In June 1998, by a "yes" vote of 61 percent, Californians passed Proposition 227 (also known as the Unz initiative after its chief sponsor) aimed at largely eliminating bilingual classes in the public schools and replacing them with "structured English immersion" classes. The hotly debated measure stemmed from complaints by some immigrant parents and some bilingual educators that the state's 1.4 million limited-English proficient (LEP) students - nearly half of such students nationwide - are not learning English quickly enough. The initiative's supporters blamed bilingual education, while opponents pointed out that only a third of the state's LEP students were in bilingual programs, largely due to a shortage of bilingual teachers.

In an uncertain landscape, helped only by deliberately vague guidelines issued by the State Board of Education, schools are implementing by using their own best judgment on how to interpret the law (Schnaiberg, Education Week, May 6, 1998). The central question many are grappling with is how much teachers can use students' native languages without violating the law. Many are balancing the political and legal issues of defining the law's statement that students must be taught "overwhelmingly" or "almost all" in English against what they believe to be educationally sound. The stakes are potentially high; 227 allows parents to sue teachers and school officials who "willfully and repeatedly" refuse to provide English instruction (a provision being challenged in court).

• California has 1.4 million LEP public school students (1997-98). Only 29 percent received instruction of academic content in their native language; another 22 percent received primary language support while being instructed academically in English.
  
  
• From 1982 to 1997 the number of LEP students in California's public schools increased by 220 percent.
  
  
• Of over 150 languages and dialects spoken by California public school LEP students, Spanish is the first language for over 81 percent.
  
  
• Two-thirds of LEP students are in grades K-6, including one out of every three kindergartners. But limited and non-English speaking students enter the system at every grade level.

Source: California Department of Education

Teachers providing primary language instruction	15,783	11.6
Teachers providing ELD or SDAIE	42,654	31.4
Teachers in training	45,333	33.5
Paraprofessionals	31,862	23.5
Total	135,632	100.0

Source: University of California Language Minority Research Institute

Supporters' Arguments:

• The current system of bilingual education doesn't work. It may in theory, but hasn't worked in practice anywhere in the U.S. on a large scale in 30 years.
  
  
• In California, a quarter of all the children in public school don't know English, and the current system of language education has an annual failure rate of 95 percent.
  
  
• Overwhelmingly, Latino parents want their children to learn English as soon as possible rather than learning Spanish before English.
  
  
• State politics is gridlocked on this issue. The legislation requiring "bilingual education" expired a decade ago, but political pressure and statutory interpretations have kept the system alive and growing during this period, with annual spending exceeding $300 million. Dozens of bills marginally changing the system have been proposed, but none has become law. Given this history, it seems likely that the legislature will permit this failed policy to continue indefinitely.
  
  
• Proposition 227 would break the impasse and change policy at a stroke by redirecting schools toward English language immersion.
  
  
• Research indicates that sheltered English immersion for young immigrant children is the most rapid and efficient means of English language acquisition. Within months to a year, the overwhelming majority of these young children would become fluent in English and could be transferred into a mainstream classroom, giving them the same educational opportunities as all other school children.

Opponents' Arguments:

• The proposition is an untried, simplistic solution to a complex problem. It is instructionally unsound and uses a top-down, "one-size-fits-all" approach that does not allow local schools and parents to decide how best to teach their LEP students.
  
  
• To say that bilingual education is causing LEP students to fail is to ignore the fact that only a third of California's 1.4 million LEP students receive any native-language instruction. Two-thirds are taught primarily in English - exactly what 227 proposes. Proposition 227 would therefore support failure.
  
  
• To claim a 95 percent failure rate is to use information recklessly. The figure doesn't take into account the highly mobile LEP population, for example. Moreover, no research says that the majority of children learn English in one year.
  
  
• Proposition 227 does not distinguish between learning English and knowing English well enough to advance academically, which takes longer and depends on such things as a student's background and age.
  
  
• Many bilingual programs are poorly implemented, hampered by a shortage of qualified bilingual teachers. Many good ones have had tremendous successes, helping students both learn English and achieve academically. When you compare bilingual versus English-only programs, bilingual programs show better student outcomes.
  
  
• The focus on language of instruction is misguided. The real issues in student educational opportunities derive from social inequities related to poverty, race, ethnicity, and so forth. Student performance depends on a range of factors, such as well-prepared teachers, a challenging curriculum, parent involvement, and adequate resources.

Summary: Proposition 227 passed, though opponents outspent supporters by a margin of 5:1.

Support:
Total Spending	$997,042
Contributions of $10,000 or more
Blokker, John F.	$10,000
Dunn, William A.	75,000
Fieldstead & Co.	130,000
Gilder, Richard	90,000
Gilder, Virginia	10,000
Hume, William J.	50,000
Jacobs Engineering Group	10,000
Lincoln Club of Orange County, Inc.	10,000
Teasley, Harry	25,000
Unz, Ron Keeva	752,738
OPPOSITION:
Total Spending	$4,823,470
Contributions of $10,000 or more
ACSA Issues PAC	$25,000
American Federation of Labor Congress	25,000
California Association of Bilingual Education	50,000
California Faculty Association Political Issues Committee	25,516
California State Council of Service Employees (PAC)	102,027
California Teachers Association Issues PAC	2,171,719
CFT COPE California Federation of Teachers	150,000
David L. Gould Company	28,560
Hampton Brown Co., Inc.	25,000
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor	10,000
Local 660 State & Political Fund	10,000
Perenchio, A. Jerrold (Chair, Univision)	1,500,000
United Teachers Los Angeles	10,000
2-Wy CABE	10,000

Source: California Secretary of State

Summary:

• 61 percent yes, 39 percent no
  
  
• Won in every county except San Francisco and Alameda (Oakland and East Bay)
  
  
• Rejected 2:1 by Latino voters. In Southern California, one could predict how a city's vote went by the number of Latino voters in that municipality. For example, the measure lost in Huntington Park by a margin of 1:2, while in Rancho Palos Verdes it won 3:1 (Pachon, LA Times, June 5, 1998). Yet statewide, a strong 37 percent of Latino voters supported the measure.
  
  
• Those voting were 69 percent white (though whites in California now constitute just 51 percent of the total population). Californians who voted are also older, more affluent and more conservative than the state as a whole.

% of all voters		Yes	No
	Sex
52%	Male	64%	36
48%	Female	57%	43
	Age
8%	18 to 29	50%	50
38%	30 to 49	59%	41
30%	50 to 64	61%	39
24%	65 or older	66%	34
	Race/Ethnicity
69%	White	67%	33
14%	Black	48%	52
12%	Latino	37%	63
3%	Asian	57%	43
	Education
20%	High school graduate or less	56%	44
27%	Some college	65%	35
28%	College graduate	63%	37
25%	Postgraduate study	57%	43
	Party Registration
48%	Democrats	47%	53
6%	Independents	59%	41
40%	Republicans	77%	23
	Sex and Party
25%	Democratic men	48%	52
26%	Democratic women	48%	52
25%	Republican men	81%	19
19%	Republican women	72%	28
	Political Ideology
20%	Liberal	36%	64
43%	Moderate	59%	41
37%	Conservative	77%	23
	Party and Ideology
13%	Liberal Democrat	35%	65
29%	Other Democrat	55%	45
12%	Other Republican	68%	32
24%	Conservative Republican	82%	18
	Annual Family Income
10%	Less than $20,000	49%	51
20%	$20,000 to $39,999	56%	44
22%	$40,000 to $59,999	61%	39
16%	$60,000 to $74,999	65%	35
32%	$75,000 or more	64%	36
	Religion
50%	Non-Catholic Christian	66%	34
24%	Roman Catholic	54%	46
5%	Jewish	55%	45
	Union Membership
23%	Union member	51%	49
12%	Union member in household	57%	43
65%	Non-union household	65%	35
	Region
25%	Los Angeles County	57%	43
32%	Rest of Southern California	68%	32
14%	Bay Area	49%	51
29%	Rest of Northern California	59%	41

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% where some voter groups or candidates are not shown.
Source: Los Angeles Times/CNN exit poll conducted on Tuesday, June 2, 1998.

Though opponents outspent supporters by a margin of five to one, the Unz Initiative won handily (61% yes versus 39% no) in California. Analysts and observers cite a series of factors that came into play, ranging from shifts in socio-political trends to tactical mistakes on the part of the opposition. Theories on why the vote went as it did include:

Lack of action on "a legitimate beef." Above all else, observers say that the message of the election is the Latino community's strong and urgent desire for its children to learn English. Anyone who didn't hear deep concerns about bilingual education wasn't listening (Jim Schultz, SF State political scientist, commentary, San Jose Mercury News, June 5, 1998). At both the state and local levels, "nothing held the program accountable for results" (Sacramento Bee editorial, June 10, 1998). The outcome, some assert, was decided more than a year before the election when bilingual education advocates made the strategic mistake of refusing to compromise on the issue in the legislature. The stage was set for Proposition 227, just as legislative failure on property tax relief in 1978 led to Proposition 13. "The challenge for bilingual education's champions was to devise a strategy to address its weaknesses, protect its successes and steal the wind out of the anti-bilingual education movement's sails. Instead they convinced Latino lawmakers to keep reform stalled in the Assembly" (Schultz).

An education issue obscured by its racially-charged, civil rights context. Since the 1970s, activists have identified bilingual education as the primary Latino civil rights issue - the equivalent of busing to blacks. For more than two decades, "a mixture of blind faith and administrative arrogance have made it unassailable" (Gregory Rodriguez, The Nation, April 20, 1998). The Unz Initiative came in the wake of California's Propositions 187 and 209 (immigration and affirmative action), making it almost inevitable that the civil rights slant would dominate and that the issue would be politically charged (Schultz). "Lost in this racialized hubbub was the only question that should have mattered: is bilingual education helping or hurting limited-English speakers in U.S. public schools?" (Rodriguez)

Erosion of support for bilingual education among two core groups: teachers and Latino voters. Though the state's powerful teacher unions strongly opposed the measure (the CTA contributed $2.1 million to the "no" campaign), unquestioning support for bilingual education among rank and file teachers has eroded. In November 1997, 47 percent of the membership of the United Teachers of Los Angeles voted to support the Unz initiative, though their leadership urged them to oppose it (Stewart, New Times, Jan 7, 1999; Rodriguez, The Nation). Polls showed likely Latino voters supporting the measure by a margin of 61 to 34 (March 1998 Field Poll). The associate publisher of the daily La Opinion predicted a 60-40 split in favor of Unz. LA Latino leaders said that defending bilingual education was not among the top five cutting-edge issues facing Latinos (Loyola Marymount University pre-election poll; Rodriguez). Yet in the end, Latino voters statewide voted "no" by a two-to-one margin. Some speculate that the final Latino vote may reflect "suspicion about the motives behind 227" (Max Castro, University of Miami, Fresno Bee commentary, Aug 2, 1998) [See "deep-seated feelings about language," below.]

Shifting political dynamic: unexpected pro/con line-up. Erosion of core support changed the political dynamic. The Unz Initiative looked like "the logical political descendant" of Propositions 187 and 209 - "the newest target for the state's disproportionately large Anglo electorate. Presumably, much of the white electorate, led by conservatives and anti-immigrant activists, would line up to support the initiative, while liberals and Latinos would reject it" (Rodriguez). But GOP leadership distanced itself from the fray, unwilling to re-activate Prop 187 and 209 charges of immigrant bashing. Meanwhile, Latino leadership was unwilling to dedicate large amounts of money or political capital to a measure that polls showed to be unpopular with Latino voters. "Indeed, the political no-man's land into which this initiative has descended is strangely reflective of its sponsor, the libertarian physicist-cum-software-designer millionaire, who does not include immigrant-bashing in his portfolio. While [Gov. Pete] Wilson was riding the anti-immigrant wave of Proposition 187 to reelection, Unz was a featured speaker at a 70,000 strong pro-immigrant rally in October 1994" (Rodriguez).

Tactical mistakes - lack of images; wrong messengers. Unz crafted a strong story line about Latino parents with picket signs and repeated it over and over. His opponents crafted messages peripheral to the issue (e.g., about the provision allowing teachers to be sued) and laced with educational jargon. Even the opposition's general message - "one-size fits all doesn't work" - was too general. "Voters are moved by what they can conjure up in their minds - little old ladies taxed out of their homes (Proposition 13), immigrants streaming over the border (Proposition 187)" (Schultz). Not only did stories of bilingual education successes in Calexico, Santa Ana, and Ontario come to light too late in the campaign (Pachon, LA Times, June 5, 1998) but they were told by the wrong people. Rather than parents and their children, spokespersons were advocates, educators, and researchers. "The professionals and their jargon played right into Unz's portrait of a self-protecting bilingual bureaucracy" (Schultz).

Deep-seated feelings about language. The bilingual education establishment failed to recognize how visceral the issue of English language is to many Americans and how necessary it is to keep separate the concept of fluency in two languages and that of using the language of the home to transition a child to another language (Pachon).

According to a study conducted by Boston University's Alan Wolfe, bilingualism is anathema to the overwhelming majority of middle-class Americans (Castro). Because the hostility is primarily symbolic (related to a sense of what it means to be an American), Wolfe believes that even if his respondents were persuaded that bilingual programs are effective, they would still oppose them. Results from an LA Times poll before the California vote seemed to support Wolfe's opinion. Only 10 percent of those in favor of 227 said they would vote for it for its stated purpose - the belief that bilingual education is ineffective. But 57 percent favored it because "if you live in America, you need to speak English" (Castro).

Driving forces behind California initiative politics. Some see the common thread of demographic change running through Propositions 227, 187, and 209. "Immigration, affirmative action and bilingual education aren't about money, and progressives haven't been outspent by their opponents on these issues (Rodriguez). The heart and soul of California initiative politics is white, middle-class discontent. Whites in California now constitute a bare majority of 51 percent of the total population. The electorate that went to the polls in June's primary was 69 percent white. Californians who voted are also older, more affluent and more conservative than the state as a whole." Yet others believe that attributing the 227 vote to anti-Hispanic sentiment is simplistic, since 37 percent of Hispanics supported the measure. Instead they say, "bilingual theorists ruined bilingual education" (Roger Hernandez, King Features, June 7, 1999). Hernandez cites the U.C. Riverside report that concluded that students need 10 years to achieve native fluency in writing, reading and speaking English. "No wonder Hispanic parents are upset. They want their kids to learn English fast." The answer, he says, is to fix it, not throw it out.

See "The Campaign Against Proposition 227", by James Crawford, at http://cie.ed.asu.edu/cber/BRJ/articles/Issue1Crawford.html.

No official data yet exist to offer a clear picture of California's implementation of Proposition 227, but we can delineate challenges faced by schools and synthesize recent news and anecdotal reports.

Immediate and Ongoing Implementation Challenges:

Defining the sheltered (structured) English immersion classroom. How to overhaul often well-established programs, develop a curriculum, select/purchase materials, and train teachers to use them.

Instructional strategies; professional development. What are the most effective strategies that do not rely on primary language instruction? For 1) teachers assigned to the 1-year immersion classrooms; 2) teachers in regular classrooms who will be working with growing numbers of LEP students? How will strategies differ from elementary to middle to high school? How will teachers learn the new strategies?

Student re-assignment. Are there enough students at a given grade level to create an immersion class? Will multi-age grouping be required? How to handle conflicts with 20:1 in primary grades? Transportation of students?

Teacher redeployment. Which teachers to reassign? Former ESL teachers? Will those who have been doing primary language instruction switch to straight ESL?

Assessment. What are the most reliable and useful assessments for the new curriculum? Will the state continue to reimburse for primary language assessment via, e.g., Aprenda? What criteria must students meet to be mainstreamed? How will their progress in English language skills and in content knowledge be measured?

Evaluation. How to know whether the new program is working? Changes in goals? Baseline data collection? Changes in data collection? Guidelines for data collection?

Waivers. What is required and what will be the allowable range of options? Can parents be encouraged to apply en masse? How best and most efficiently to inform parents-and school personnel who work with parents - of the waiver/program options and legal requirements?

Exemptions. No district-wide exemptions (three districts have filed a court challenge on this State Board decision). Charter schools are exempt. What about magnet schools and alternative programs, e.g., two-way bilingual? Are districts operating under consent decrees or other agreements with OCR exempt from 227? (San Jose has won court approval to continue bilingual programs under its desegregation order.)

Potential conflicts between state law and federal regulations. Are there other potential conflicts between state and federal compliance?


News/Notes Culled from Press and Anecdotal Reports:

Early results called encouraging; success may stem from flexible interpretation. In a much-reprinted story, the LA Times reported on interviews with teachers at 13 of that city's elementary schools who said their students are learning English more quickly than anticipated in post-227 "sheltered English immersion" classrooms (Sahagun, Jan 13). In a follow-up editorial (Jan 17), the Times called the findings encouraging, but also theorized that the reason the 227 approach may be working is that schools are implementing the new law more flexibly than it was written, using Spanish to explain abstract concepts to puzzled learners. Teachers quoted said their initial fears had been eased by the way their students seemed to be absorbing verbal English, with some even beginning to learn to read and write in English. However, some said they have had to water down core subjects or slow the pace of instruction, and they worried what that might mean for longer-term student progress. Many observers are looking to this spring's Stanford 9 standardized tests as a gauge of how deeply students are learning English.

Disparity of compliance reflects lingering polarity. In some heavily Latino districts in Ventura County such as Fillmore and Santa Paula, practically no parents requested waivers to resume bilingual instruction for their children (LA Times, Ventura County edition, Jan 3). Yet in half a dozen districts in the Ventura/Oxnard area, parents of 60% to 95% of the LEP children sought such waivers after the mandatory 30-days of sheltered English immersion. Disparities are similar in Orange County, despite its 71% "yes" vote on 227. Santa Ana schools, for example, received more than 2,000 waiver requests. But in Anaheim, where 61% of students are LEP, only 10 parents filed for waivers (Emmons, LA Times, Jan 1). Farther south in Oceanside, all 15 parents who requested waivers were turned down. Superintendent Ken Noonan said the fact that children come home from school crying because they can't understand their lessons does not sufficiently demonstrate the required "special need." (Moran, San Diego Union Tribune, Jan 23).

Ongoing lawsuits. The latest suit, filed in U.S. District court in Los Angeles in December by the California Teachers Association, contests Proposition 227's provision that parents may sue teachers or administrators who "willfully and repeatedly" refuse to conduct instruction overwhelmingly in English. Representing 285,000 teachers, the CTA argues that the proposition is unconstitutionally vague and exposes teachers to potentially frivolous lawsuits (Gittelsohn, Orange County Register, Dec 4). Another outstanding suit, filed by three Alameda County school districts (Berkeley, Oakland, and Hayward), asks the State Board of Education to reconsider its decision that there can be no district-wide waivers. In December, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that San Jose Unified may continue to teach Spanish-speaking students in their native language because it is under a federal desegregation order to do so (Martinez, San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 17).

English immersion more difficult in high school. While the 227 debate focused on the youngest students, immigrant teenagers in science, literature, and history classes can't understand most of what the teacher is saying (Richardson, LA Times, Orange County edition, Dec. 28). Teachers say pantomime can't convey concepts and theories. A recent history test asked students to explain Reconstruction, why it was a missed opportunity to solve American's racial problems, and why Congress rejected President Andrew Johnson's postwar plan. "Students with limited English skills were lost."

227 in the context of other California reforms. Prop 227 is just one in an array of reforms that some criticize as one upheaval after another guided by no grand plan. The effects of each on the others is unclear. Teacher reports of slowing the pace of instruction to help LEP students struggling with English, for example, contrast sharply with earlier teacher comments that class size reduction allows a faster instructional pace and coverage of more material. Meanwhile, given the state's new ban on social promotion, teachers-especially at the high school level-weigh whether to fail bright LEP students who work hard but can't comprehend the lessons. Pending legislation that would mandate a high school exit exam has triggered similar concerns, raising the issues of language, race, and poverty that are integral to the ongoing debates over testing and accountability.

http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html