Proposition 227 Research Paper
The issue of English language learners (ELL) and their rights to an education has been a major topic of debate for many years. Should ELL students be taught in their first language? Will they learn English, or should they be put into English speaking classes? That has been the topic of discussion amongst educators. Which method is better for the student? The arguments continue and many states and school districts have made a decision on what to do. One state in particular had a serious ELL problem, so California took action. In 1998, California implemented a program called Proposition 227.
Proposition 227 was legislation that was put to a vote by the California government. Proposition 227 was passed on June 2, 1998. Proposition 227 changed the way schools were to teach to ELL students. Before proposition 227, ELL students were taught in their first language and English was mixed in. The hope was that eventually the ELL …show more content…
students would be placed in all English classes. The ELL students would be slowly weaned into the all English classes. Wit the passage of Proposition 227, that all had to change. The state of California was taking their education philosophy in a different direction.
Proposition 227 stated that all classes in the state of California were to be taught in all English programs. The ELL students had to be placed in all English classes with the English speaking students. The ELL students were forced to speak English when they were in school, no matter how well they understood English. Proposition 227 was a push for the use of a single language in schools. The goal was to get all students in the California school system to speak and understand English. The new law was a drastic change but the voters of California felt strongly enough to vote Proposition 227 into law.
When Proposition 227 was voted in, it was challenged in the California State Courts almost immediately. "The legislative language of Proposition 227 was sufficiently vague and thus created other problems."1 Torrez. Pg. 208. The legislatures wording of Proposition 227 was unclear and left a great deal of the legislation open to interpretation. The wording was not black and white; there was great deal of gray area. This only helped to cause more confusion amongst the school districts. "The law, itself, spoke to specific changes and mentioned curriculum issues. Yet, there was no money set aside to create the new curricular approach, and no plan to in-service teachers in the new methodology to be utilized". 2 Torrez, 2001, pg. 208. There also was no time line in place for the implementation of the new mandated changes. The proposition had been passed but it had not been thought through. The politicians wanted this piece of legislation passed but they did not thoroughly research their new legislation.
The legislators created Proposition 227 because the people of California wanted such a law enacted. That is why the people of California voted for the approval of Proposition 227. The problem was that the politicians wrote the law so that it would hold teachers and administrators responsible if there was non-compliance. Since the law was vague, it was open to interpretation by the school districts. Many school districts interpreted the new law as conservatively as possible, so they would avoid litigation. Each district interpreted the law differently, so this lead to confusion. There was no uniformity amongst the school districts, so it was difficult to asses the effectiveness of the new law. This confusion between the school districts carried over to the parents and communities. Each school district performed differently according to their interpretation of the new law. The average person could not understand why at one school district, an ELL student was able to receive primary language instruction, while at another school district, the ELL student was forced into an English only curriculum. If the law was suppose to be the same for all Ell students, then why was there such a difference between the ways the school districts implemented Proposition 227.
The new legislation described what the schools needed to do but it did not tell them how to go about it and it did not provide funding for these new programs. Schools were expected to implement the new legislation but they were not provided any additional funding. Schools did not have the necessary funding, so they implemented what they could with the funding that they had, but it was extremely difficult to implement the new programs with no extra funding in place. The schools basically did what they could with what they had.
Proposition 227 once it was voted into place, needed to be put into practice. The problem arose when each school district was permitted to interpret the new legislation any way each saw fit. "Proposition 227 still provides districts with substantial flexibility in interpreting its 'overwhelmingly in English ' mandate. Labels of instructional practices from district to district can represent vastly different methods in practice: de Alth and Jepsen, 2005, pg. 19. The new law states that nearly all teaching must be in English. What does nearly all mean? Each school district made its own judgment on nearly all aspects of the new law. Some school districts decided that 60 % was sufficient. Other school districts used 49 % as their mark. Schools used many different tricks to circumvent the law. Some schools turned themselves from public schools into alternative or magnet schools. Those schools were not required to follow the mandates of Proposition 227. Other schools simply did not obey the law. They continued to teach how they had been prior to the ratification of Proposition 227.
Proposition 227 specified the ELL students, when immersed in an English only curriculum should be able to obtain English proficiency in about one year. There are studies stating that it takes three to five years to achieve oral English proficiency. Academic English proficiency can take four to seven years to become proficient. This conflicting data helped lead to the frustration that every one began to feel towards Proposition 227. School administrators and teachers were place din a precarious position. They needed to follow the guidelines set by the new legislation, but how ere they to go about it. The schools wanted to provide a quality education to their students, but because of this legislation certain students were being compromised. That is not an easy choice for the administrator or teachers. Students are not considered expendable, so school had to interpret the new law in ways that it would work for them.
Proposition 227 did not do away with bilingual education. It was there more as a deterrent. School districts still needed to identify who the ELL students were and provide them with English instruction until they are ready for an all English curriculum. Parents must be kept informed of their child 's progress. School still needs to provide data to show the progress of the ELL students. The new law did not completely change things, but here were certain changes made. Some of these state requirements that changed were followed. ELL students must be enrolled in English language classrooms and must provide an English immersion program that should last for no more then one year. After this time students will be put into the English only program. The only way for a student to be entered into the bilingual program is by parental waiver. Parents must request that their child be entered into the bilingual program. The child must meet certain criteria to even be considered for the program. Parents were to be given constant feedback regarding their child 's progress.
Proposition 227 was proposed because there was a general failure with the bilingual education. For most bilingual education students, there was no bilingual to it. Most students learned in their first language and never acquired a proficiency in English. The previous program failed to teach students to read or write English. Less then 7 % of ELL students learned English well enough ob e moved to the mainstream courses. There were well over 100 languages spoken by California school children. To teach each group in its native language before teaching them English was fiscally and academically impossible. Learning a new language is easier the younger the age of the child. Learning a language is easier if the child is immersed in that language. Immigrant children already know their native language; they need the public school system to teach them English. Children, who can not speak, read or write English when they leave school are at a severe disadvantage.
There was plenty of opposition to Proposition 227. Many felt that the new law imposed an untested method for teaching English. Children with limited English will be in the same classroom as English as primary language students. Many believed that Proposition 227 outlawed the best local programs for teaching English. Teachers did not like the new law because they could be sued personally for teaching in the child 's native language. There were already plenty of success teaching ELL students, so there was no need to make changes. Many were under the theory of; if it is not broke, do not fix it.
Several studies have examined ELL academic achievement since the implementation of Proposition 227. There are studies that show that the gap between the ELL students and English only students has narrowed, but only slightly. There has been no clear pattern that favors English only versus bilingual education. These studies have not been able to show a significant improvement. The studies do admit that there were so many different variables that it was difficult to get a true comparison. The bottom line these studies provided was that the ELL students still lagged far behind the English speaking students. In recent years, there have been improvements made and studies have been improved, so they will better capture the real results of the implementation of Proposition 227.
Proposition 227 also worked toward improving parental involvement. With the new law, parents were required to be notified when and if their child needed to be placed into the bilingual program. The parents must sign a waiver for their child to be entered into the bilingual program. Once their child is entered into the bilingual program, they must be given regular updates on their child 's progress. Parental involvement is critical to a student 's success. With the added support from home, the student has a much better chance of being successful. "We believe that with teachers, parents and administrators in more tenuous contact with data and with excellent computer systems for managing the date, the power for maximizing student achievement is, more appropriately, in everyone 's hands." Benatom, 2005, pg. 27.
Proposition 227 is a referendum that was approved by Californian voters in 1998. The purpose of the referendum was to limit assistance for ELL students to one year of assisted English instruction. The referendum did allow for certain exceptions. Once exception was if at least 20 parents in a district request that their children remain in a bilingual program. For the waiver to be approved the children needed to be 10 years or older. The proposition was passed mainly because many immigrants were disappointed with their children 's education. The referendum was not hat dramatic of a change. "Of the 1.3 million students who were considered to be limited English proficient, on 30% of them were in bonafide bilingual programs where they are taught with bilingual teachers." Facts behind Proposition 227, 1998, pg. 1
Politics had an effect on Proposition 227. The new referendum was a dramatic change in the educational system and it took a great deal of convincing to get it approved. The new referendum was also controversial. Many believed that it was discriminatory to the ELL students. Whenever there is controversy, politicians, to stop the controversy, try to appease the noise makers. This was true with Proposition 227. There were deals struck that changed the rules of Proposition 227. Originally, Proposition 227 stated that parents were the only ones who could apply for the waiver, to have a student enter a bilingual program. This upset many in the teacher 's union. The politicians changed the referendum to say that teachers, rather then parents to decide whether children should be in a bilingual program. The politicians gave into the pressure and changed the core provision of Proposition 227.
Looking back was Proposition 227 a good decision?
That is still a question that does not have a definite answer. It depends on who is asking that questions. English skills have improved in California but they are not drastic changes. There has been improvement but it has been minimal. Students definitely need to learn English, without English proficiency, students will struggle throughout their lives. That is not the issue; everyone can agree that English proficiency is probably the most important thing a student can learn. The debate arises when the discussion of how students should acquire this proficiency, is brought into light. We do live in the United States and our main language is English, so if students are enrolled in our school systems, they should be able to speak English. The controversy of how to obtain proficiency in English will continue, especially in today 's society, where more people are trying to maintain their ethnic heritage. It will be interesting to see what our educational system will look like 10 or 20 years from
now.
References:
Benadom, Erika, how Smart data helps English learners, Leadership, Jan/Feb. 2005, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pgs. 26-27.
deAlth, Shelley, and Jepsen, Christopher, English Learners in California Schools, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005, pgs. 19-22.
Facts Behind Proposition 227: California 's Anti-bilingual Education Initiative. Developed by Massachusetts coalition for Bilingual Education, 7/98.
Leo, John, A storm over reform, US News and World Report, 00415537, 5/6/2002, vol. 132, issue 15.
Torrez, Nena, Incoherent English Immersion and California Proposition 227, Urban Review, Sep. 2001, vol. 33, Issue 3, pgs. 207-220, 14p.
Zehr, Mary Ann, California 's English-Fluency Numbers Help Fuel Debate, Education Week, 02774232, 12/5/2001, Vol. 21, Issue 14.
Proposition 227 was legislation that was put to a vote by the California government. Proposition 227 was passed on June 2, 1998. Proposition 227 changed the way schools were to teach to ELL students. Before proposition 227, ELL students were taught in their first language and English was mixed in. The hope was that eventually the ELL …show more content…
students would be placed in all English classes. The ELL students would be slowly weaned into the all English classes. Wit the passage of Proposition 227, that all had to change. The state of California was taking their education philosophy in a different direction.
Proposition 227 stated that all classes in the state of California were to be taught in all English programs. The ELL students had to be placed in all English classes with the English speaking students. The ELL students were forced to speak English when they were in school, no matter how well they understood English. Proposition 227 was a push for the use of a single language in schools. The goal was to get all students in the California school system to speak and understand English. The new law was a drastic change but the voters of California felt strongly enough to vote Proposition 227 into law.
When Proposition 227 was voted in, it was challenged in the California State Courts almost immediately. "The legislative language of Proposition 227 was sufficiently vague and thus created other problems."1 Torrez. Pg. 208. The legislatures wording of Proposition 227 was unclear and left a great deal of the legislation open to interpretation. The wording was not black and white; there was great deal of gray area. This only helped to cause more confusion amongst the school districts. "The law, itself, spoke to specific changes and mentioned curriculum issues. Yet, there was no money set aside to create the new curricular approach, and no plan to in-service teachers in the new methodology to be utilized". 2 Torrez, 2001, pg. 208. There also was no time line in place for the implementation of the new mandated changes. The proposition had been passed but it had not been thought through. The politicians wanted this piece of legislation passed but they did not thoroughly research their new legislation.
The legislators created Proposition 227 because the people of California wanted such a law enacted. That is why the people of California voted for the approval of Proposition 227. The problem was that the politicians wrote the law so that it would hold teachers and administrators responsible if there was non-compliance. Since the law was vague, it was open to interpretation by the school districts. Many school districts interpreted the new law as conservatively as possible, so they would avoid litigation. Each district interpreted the law differently, so this lead to confusion. There was no uniformity amongst the school districts, so it was difficult to asses the effectiveness of the new law. This confusion between the school districts carried over to the parents and communities. Each school district performed differently according to their interpretation of the new law. The average person could not understand why at one school district, an ELL student was able to receive primary language instruction, while at another school district, the ELL student was forced into an English only curriculum. If the law was suppose to be the same for all Ell students, then why was there such a difference between the ways the school districts implemented Proposition 227.
The new legislation described what the schools needed to do but it did not tell them how to go about it and it did not provide funding for these new programs. Schools were expected to implement the new legislation but they were not provided any additional funding. Schools did not have the necessary funding, so they implemented what they could with the funding that they had, but it was extremely difficult to implement the new programs with no extra funding in place. The schools basically did what they could with what they had.
Proposition 227 once it was voted into place, needed to be put into practice. The problem arose when each school district was permitted to interpret the new legislation any way each saw fit. "Proposition 227 still provides districts with substantial flexibility in interpreting its 'overwhelmingly in English ' mandate. Labels of instructional practices from district to district can represent vastly different methods in practice: de Alth and Jepsen, 2005, pg. 19. The new law states that nearly all teaching must be in English. What does nearly all mean? Each school district made its own judgment on nearly all aspects of the new law. Some school districts decided that 60 % was sufficient. Other school districts used 49 % as their mark. Schools used many different tricks to circumvent the law. Some schools turned themselves from public schools into alternative or magnet schools. Those schools were not required to follow the mandates of Proposition 227. Other schools simply did not obey the law. They continued to teach how they had been prior to the ratification of Proposition 227.
Proposition 227 specified the ELL students, when immersed in an English only curriculum should be able to obtain English proficiency in about one year. There are studies stating that it takes three to five years to achieve oral English proficiency. Academic English proficiency can take four to seven years to become proficient. This conflicting data helped lead to the frustration that every one began to feel towards Proposition 227. School administrators and teachers were place din a precarious position. They needed to follow the guidelines set by the new legislation, but how ere they to go about it. The schools wanted to provide a quality education to their students, but because of this legislation certain students were being compromised. That is not an easy choice for the administrator or teachers. Students are not considered expendable, so school had to interpret the new law in ways that it would work for them.
Proposition 227 did not do away with bilingual education. It was there more as a deterrent. School districts still needed to identify who the ELL students were and provide them with English instruction until they are ready for an all English curriculum. Parents must be kept informed of their child 's progress. School still needs to provide data to show the progress of the ELL students. The new law did not completely change things, but here were certain changes made. Some of these state requirements that changed were followed. ELL students must be enrolled in English language classrooms and must provide an English immersion program that should last for no more then one year. After this time students will be put into the English only program. The only way for a student to be entered into the bilingual program is by parental waiver. Parents must request that their child be entered into the bilingual program. The child must meet certain criteria to even be considered for the program. Parents were to be given constant feedback regarding their child 's progress.
Proposition 227 was proposed because there was a general failure with the bilingual education. For most bilingual education students, there was no bilingual to it. Most students learned in their first language and never acquired a proficiency in English. The previous program failed to teach students to read or write English. Less then 7 % of ELL students learned English well enough ob e moved to the mainstream courses. There were well over 100 languages spoken by California school children. To teach each group in its native language before teaching them English was fiscally and academically impossible. Learning a new language is easier the younger the age of the child. Learning a language is easier if the child is immersed in that language. Immigrant children already know their native language; they need the public school system to teach them English. Children, who can not speak, read or write English when they leave school are at a severe disadvantage.
There was plenty of opposition to Proposition 227. Many felt that the new law imposed an untested method for teaching English. Children with limited English will be in the same classroom as English as primary language students. Many believed that Proposition 227 outlawed the best local programs for teaching English. Teachers did not like the new law because they could be sued personally for teaching in the child 's native language. There were already plenty of success teaching ELL students, so there was no need to make changes. Many were under the theory of; if it is not broke, do not fix it.
Several studies have examined ELL academic achievement since the implementation of Proposition 227. There are studies that show that the gap between the ELL students and English only students has narrowed, but only slightly. There has been no clear pattern that favors English only versus bilingual education. These studies have not been able to show a significant improvement. The studies do admit that there were so many different variables that it was difficult to get a true comparison. The bottom line these studies provided was that the ELL students still lagged far behind the English speaking students. In recent years, there have been improvements made and studies have been improved, so they will better capture the real results of the implementation of Proposition 227.
Proposition 227 also worked toward improving parental involvement. With the new law, parents were required to be notified when and if their child needed to be placed into the bilingual program. The parents must sign a waiver for their child to be entered into the bilingual program. Once their child is entered into the bilingual program, they must be given regular updates on their child 's progress. Parental involvement is critical to a student 's success. With the added support from home, the student has a much better chance of being successful. "We believe that with teachers, parents and administrators in more tenuous contact with data and with excellent computer systems for managing the date, the power for maximizing student achievement is, more appropriately, in everyone 's hands." Benatom, 2005, pg. 27.
Proposition 227 is a referendum that was approved by Californian voters in 1998. The purpose of the referendum was to limit assistance for ELL students to one year of assisted English instruction. The referendum did allow for certain exceptions. Once exception was if at least 20 parents in a district request that their children remain in a bilingual program. For the waiver to be approved the children needed to be 10 years or older. The proposition was passed mainly because many immigrants were disappointed with their children 's education. The referendum was not hat dramatic of a change. "Of the 1.3 million students who were considered to be limited English proficient, on 30% of them were in bonafide bilingual programs where they are taught with bilingual teachers." Facts behind Proposition 227, 1998, pg. 1
Politics had an effect on Proposition 227. The new referendum was a dramatic change in the educational system and it took a great deal of convincing to get it approved. The new referendum was also controversial. Many believed that it was discriminatory to the ELL students. Whenever there is controversy, politicians, to stop the controversy, try to appease the noise makers. This was true with Proposition 227. There were deals struck that changed the rules of Proposition 227. Originally, Proposition 227 stated that parents were the only ones who could apply for the waiver, to have a student enter a bilingual program. This upset many in the teacher 's union. The politicians changed the referendum to say that teachers, rather then parents to decide whether children should be in a bilingual program. The politicians gave into the pressure and changed the core provision of Proposition 227.
Looking back was Proposition 227 a good decision?
That is still a question that does not have a definite answer. It depends on who is asking that questions. English skills have improved in California but they are not drastic changes. There has been improvement but it has been minimal. Students definitely need to learn English, without English proficiency, students will struggle throughout their lives. That is not the issue; everyone can agree that English proficiency is probably the most important thing a student can learn. The debate arises when the discussion of how students should acquire this proficiency, is brought into light. We do live in the United States and our main language is English, so if students are enrolled in our school systems, they should be able to speak English. The controversy of how to obtain proficiency in English will continue, especially in today 's society, where more people are trying to maintain their ethnic heritage. It will be interesting to see what our educational system will look like 10 or 20 years from
now.
References:
Benadom, Erika, how Smart data helps English learners, Leadership, Jan/Feb. 2005, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pgs. 26-27.
deAlth, Shelley, and Jepsen, Christopher, English Learners in California Schools, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005, pgs. 19-22.
Facts Behind Proposition 227: California 's Anti-bilingual Education Initiative. Developed by Massachusetts coalition for Bilingual Education, 7/98.
Leo, John, A storm over reform, US News and World Report, 00415537, 5/6/2002, vol. 132, issue 15.
Torrez, Nena, Incoherent English Immersion and California Proposition 227, Urban Review, Sep. 2001, vol. 33, Issue 3, pgs. 207-220, 14p.
Zehr, Mary Ann, California 's English-Fluency Numbers Help Fuel Debate, Education Week, 02774232, 12/5/2001, Vol. 21, Issue 14.