Action Guide June 2, 1998

DESCRIPTION

This initiative statute (often referred to by the name of its proponent, Ron Unz) would require that all public school instruction be in English, unless parents or guardians visit the school, are informed about available options and apply for a waiver. They would have to show that the child already knows English, has special needs, or would learn English faster through other instructional techniques. If more than 20 students in a grade are given a waiver, a school would have to offer a bilingual or other recognized type of special class. If a class is not available, a student could transfer to another public school where such a class is available.

Generally, Proposition 227 would provide for “limited English proficient” (LEP) children of different ages to be placed in “sheltered immersion” classes in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English. After one year in such classes, most students would be moved into regular classes

The measure would provide $50 million a year for ten years for English language instruction for adults who would pledge to provide English tutoring to children in their community. Parents or guardians could file law suits to enforce compliance.

BACKGROUND

Last year 25%, or 1.4 million, of the children in California’s public schools were identified as “limited English proficient” (LEP). Under federal law, schools must make their lessons understandable to LEP students. State Department of Education guidelines had until recently required schools to allow LEP students the option of being in bilingual programs in which they are taught both in their native language and in English. In early March, however, the State Board rescinded that requirement and voted to give school districts the option of teaching children solely in English or retaining bilingual programs. The Board’s decision was based on a recent Superior Court decision that said all districts had to provide instruction using the primary language “when necessary.” The Board interpreted this to mean that the decision could be left up to individual districts—that is, that state policy be designed to “permit school districts the flexibility authorized under federal law in designing and implementing programs for English learners.” It is unclear how many districts with bilingual programs will change them. The Board’s action is expected to be challenged in court.

The Legislative Analyst says that almost all LEP students receive special services for learning English. However, there are significant differences in how they are taught their academic subjects such as math, history, or science. About 40% of LEP students are now taught academic subjects in English, but with specially designed materials and methods. Roughly half of this group receive support such as tutoring in their primary language. About another 30% are taught some or all of their academic subjects in their primary language. The remaining 30% receive no special help. Programs are now paid for by special “compensatory” funds.

IMPORTANT POINTS

• The initiative would not allow the flexibility to develop programs that work best considering the circumstances of the community. It mandates a single method for teaching all children who have limited English proficiency.
  

• The recent change in state Board of Education guidelines supports local districts’ choice in designing programs for English learners. We should not pass an initiative that would outlaw that choice.
  

• Proponents cite statistics to show a “failure” of bilingual education. But they gloss over the fact that their statistics lump all children together, even though there are a number of different programs to teach children English. In fact, 70% of all limited-English children are taught only in English.
  

• The exceptions could be difficult for individual parents to understand and meet.
  

• The initiative uses $50 million of education funds per year to set up a completely new program of English language instruction for adults to provide tutoring for children, without any testing to see how it would work.
  

Supporters Signing ballot argument for: Alice Callaghan, Director Las Familias del Pueblo Ron Unz, Chairman English for the Children Fernando Vega Past Redwood City School Board Member

Opponents Signing ballot argument against: John D’Amelio, President California School Boards Association Mary Bergan, President California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Lois Tinson, President California Teachers Association

Resources

Defend the Children: No on 227, Duane Campbell, Chair, 2131 Capitol Avenue, Suite 204, Sacramento 95816, 916-442-4386; www.noonunz.org

The article on Proposition 227 in the In Depth publication for League pro/con speakers has more background and analysis of methods of instruction for LEP students.