents and court pleadings was completed by attorneys for Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy, Inc. (META). The analysis below is the work of attorney Cynthia Rice. During the 227 campaign, Honorary Chairman Jaime Escalante touted parental choice as a reason for supporting the initiative. In rebuttal to the argument advanced against Proposition 227 that the proposition "takes away parents' right to choose what is best for their children, in the Voter's Guide the proponents argued that

The defendant's brief in Valeria v. Wilson articulates a very different position regarding waivers when these were challenged by plaintiff's, who claimed that "...these 'parental exceptions' have been so structured as to make their promise an illusion."

". . . Proposition 227, Cal. Educ. Code sections 310 and 311 permit all students over the age of nine and younger students with "special needs" to waive out of sheltered English immersion and into alternative approaches --including bilingual education courses; indeed, Proposition 227 requires school districts to make bilingual education courses available for older and special-needs students. Proposition 227, California Education Code §§ 310, 311."

Excerpts from CA's State Board of Education's brief supporting waivers under Prop. 227:

"Proposition 227 does not require the State of California to alter its educational policy without the benefit of a safety net for those children who would benefit from bilingual education." State Board Brief at p. 6.

"Instead, it recognizes that not all children will be best served by sheltered or structured English immersion and seeks to accommodate the needs of those children who would benefit from another course of study. Sections 310, 311." State Board Brief at p. 6.

"A number of the Plaintiffs contend that they benefit from a program that provides them with both primary language and English language instruction, and that Proposition 227 would ban such programs. . . . Contrary to this assertion, Proposition 227 does not ban anything." State Board Brief at p. 6.

"In fact, Proposition 227 requires bilingual education, or an equivalent educational program, for those children who "opt-out" of the program designated by Section 305." State Board Brief at p. 6.

"Finally, Plaintiffs speculate that a student would not be able to opt out of the immersion program if the program did not prove to be the mos.(sic) beneficial method of language instruction for that student. However, Sections 310 and 311 specifically provide for a waiver of the immersion program in such circumstances. Sections 310, 311." State Board Brief at p.10.

"Furthermore, if the curriculum designed under Proposition 227 does not provide effective instruction for an LEP student, that student may avoid irreparable harm by opting out of the program. Sections 310, 311." State Board Brief at p. 12.

"If the program does not meet the student's needs, Proposition 227 allows for placement in another method of instruction." State Board Brief at p. 14.

"The voters also recognized, however, that for some of the 1.4 million LEP students who currently reside in the State of California, bilingual education or other "generally recognized educational methodologies" may be required." State Board Brief at p. 18.

"Instead of imposing a "one-size fits all" educational policy on these 1.4 million students, Proposition 227 ensure that each LEP student will receive the education most effective for that individual student, based on classroom performance and the evaluation of parents and schools administrators." State Board Brief at p. 18.

"Section 310 of Proposition 227 facilitates effective education on an individual basis by creating a waiver provision by which parents may withdraw their child from the English-language instruction program." State Board Brief at p. 18.

"These provisions relate to Plaintiffs' allegations because, if parents and school administrators determine that Proposition 227 fails to meet a particular student's needs, the school can place the student in the program that the student requires." State Board Brief at p. 19.

"To the extent that a special educational need can be shown, they are eligible to leave the sheltered or structured English immersion program and transfer into a program more suited to their individual needs." State Board Brief at p. 19.

"Injury-in-fact cannot exist because the programs established under Proposition 227 identify students with special needs and place them in more appropriate programs, not excluding a bilingual education program." State Board Brief at p. 21.

"Last, Proposition 227, on its face, clearly anticipates that school districts will be required to meet the special needs of individual LEP students. Section 311(c) allows school districts to provide an "alternate course of educational study [that] would be better suited to the child's overall educational development." State Board Brief at p. 36.

In a decision filed in McLaughlin v. State Board of Education on September 27, 1999 the State Court held the following:

Proposition 227 specifically allows principals and school staff to grant waivers in the case of "special needs" based on their "informed belief" that "an alternate course of educational study would be better to suited to the child's overall educational development." The language referring to "a child's rapid acquisition of basic English language skills" is contained in this provision 311 (b) referring to children over age 10, but does not appear in 311 (c). This clause contains the "overall educational development" clause rather than a reference to the rate of a child's acquisition of English as a mandatory component of a school official's judgment about the suitability of an alternate program.

READ argues that the CDE is overextending the "overall educational development" clause in granting waivers rather than applying the stricter "rapid acquisition" standard in special needs cases. The fact is that this is a distinction without a difference. Well-implemented bilingual programs have amply demonstrated that they do both--produce more rapid acquisition of basic English skills and contribute to language minority students overall educational development. This is why many parents continue to choose bilingual education over sheltered English immersion.

There are many pitfalls to strict enforcement of 227 contained in the concept of administrators' "informed belief." This is especially true of educators who know the research basis for bilingual education. Their informed belief about the effectiveness of various programs for language minority students does not coincide with the beliefs of the proponents of 227 and of the California electorate. READ objects because the CDE has not required a "case-by-case deliberative process for granting waivers." They seem to want to back peddle on allowances in the law when school officials' "informed belief" coincides with parents' beliefs about which program is best for their child. The implication is that "informed belief" requires deliberation according to some set process. No such procedures are prescribed in Proposition 227. Consequently, when READ alleges abuses of the waiver process, one must wonder on what they base such a claim. Are they implying that waivers were granted based on an "uninformed" belief?

The case of Oceanside USD is an example of this dilemma. Oceanside Superintendent's "informed belief" was that all but three of 155 waivers should be denied. However, Oceanside's language minority parents can go onto the Internet and find out that as of July 1999, ELL students in neighboring Vista USD who continued in bilingual education are scoring higher in English reading than their children who are in OUSD's English-only program. CDE puts the onus on the school officials to justify their beliefs, rather than on the parents to justify theirs. This is a reasonable interpretation of the law since parents must be empowered to make these decisions for their children based on all the information available to them, including test scores of comparable groups of children who are performing well in other school districts.

A now historical example of the impact of parental choice that is forced or manipulated is the famed Ninth Street School in Los Angeles. This school in the poor garment industry neighborhood of LA was proclaimed the spark that ignited the anti-bilingual education campaign. After all the media coverage over a parent boycott orchestrated by proponents of 227 demanding English-only classrooms, many parents moved their children back into the bilingual program. Students who remained in bilingual education at the fifth grade at Ninth Street were doing better on SAT-9 scores in 1997 than their peers who chose English-only instruction (Crawford, 1999).

Parents are capable of evaluating empirical evidence of higher rates of English reading acquisition and better "overall educational development" and should not be over-ruled or second-guessed by school district officials. This is consistent with the "parental choice" arguments put forth by proponents of 227 during the campaign. If the Office of Civil Rights must step in to ensure that parental choices are respected and they are not denied the right to place their children in a bilingual program, then so be it. As far as we know, the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights is still the law of the land.

One puzzling aspect of READ Institute's objections to CDE's 227 implementation requirements is their vociferous objection to teacher preparation and credential requirements. The main objection to the requirements that teachers who are assigned to classrooms with English language learners hold a B/CLAD credential appears to be that the training mandated by the state is burdensome to school districts and to some teachers. By implication, READ would have us believe that equipping California teachers with effective strategies for enhancing the learning of 1.4 million ELLs who make up 25% of the total school population in the state is an inordinate burden.

What READ is no doubt referring to is SB 1969, the bill that requires all teachers to complete the requirements for authorization to teach English Language Development (ELD) and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). SB 1969 was extended this October to allow teachers with nine years or more experience who do not hold the CLAD credential or an equivalent until January 1, 2005 to complete requirements. SB 1969 training is provided by districts, county offices of education and by the California Teachers Association (CTA) following a mandated curriculum and given by trainers who must meet certain qualifications. The training is a 45 hour training program in areas of culture, second language teaching methods and academic content strategies for these teachers. The cost for the CTA sponsored version is $100 per participant, including the training and the assessment. The processing fee is currently $12 for the certificate of completion that is issued by the district or county office and registered with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTA California Educator, November, 1999).

Now, one would ask what is so onerous and burdensome about the modest expenditure of time and money involved in 45 hours of training for teachers to improve their skills for teaching English language learners? We have to look elsewhere for READ's true objections to this training. The READ Institute report by Kevin Clark (1999) on five California school districts' implementation of is a good place to start. In this report, we learn that READ's real objection to CLAD training is not the time or the cost. It is what teachers learn during the training--mainly the theories of second language acquisition that contradict the "research" of their chosen theorists. They especially object to teaching theories articulated by Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins. An analysis of READ's critique of Krashen and Cummins reveals that READ is very unhappy with the body of second language acquisition theories and research that support not only bilingual education, but models of immersion education as well. However, the alternative theory they propose, time-on-task in English, does not appear to be gaining traction, other than among advocates of English-only instruction. Consequently, Professor Krashen, in particular, has been turned into a modern day Galileo--reviled for saying that the earth revolves around the sun when the populace still wants to believe that their planet home is the center of the universe.

READ Institute researchers object to theories of bilingualism because they are supposedly to blame for policies supporting bilingual education. However, the relationship between sound theory and sound program implementation that READ fails to recognize is simultaneously more simple and more complex (Cummins, 1999). It is possible to achieve effective program implementation based on sound theory. This happens when there is a high level of fidelity to the theory in the actual day to day implementation of the program. It is much more difficult, some might say impossible, to achieve effective program implementation based on unsound theory. To date, the proponents of Proposition 227 have produced no credible research to support their theory that language minority children can acquire enough proficiency in English in one year to catch up and keep up academically with their native English speaking peers. Herein lies the rub in teacher training--teachers are likely to learn in CLAD preparation and inservice programs that they are being mandated to do the impossible. Consequently, keeping teachers in ignorance might be a more politically viable alternative to further the agenda of proponents of 227.

An even more draconian and grandiose plan for implementing structured English immersion appears on Center for Equal Opportunity website. It is contained in an article by researcher Keith Baker as one of READ Institute's reports. This Internet published piece is a longer version of a considerably toned down article that appeared in the Phi Delta Kappan in November 1998. The on-line version of the Baker article proposes that the best way to implement structured English immersion programs is by getting rid of bilingual teachers. Baker uses these words:

Let's take implementation of Proposition 227 in the Los Angeles Unified School District as an example to examine the Baker plan. LAUSD has 4,200 bilingual teachers who would have to be replaced if the school board and administrators were to agree to this approach. Since this is unlikely, Baker proposes an alternative:

Of course, this contradicts READ Institute's arguments that requirements for more inservice training are a burden to school districts and teachers. It appears that READ supports the notion that credentialed bilingual teachers need additional inservice preparation to teach structured English immersion but home economics and PE teachers do not. Perhaps READ Institute will change its tune, if those untrained teachers are asked to fill the vacancies created by the 4,200 bilingual teachers who are "gotten rid of" over time. Statewide "getting rid" of bilingual teachers would require immediate replacement of 15,000 BCLAD credentialed teachers, 8% of the total teaching force in California.

The unnamed consultant who READ relies on for their data on implementation of Proposition 227 paints a grim picture for the proponents of 227. If compliance with the new law is so low, and the Department of Education has written regulations that, according to READ, undermine strict implementation, then where do the proponents turn for support? There is no simple answer to this question. It appears that there is resistance to Proposition 227 coming from many fronts. Many politicians are justifiably questioning the political payoff in cracking down on bilingual educators while they are courting Latino votes. Claims that 227 is the ultimate victory for assimilationist ideology are exaggerated, since low levels of academic performance and the "achievement gap" between the majority and minority populations do not bode well for full social integration of ethnic groups.

The hope of supporters of 227 was that the "will of the voters" combined with the threat of lawsuits against individual educators would be enough to convince school administrators in authority to enforce the new provisions of the education code. Yet, to date a political payoff for strict enforcement of 227 has not materialized on a large scale. In fact, school districts like Los Angeles Unified have had to struggle with enormous bureaucratic complications as school officials try to sort out ill-defined program types and mounting waiver requests from parents who are unhappy with structured English immersion.

In the LAUSD, for example, the number of waiver requests more than doubled during the 1998-99 school year, from 11,000 to 23,000 (Barrett, 1999) and parents were demanding either more or less primary language instruction throughout the year. Meanwhile, grand juries were convened in Los Angeles and San Francisco to rattle their sabres at wayward school districts, while scathing attacks were launched in the media against school officials who were trying to sort out the mess created by Proposition 227"s confusing and contradictory mandates. The LA Times reported (Sahagun, 1999, July 1) that the grand jury in Los Angeles criticized LAUSD for not actively discouraging waivers because they had concluded that the waiver process as a means for "circumventing" Proposition 227, although only 10% of LEP students were granted waivers. The grand jury also complained about Model B, the program of English immersion taught by bilingual teachers. This is the way that the various programs were described.

Since 90% of LAUSD's language minority students were enrolled in either Model A or Model B, and the other 10% had been granted waivers, it was difficult to discern the nature of the concerns expressed by the grand jury, other than the fact that the use of Spanish in the district had not been wiped out altogether. According to the more vociferous proponents of 227, this was the intent of Proposition 227 and (yet once again the mantra) the "will of the voters." How can the school district be accused of "circumventing" the provisions of 227 when they allow waivers after the required 30 day period in SEI classrooms? Clearly, the grand jury is merely guessing at what the will of the voters truly is. Worse yet, they are trying to superimpose their interpretation of the voters' will to contradict the exact language of the law as it was voted on and as its' proponents themselves represented its provisions before the federal courts.

The truth is that school districts are justifiably reluctant to comply with a bad law and many language minority parents are unwilling to sacrifice the advantages of well-implemented bilingual programs for their children. The parents of 23,000 students who requested waivers in LA followed the "try it, you'll like it" provision of 227--didn't like it, and want their children back in bilingual classrooms. Many others obviously feel more comfortable placing their children with credentialed bilingual teachers who they trust can use students' native language for enhancing their school experience. According to the 1998-99 CDE Language Census report, 170,000 students are in bilingual classrooms. This is down from 400,000 in 1997-98. This means that 43% of the total number of students who were in bilingual education before passage of 227 continued in bilingual programs. These figures reflect an endorsement of bilingual education by the very parents and their children served by the program. The test of 227 will be whether or not it is enforced to reflect its provisions that allow parents to make these judgments about what is best for children and for educators to provide the services language minority children are entitled to demand and receive under the law, unobstructed by ideologues who do not approve of their choices.

What we find in the READ Institute's Littlejohn report when combined with other reports and articles they use to make their case for strict enforcement of 227 is monolingual double-speak. The Center for Equal Opportunity and READ take differing positions on identification and placement of students using objective criteria in different venues. They flip-flop on waivers, promising parental choice and then objecting to it in a legal "bait and switch" in the courts. They object to teacher preparation on ideological grounds while proposing retraining of qualified bilingual teachers with expertise in second-language teaching for structured English immersion. They claim to call for "equal opportunity" and "meeting our responsibilities" to language minority children while calling for their most effective teachers to be ridded from school districts. We must critically examine the agenda of READ and the Center for Equal Opportunity for our public schools and for language minority children and look to more moderate and responsible state agencies and the federal courts to uphold principles of social justice.

Barrett, B. (1999, June 25). LAUSD to continue bilingual classes. Los Angeles Daily News, A-1.

Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a place? Educational Researcher 28 (7), 26-34.

Return to Dr. Mora's Home Page	Go to MoraModules Index
PLC 915 Syllabus	ED 516 Syllabus
Analysis of Prop 227 implementation	Analysis of structured English immersion
Analysis of SAT-9 scores for ELLs	Debunking English-only
Intergroup Conflict & the BE Debate	Examining the Issues in Language Minority Education
Philosophical Assumptions of English-only vs. Bilingual Education	The Age of Enlightenment: Rebuttal to Porter
Examining Fallacies in the Bilingual Education Debate	227's Second Anniversary: Triumph or Travesty?
California's Demographic Realities	Theoretical Foundations of Bilingual Education
Identifying Fallacies in the Bilingual Education Debate	Critical Thinking in the Bilingual Education Debate
Proposition 227 Two Years Later: Triumph or Travesty?	How Long Does It Take to Learn Academic English?
A Road Map to the Bilingual Education Debate	Proposition 227: A Public Policy Failure
Advocacy for Language Minority Students	Index to Dr. Mora's Web Pages about Proposition 227