Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Bilingual education in California: A policy debate
(USC Thesis Other)
Bilingual education in California: A policy debate
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2003
BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA:
A POLICY DEBATE
by
Jennifer Biytfae Vega
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(TEACHING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE)
December 2003
Jennifer Blythe Vega
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1420405
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 1420405
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This thesis, written by
Jennifer Blythe Vega
under the direction o f h e r
Advisor, has been presented to and accepted by the
Faculty of the School of Education in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
M a s t e r o f S c ie n c e i n E d u c a t io n
f O j 3 I j O IL -
1 Advisor '//
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to Dr. David Eskey for ail of his encouragement and
support as a mentor, teacher, and friend. His influence on second language teaching and
research has had a long-term global and national impact. His influence on his students has
a long-term personal impact. You will be missed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis is the result of a combination of efforts at the University of Southern
California. I was first introduced to second language teaching and learning through
courses with Dr. David Eskey and Dr. Michael Genzuk. Those courses formed the basis
for my enthusiasm and interest in second language teaching and specifically bilingual
education.
The Office of International Student Services and the American Language Institute
at the University of Southern California provided the atmosphere for me to learn and
grow as an ESL Instructor through experiences with international students and cultures
from around the world. I owe many thanks to Bernard and Chris Seal and Judy Hartwich
for giving me the opportunity to explore my teaching and research in ESL. Cara Wallis,
Andrea Clemons, Gregory Anderson and all of the Assistant Lecturers and staff at ALI
provided instrumental support and encouragement. You are all fantastic colleagues and
have become wonderful friends.
Bilingual education is an Imperative part of Californian students and specifically
in Los Angeles where the wealth of cultures and languages is immense. This provides the
background and basis for this research.
I would like to thank Dr. William M. Rideout, Jr., Dr. Julietta Shakbagova, and
Dr. William Maxwell for their support of this project and for seeing it through until the
final product.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................... .....li
LIST OF TABLES ................... ........v
ABSTRACT................................ vi
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. .......................... 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........ .3
History of Bilingual Education Policy in the United States............................ 3
Student Impact........................................................................................5
III. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................7
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR).......................................... 7
IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ...... 9
Analysis of Proposition 227 ................................. 9
Opponents to Proposition 227 ....................................................................18
Bilingual Education Research ....... ....21
Bilingual Education in California Today: the Impact of Proposition 227 ..................2 3
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 35
References .......... 36
Appendix ........................................... 39
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - English Language Learners in Los Angeles Unified—2001-2002 . ..26
Table 2 -LAUSD SAT-9 (STAR) Scores—English/Language Arts National
Percentile Rankings (NPR) .................................. .28
Table 3 - LAUSD SAT-9 (STAR) Scores—Math National Percentile Rankings
(NPR) ........ 29
Table 4 - LAUSD Stanford-9 (STAR) Scores—Reading National Percentile
Rankings (N PR).............................. 30
Table 5 - California and LAUSD SABE/2 Summary Report for All Students,
1999-2002—Reading, RPR for “average” student score.................................... 31
Table 6 - LAUSD SAT-9 scores by cohort 1998-2002 Limited English Proficient
National Percentile Rankings (NPR) ...... 33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The language policy discussion and debate in California is centered around an
initiative that California voters decided upon in the June 1998 elections. Proposition 227,
written by a multimillionaire software developer and a first grade teacher, both political
candidates, was designed to eliminate bilingual education in all schools, at all levels and
in all programs in California. This proposition not only sought to eliminate proven
successful programs but made speaking a language other than English in the classroom a
violation of the law.
There are at least 100 languages spoken in Los Angeles Unified School district
alone, creating an incredible opportunity for all students to be exposed to and educated in
a language other than their native tongue. In a country that requires students to learn a
second language in order graduate from secondary school or to enter into the university, it
seems a grave tragedy to throw these opportunities aside.
This study attempts to analyze the current bilingual education research and the
aftermath of Proposition 227 as it affects the students and schools in Los Angeles and
California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The current language policy discussion and debate in California is centered
around an initiative that California voters decided upon in the June 1998 elections.
Proposition 227, written by a multimillionaire software developer and a first grade
teacher, both political candidates, was designed to eliminate bilingual education in all
schools, at all levels and in ail programs in California. This proposition not only sought to
eliminate proven successful programs but made speaking a language other than English in
the classroom a violation of the law.
There are at least 100 languages spoken in Los Angeles Unified School district
alone, creating an incredible opportunity for all students to be exposed to and educated in
a language other than their native tongue. In a country that requires students to learn a
second language from an approved list in order graduate from secondary school or to
enter into the university, it seems a grave tragedy to throw these opportunities aside.
In 1968, the US Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act which gave credit to
the rich tradition of language and diversity in this country and supported the premise of
democracy and equal opportunity for all. However, the debate over “English Only” has
raged on since the 18th century and may now be the new policy in California initiated in
1998.
This paper will examine the history and policies of bilingual education in the
United States, while presenting successful programs and case stories. Both sides of the
current debate over Proposition 227 will be presented with suggestions for improving the
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
current status of bilingual education in California. An overview of research supporting
bilingual education will also contribute to the authors’ view of the current proposition in
California. Finally, an analysis of the LAUSD student testing scores post-Proposition 227
will lead to initial findings on the lack of success since implementation.
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
History of Bilingual Education Policy in the United States
Historically, the United States has been a place of linguistic and ethnic diversity
duplicated in few other countries. Since early in American history people have resided
side by side speaking German, French, Italian, Russian, Polish and English. “The
Continental Congress printed a number of documents, including the Articles of
Confederation in German and English. An 1837 Pennsylvania law required school
instruction in both German and English. In 1839, German-speaking, French-speaking, and
Spanish-speaking parents in Ohio, Louisiana, and New Mexico used bilingual education.
And California, which was officially bilingual for 30 years, printed its first state
constitutional proceedings in both Spanish and English” (National Education
Association— NEA, 1996). However, since early history, language has also been an area
of discriminative practice and restrictions.
Bilingual education has been a part of the education system since the turn of the
18th century when, according to the NEA (1996), bilingual English courses were taught
along with German, Norwegian, Italian, Czech, Dutch and Polish. “During the colonial
period, again in the 1830s with the first wave of large-scale European Immigration, and
during the great wave of European immigration from roughly 1880 to 1920, movements
to restrict the public use of non-English languages led to the passage of English- only
laws in education, voting, and the judicial system. The period immediately prior to, and
during US participation in World War I, saw heightened anti-German hysteria, an assault
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on German organizations and publications, and an aversion to foreign cultures and ideas,
generally. A similar phenomenon occurred during World War II, especially with regard to
Japanese and German Americans” (Ricento, 1996).
Language restriction laws date back through the 1870’s when the Jim Crow laws
even restricted African Americans from voting without English literacy. Prior to this in
the 1850’s Chinese immigrants suffered loss of rights due to the inability to meet English
literacy requirements (Ricento, 1996). Other language legislation has been the result of
turmoil and fear due to war. For example, as a result of WWI many states “barred” the
teaching of German in schools and Nebraska passed the first law making English the
state’s official language (NEA, 1996). In Meyers vs. Nebraska (1923) the court found
that a person’s language did not exempt him or her from their respective Constitutional
rights, reversing the prior legislation. Lau vs. Nichols (1974) reversed the bilingual
education restrictions, finding that it did not allow students equal education opportunities.
The Bilingual Education Act was passed by Congress in 1968, recognizing the
need for equal educational opportunities for all children regardless of their native tongue.
Again, legislation has been an essential way to ensure equal rights for all citizens of the
United States. However, the 1978 congressional amendment changes the goal to be
English competent through transitional programs (Draper & Jimenez, 1996). With at least
18 states employing Official English/English Only laws since 1981 when an official
English bill was first introduced to Congress, the need for equality through the courts has
remained. According to NEA (1996) the organizations introducing English First and U.S.
English are both part of larger entities supporting anti-immigration policy.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Californians have long faced the debate over English Only laws. As mentioned,
dating back to the California Constitution (1849), legislation was provided in both
Spanish and English. In the 1850s, with migration due to the gold rush, Spanish speakers
became a minority and legislation was passed limiting Spanish-English classes and
requiring English for land hearings. By the 1870s the California Constitutional laws were
repealed, calling for English only within the State government (Crawford, 1996).
Californians have since passed several initiatives including Proposition 63 (1986) which
declared English as California’s official language and Proposition 187 (1994) eliminating
social services to undocumented immigrants (Ricento, 1996). Again, in 1998
Californians went to the voting ballot to determine whether students will continue to
receive the benefits of bilingual education.
Student Impact
With over 100 languages spoken in Los Angeles Unified School District alone,
the impact of bilingual education policy and legislation is quite far reaching. According to
Crawford (1997b), “the 1990 census counted 6.3 million youths, aged 5-17, who speak
languages other than English at home.” This same census found that “more than 325
languages are now used at home by U.S. residents, including at least 137 Native
American languages”. Crawford continues to describe from the census the relative
numbers of U.S. households totaling 14 million (16% of the total households) where a
language other than English is spoken. California has the highest number of Limited
English Proficient (LEP) students enrolled and Los Angeles is one of five counties where
students speak at least one of 100 languages. As immigration continues to grow in
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California, so does the number of students qualified for LEP programs and the number of
residents who are classified as having difficulty speaking English.
Due to the large number of students in the California school districts qualified for
bilingual services, many are not receiving assistance and of those that do, many are not
receiving effective services due to teacher shortages. According to the “No on 227”
(1997) campaign, “only 6% of all kids in school are currently in a bilingual education
program— about 30% of all the limited English speaking kids. So, it's pretty misleading to
try to draw conclusions about the current education of all non-native English speakers”.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This study presents a histography of bilingual education policy and practice in the
United States. The focus is on the most recent major policy adhered to by California
school systems in 1998. Through a historic review of the policies a clear understanding of
the continuum of bilingual education practices in the United States is presented. A
thorough analysis of the language and meaning of all articles in Proposition 227, as
written, provides insight to the changes and impact on bilingual education programs. A
findings analysis based on the post-1998 decision and implementation of the laws in
California is then presented. This was conducted through in-depth analysis of student
scores, bilingual education program research and impact on LAUSD and other California
school systems.
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR)
There are three components of the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program
(STAR) in California: Stanford Achievement Test, California Standards Test and Spanish
Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2). These tests are administered to students in
California on a yearly basis from grades 2-11. The Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth
Edition, Form T was designated in 1997 as the achievement test for California and has
been utilized since 1998 (CDE, 2002). A norm-referenced test allows for year-to-year
comparisons. The California Standards Test was adopted by the State Board of
Education for the “content standards that specify what all California children are expected
to know and be able to do” (CDE 2002). Children are tested on English language aits,
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mathematics, history, social science, and other science courses. The Spanish Assessment
of Basic Education, 2n d Edition (SABE/2) is also a norm-referenced test, but provided in
Spanish. This test is administered to California students who are Spanish-speaking
English Language Learners. These students also take the Stanford-9 and California
Standards tests (CDE, 2002).
These standardized tests for California are analyzed and compared with LAUSD
test scores for both LEP and English only students. Test scores from 1998-2001 present a
view of bilingual education since the passage of Proposition 227. Results in reading,
mathematics, and language are triangulated along with the SAB E/2 scores for Spanish
speaking students. In addition, evaluation of the LAUSD LEP students by cohort is
examined.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Analysis of Proposition 227
Proposition 227 was written by Ron Unz, a multi-millionaire software tycoon and
formal gubernatorial candidate and Gloria Matta Tuchman, a teacher and supporter of
U.S. English. The initiative was filed and received enough signatures to be placed on the
California voting ballot for June, 1998. Self-titled the “Unz initiative” the Proposition
has become a leading battle zone for California voters. Ronald Unz designed his position
around for basic points:
1. that immigrant children are failing to leam English in
California because of bilingual education;
2. that English-only immersion programs - which provide
maximum exposure to the second language - are more
effective in teaching English;
3. that immigrant parents want their children schooled in
English-only - not bilingual - classrooms; and
4. that bilingual education exists in California mainly to
perpetuate a self-serving bureaucracy at enormous cost to
the taxpayers (Crawford, 1997a).
In Article one of the Proposition (Appendix A) the authors of this article declare
that (a) English is the mainstay for the U.S. in areas of science and technology, etc.
However, the authors do not recognize that to be truly competitive in a global
marketplace and economy, a monolingual country will find itself lacking in essential
linguistic resources to communicate. The authors do not see the importance of a diverse
and bilingual society and the benefits to the society.
Children's opportunities for excelling in science, technology,
government, or domestic and international business depend not
only on these keystone language skills but also on mastering such
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
subjects as math, science, history, and civics. Bilingual education
and the other English language development techniques
eliminated by the initiative are designed to teach children English
while ensuring that they are not deprived of the opportunity to
learn other essential academic skills (MALDEF, 1997).
According to Richard Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education (1998), “American
educators need to redouble their efforts to make sure that all of our children are fluent in
two languages.” He points out how many other countries begin teaching children two
languages at the beginning stages of school and the shortcomings U.S. students receive
without this advantage. Further, the U.S. receives numerous benefits from having a
population with bilingual capabilities on economic, cultural and political fronts.
The authors of Proposition 227 also state that it is the government’s responsibility
to provide literacy in the English language to all school children. Anyone would agree
with the importance of literacy for all people, regardless of native language. But should
that be at the expense of a child not learning other subjects such as math or science? As
the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF, 1997) states, the right to an
education is more that just a right to learn English, it is to ensure their future success in
all areas of learning.
Unz and Tuchman also find that the public schools are doing a poor job of
educating immigrant children and wasting money on costly programs. Most will agree
that some of the current bilingual education programs have not proven successful, but this
is due to lack of resources including teachers and funding. “Bilingual education has a
proven record of success in California - where it's available and where it's supported by
school districts. Unfortunately, bilingual teachers remain in such short supply that
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bilingual classrooms were provided for only 30 percent of eligible children last year.
Dropout and illiteracy rates, while still too high, have declined substantially since
bilingual programs were introduced in the late 1960s” (Crawford, 1997b).
The current proposition restricts not only bilingual education but any effective and
innovative bilingual education programs. Further, research has found that the sheltered
immersion approach suggested by the authors is the least effective way to educate second
language learners. The use of this approach was designed as a step in English language
learning for intermediate learners who would soon transition to English classes which
takes at least three years (MALDEF, 1997).
Bilingual education is not an "experimental" language program.
Bilingual education programs have two main goals: (1) the rapid
development of English language proficiency; and (2) the
simultaneous development of academic skills. The success of
well funded and properly implemented bilingual education
programs is documented by reputable research. This research
shows that primary language instruction does not impede
acquisition of English. In fact, students with a strong academic
background in their first language are more likely to develop high
levels of English proficiency than those who do not have such
advantage (MALDEF, 1997).
It is also important as MALDEF (1997) discusses, that unlike the understanding of
the authors of 227, California only collects data on drop-outs by ethnicity, not by
language. Again, the actual number of students receiving bilingual education who need it
is very low with only 30% of those receiving native language instruction in the
classroom.
The ability for young children to “easily acquire full fluency in a new language”
through early exposure Is, perhaps, as Crawford (1997b) claims, “the most pervasive
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
myth about second-language learning. What appears so "obvious" to laypersons is
unsupported by science. Children do tend to "pick up" oral communication skills at a
young age, often without the anxiety and self-consciousness that impedes adult learners.
But research on bilingualism has repeatedly shown that it takes them considerably longer
- typically 5 to 7 years - to acquire the complex, decontextualized academic language
needed for success in the classroom.” Again, children also need to be receiving
instruction in other subjects such as math and science at this early age in order to remain
successful and on target with their counterparts.
Although teaching English as rapidly as possible may be a goal for the authors,
research has found that “acquiring English takes considerably longer than most
monolinguals imagine. The good news is that, contrary to myth, older children are more
efficient language learners than younger children. So a gradual transition to English does
not mean a lost opportunity to teach the language. In fact, research shows it's often the
best way - and meanwhile it doesn't retard students' academic progress” (Crawford,
1997b). If the authors were interested in truly teaching children as rapidly and effectively
as possible, they would notice the method they have chosen Is the least successful at early
acquisition. Further, that studies have continually shown at least three years is required
for second language acquisition.
Article 2 proposes that all children shall be taught In English, those that are
English learners shall be taught in sheltered immersion for a period not to exceed one
year. This prohibits the use of any language but English in the school and would thus
became a violation of the law. Proven effective programs end even classroom aides
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cannot speak to a student in a language other than English. This applies to all students at
any age and at any level of language learning (Crawford, 1997b).
“Sheltered English immersion- not bilingual education - is the unproven,
experimental program. Very little research evidence exists on this model and what does
exist is not encouraging. No such program in the United States claims to teach English
within a "one year ... transition period." Nor is there any indication that immersion
teaches English faster than bilingual program models. In the largest study of English
immersion to date, only 4 percent of LEP students were reclassified as fully English-
proficient (FEP) after one year - as compared with 13 percent of those in early-exit (2-3
years in length) and 12 percent in late-exit (3-5 years in length) bilingual programs. Speed
of English acquisition is far less important than long-term academic achievement.
Students in late-exit bilingual programs had a more gradual transition to English. But
after 6 years they significantly outperformed their peers in immersion and early-exit
programs. Imposing "sheltered English immersion" as the only legal alternative for
teaching LEP children is a leap In the dark, with no support in educational research. Most
likely, It's also a leap backward to the sink-or-swim era, when these students' needs were
largely ignored” (Crawford, 1997b).
Further, Unz and Tuchman encourage schools to “mix together” students of
different ages with similar levels of English ability. “In other words, children would be
warehoused in conditions Inimical to learning any subject but English. This makes a
mockery of the theory behind "sheltered English immersion" - which aims to teach the
language through academic content. That becomes a virtual impossibility in classrooms
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with students of varying ages, grades, and backgrounds” (Crawford, 1997b). There are
no provisions or requirements for teacher qualifications or for evaluation of the learning
method. Currently, State law requires teachers to be trained in bilingual education.
However, with the new mandate, a teacher may enter class in the new semester with no
official training and a classroom of children half of whom do not speak any English.
Not only will teachers not have previously required training, but they no longer
have the option for individualized instruction based on students’ needs. This law requires
all students to be taught in the same manner for the same period of time. Also it limits
the ability of local school districts’ decision-making rights for their particular community
and students. Further, both students and teachers may be faced with a set-up of a class
with mixed age groups, with no additional training on how to work with this type of
arrangement. As MALDEF (1997) describes, children are all at different age specific
developmental levels and learning levels. There is no pedagogical background or
research which supports the mixing of grades, so children will suffer the loss of ability to
learn other subjects such as math and science during this period of time.
Article 3 discusses parental exceptions for those wishing the student to remain in
bilingual classes. The parents have to “personally” visit the school and be instructed on
all program choices. However, this can only occur if the child already knows English, is
over 10 years old, or the child has special needs. “Strict requirements for paperwork and
personal visits will discourage many parents from even applying for waivers. No
provision is made for language assistance” (Crawford, 1997b). Students can only be
granted a waiver if there are 20 students in the school who request such assistance,
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
otherwise they must transfer to another school. There are no requirements for the school
districts to approve waivers; it is up to the sole discretion of each school. For parents
who are already at a disadvantage due to language, this will prove to be a difficult
process.
Although hopefully not an intent of the authors, this includes two-way immersion
and foreign language programs. In U.S. colleges where foreign language is a requirement
for entrance, students may be faced with a prohibitive law that denies their right to enter a
college program. In order to receive foreign language instruction even In high school, at
least 20 parents must follow this procedure and sign waivers for the students, and the
school must accept the waiver (MALDEF, 1997).
Article 4 provides $50,000,000 per year to adult English language programs for
parents and community members who tutor students in English. No provisions are made
for quality of the teachers, level of English knowledge or credentials. This combined
with the costs of running two language programs in schools with 20 students who have
signed waivers may actually prove to be more costly than the current bilingual education
expenditures, which are approximately 4.9% over mainstream students. Further, this
money only adds up to $1.20 per year for every person in California who requires English
learning (MALDEF, 1997).
Article 5 allows parents to enforce the laws created by Proposition 227 through
suing the school board, teacher or administrator who does not abide by the provisions of
the new language. It seems a hefty toll to place on parents as well as the school and staff.
“It offers a chance to harass teachers, administrators, and school board members - with
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
legal expenses picked up by the taxpayers. Threatening educators with lawsuits in which
they "may be held personally liable" for monetary damages is designed to intimidate
them” (Crawford, 1997b).
Not only do parents have the opportunity to “monitor” the teachers’ own
language, but in direct violation of California law for public employees, the government
is no longer be required to pay on the job judgments against public employees nor will
they be protected through liability insurance. An unfortunate result of this may be halting
the pursuit of teaching as a career by qualified individuals (MALDEF, 1997). California
is already under great strain to provide the number of teachers necessary for filling the
lowered class size legislation, this Proposition makes that even more difficult.
The only amendment to this initiative is outlined in Article 8, which requires a
two-thirds vote of each house of legislature. “This "super-majority" provision would
make an English Only law virtually immune to legislative change or repeal - no matter
how badly it fails the children of California” (Crawford, 1997b).
According to “No on 227” (1997), there are many unanswered questions placed
on proposition 227. In March, the State Board of Education ended mandatory bilingual
education allowing schools to utilize different methods for teaching English to LEP
students. Proposition 227 puts an end to the choice by district and instead “mandates a
single teaching method that’ s never been tested” (No on 227, 1997). Further, for students
who need additional assistance, the Proposition actually makes it illegal to teach in the
children's languages to help them learn English. Parents are actually allowed to file
lawsuits against teachers and school districts for using a language other than English in
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the classroom. Students are required to learn English in just one year with no other public
school assistance. Teachers are only required to have a “good knowledge” of the English
language in order to teach language minority students. Further, programs that have been
proven successful have ended as the Proposition “bans all local programs— even the best
ones— and imposes one state mandate” (No on 227, 1997).
The authors of the proposition would lead readers to believe that bilingual
education has proven a failure in California, quoting 95% failure rates. When in reality,
“that statistic means that every year about 5% of children are reclassified as having
mastered English well enough to succeed academically. That doesn't mean 95% of the
students have failed; it simply means they didn't master enough English in one year—
which proves that Proposition 227's one-year only immersion program won’t work” (No
on 227, 1997).
Bilingual education is not on the ballot in June. What is on the
ballot is Proposition 227's very specific proposal for California’ s
children. If Proposition 227 passes on June 2, the state has 60
days to put 1.38 million limited English speaking kids into one
classroom— regardless of their differences in ages, cultural
backgrounds and academic abilities— to be taught by a teacher
who is forbidden— under the threat of a lawsuit— from speaking to
these kids in their own language. After 1 school year — only 180
days— these kids get put into regular classes regardless of whether
or not they've mastered enough academic English to succeed in
school (No on 227, 1997).
In order for parents to allow their children to take additional English classes, they
have to go to the school and request a waiver. Further, if there are not at least 19 other
children in the school requiring additional assistance, the child would have to transfer to a
different school. “But the real cruelty of Proposition 227 is that it denies waivers to
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
children under ten years old who test below average on English exams— the very children
who need additional English instruction the most. No exceptions” (No on 227, 1997). In
the past, if a parent wanted his or her child in “English-only” classes they simply
requested it in writing from the principal.
The 227 opponents also find that “the reason why Proposition 227 is ahead In the
polls at this time has more to do with the public's frustration with the state of education.
There have been recent discussions about class size, school safety, teacher support,
dwindling resources, math standards, and teacher evaluations. Governor Pete Wilson
proposed education reform ballot initiatives for the November 1998 ballot. This
discussion about improving education genuinely reflects Californians' desire to provide
the best opportunities for our children. Proposition 227 just doesn't fit this bill” (No on
227, 1997).
Opponents to Proposition 227
Richard W. Riley , U.S. Secretary of Education, National Education Association,
LAUSD, the California League of Women Voters, California PTA, California Teachers
Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Boards Association
and the Association of California School Administrators, State Superintendent of Public
Instruction are just some of those opposed to Proposition 227. In fact, in the June 1998
gubernatorial elections, all four candidates were united only in their opposition to 227.
Richard W. Riley (1998) states “Proposition 227, however, is not the way to go. In
my opinion, adoption of the Unz Amendment will lead to fewer children learning English
and many children falling further behind in their studies.” His official statement provided
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
main reasons that this initiative would in fact be “counter-productive” in the education of
children:
First, the one year time limit and one-size-fits-all approach to
learning English flies in the face of years of research that tells us
that children learn in different ways and at different speeds. A
recent National Research Council report (3) released last month
states that, ‘hurrying young non-English speaking children into
reading in English without ensuring adequate preparation is
counter-productive’. The report recommends that children with
no English proficiency are best taught to read English by first
being taught reading in their native language, if teachers and
instructional materials in their native language are available.
Second, the Unz Amendment limits the discretion of teachers to
choose the approach that is best suited for the children they teach.
Some children may learn best in an English-only class, others
may learn faster in a bilingual class or through some other proven
approach, but with the Unz approach, teachers are given no
option to use their professional judgment.
Third, Proposition 227 would subject teachers, school board
members, and educational administrators to personal liability in
litigation by parents if they fail to comply with its requirements. I
find this aspect of Proposition 227 both punitive and threatening.
This is not the way to build parent-teacher cooperation - a key to
student success.
Fourth, the Unz Initiative is a direct attack on local control of
education. I am surprised that so many outspoken advocates of
local control have chosen not to take issue with this fundamental
flaw in the Unz Initiative. The Unz Initiative would not be a
helping hand for language instruction, but rather the heavy hand
of overregulation. Local flexibility to choose the approaches that
work best for their students should not be constrained by a
mandate for one approach over the other. I believe that every
school district should choose the approach that works best for
them based on sound research.
Fifth, the Unz Initiative will in all likelihood result in problems
under federal civil rights laws. In the seminal case of Lau v.
Nichols, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act to require school districts to take steps to ensure that
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
national origin minority students with limited English proficiency
can effectively participate in the regular educational program
(Riley, 1998)
The California Federation of Teachers (1997) stated their opposition to 227 based
on the potential harm to the 1.3 million children needing bilingual education services.
The lack of research to support sheltered immersion and mixed age classrooms are part of
this potential harm. They also cited the decreased parental involvement through decision
making opportunities aside from acting as “spies” against teachers as detrimental to the
learning environment.
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) proposed that the initiative
makes harmful curriculum decisions, limits equal participation for language minority
students, takes away successfully proven programs and individualized methodology,
limits local school district and parental choice and chooses to implement a proven
unsuccessful program. They officially encouraged the Board of Education and
Superintendent to oppose the initiative and inform the community about the effectiveness
of bilingual education (1997).
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines language discrimination in
employment citing violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VI). In California, two such laws ban discrimination due to race in
businesses, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Unfair Practices Act. Due to these and
other legislation discriminating against an employee due to language or English-only
worksite regulations are viewed as illegal by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). These laws include businesses that do not provide services for
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
non-English speaking persons or for government offices that do not provide bilingual
materials. What makes a public school so different? All these public offices require is a
5% clientele that speaks another language to provide assistance, yet a school is exempt
from this requirement (ACLU, 1998).
Bilingual Education Research
The Ramirez Report (1994) is the most recent and largest study of the
effectiveness of bilingual education programs. This report compared children learning
English in three types of bilingual education programs: English immersion, early-exit
bilingual and late-exit bilingual. In the immersion and early-exit programs, the students
were performing at comparable levels in English and math by the end of grade three.
However, these students showed a considerable gap in learning behind regular students.
In the late-exit program, the students were catching up to the regular students
academically. The findings showed “sustained promotion of children's primary language
can be an effective route both to academic excellence and literacy In two languages;
second, it has unequivocally refuted the notion that intensive exposure to English is the
best way of teaching language minority children” (Cummins, Genzuk, 1991).
Krashen (1997) defines the myth of the high dropout rates of Hispanic student
being related to bilingual education. Hispanic students do have higher dropout rates than
non-Hispanic students. However, Krashen cites the 30% rate as including those who
were never enrolled In school with an actual percentage closer to 20%. Of these students,
Spanish speaking students requiring bilingual education, only 30% were enrolled in
programs utilizing primary language instruction while 22% had some support in the
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
primary language (Macias as cited in Krashen, 1997). Therefore, Krashen points out that
the majority of these children are not in bilingual education compared to the dropout
figure of 20%. Factors more likely to predict dropout were instead: “Low English
language ability, poverty, length of residence in the US, the print environment, and family
factors. The important finding from the research is that when these factors are controlled
statistically, there is no difference among groups in dropout rates. Hispanics do not drop
out anymore than other groups do, when one considers socio-economic class and other
background factors” (Krashen, 1997).
The ABC News Bilingual Education Research Report (1998), neatly summarized
the recent research findings on bilingual education. Jim Cummins’ (1992) research on
bilingual education finds that once a student learns reading or math in the primary
language, it is easier to transfer the knowledge to a second language. He feels the best
way to learn academic English is through a strong foundation in academic subjects in the
first language. He also proposes that it requires five to seven years to acquire English.
Stephen Krashen’s research finds that comprehensible input or quality instruction is more
important than the quantity or time spent on instruction. Wayne P. Thomas and Virginia
P. Collier (1997) find that children learn English as “rapidly and effectively as possible”
through bilingual programs rather than in English only programs. Again with at least four
years to master the language, with increased proficiency in academic subjects:
Researchers have discovered that kids do indeed learn
conversational English quickly, but it takes between 4 and 7 year's
for them to develop the proficiency in academic English they
need to succeed in school. Everyone agrees that only 1 year of
English instruction-as Proposition 227 is proposing — isn't
enough. And we don't want kids graduating from high school
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
merely knowing English. We want our graduates to be able to
read road maps and balance checkbooks (No on 227, 1997).
Bilingual Education in California Today: the Impact of Proposition 227
On June 2, 1998, Californians voted with a majority vote of 61% in favor of
Proposition 227, eliminating bilingual education for children in the State of California.
The aftermath of this decision has been explosive with the filing of lawsuits and decision
making pressure on local school districts. In accordance with the Proposition, the local
school districts had 60 days to create the necessary changes in curriculum and personnel
as outlined in this Proposition.
An immediate class-action lawsuit was filed the day after the vote by the
Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, Asian Pacific
American Legal Center, Asian Law Caucus, Employment Law Center and Public
Advocates Inc.. Citing violation to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, the
1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution violating the
rights of non-English speaking students, several school districts had requested waivers
from the Board of Education (Bazeley, 1998).
Perhaps the summary of educational goals defined here by Richard Riley (1998) is
the best conclusion to this tale:
I propose setting a three-year goal to make sure that a child is
learning English. Individual differences and circumstances may
cause some children to take longer, but a goal of learning English
within three years is reasonable. This goal is similar to our goal of
making sure that every child learns to read independently by the
end of third grade or earlier. We know that goals and standards
improve academic performance: when we set goals, we find, to a
greater degree than we thought possible, that students can meet
them.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A goal is not a mandate or a command. And a goal is certainly
not a one year educational straitjacket that limits the ability of
teachers to do what is best for each child. Some children may
leam English in one year or two and others may need three years
or even more. The focus should be on the individual needs of
each child and not on some artificial and arbitrary time frame.
Goals should be combined with flexibility and accountability. I
believe in giving local school districts latitude to design their own
programs contingent on their being accountable for the results.
Parents have a right to expect progress. Children should be tested
periodically for English proficiency and when a child is falling
behind, extra efforts including after-school classes as well as
summer school should certainly be considered (p. 2).
Since the passage of Proposition 227, researchers on both sides have analyzed and
tracked data from California students utilizing both the SAT-9 and STAR score results.
The debate continues as to whether these scores give a relative picture of what is really
happening with second language learners in California. As Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) has the highest pure number of LEP students, data gathered from
LAUSD students may show the true impact of the changes in bilingual education.
Crawford (2002) analyzed the CDE data since Proposition 227 took effect in 1998
and found that in the California school system:
• Only 470,077 English learners—barely one-third of the total in
1998—have become proficient in English. In other words,
after four years of Proposition 227, two-thirds of the children
this law was designed to help remain limited in English.
• Meanwhile, LEP enrollments have grown by 153,078— or 10.9
percent—statewide.
• Annual ‘redesignation rates’—LEP students’ rates of English
acquisition—remain basically unchanged.
® At least 151,836 English learners remain in bilingual
classrooms at parents’ request.
® More than half a million of these children have been
‘mainstreamed’ and now get little or no special help, even
though they remain LEP (p. 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Orr, et al, (2000) have similar findings from the CDE SAT-9 scores from 1998-1999:
• SAT-9 scores increased just as much in some school districts
that retained bilingual education.
• SAT-9 scores increased in school districts that never had
bilingual education, and therefore were not impacted by
Proposition 227.
• SAT-9 scores rose for both LEP students and native English
speakers. In fact, the rise for native English speakers from
poor performing schools was dramatic and larger than for LEP
students (p.l).
In regards to interpreting the test scores based on score improvement since
Proposition 227, Kerper Mora (2002) warns that changes were not as prominent as
believed:
We must remember that prior to passage of Proposition 227, 70%
of all limited English proficient (LEP) students were in English-
only programs. Now, 88% receive instruction only in English
only 18% of the ELL student population who were previously in
bilingual programs where they received native language
instruction changed to English-only instruction. This means that
only 4.5% of the total school population of California underwent
a change in program as a result of Proposition 227 (p. 2).
Table 1 shows the number of English Language Learners (ELL) in LAUSD
compared to County and State totals. The categories show total enrollment, number of
English Learners, number of Fluent-English Proficient Students and the Students
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient for 2001-2002. LAUSD had higher redesignation
rates than either LA County or California, yet only 10% of LEP students were
redesignated fluent English proficient. These data show that even with the eradication of
bilingual education, students in the largest district of bilingual enrollments are not
becoming fluent in English.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
English Language Learners in Los Angeles Unified—2001-2002
District Enrollment | English Learners Fluent-English
Proficient Students
Students
Redesignated FEP
LAUSD 735,058 j 302,278 (41.1%) 187,091 (25.5%) 30,839(10.0% )
LA County 1711,034 570,635 (33.4%) 375,270 (21.9%) 53,947 (9.2%)
California 6,147,375 1,559,248 (25.4%) 878,139 (14.3%) 117,450(7.8%)
Note: From California Department of Education, Education Demographics Unit. ( 2002). [On-Line]
Available at: http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
According to the Los Angeles Board of Education (2002),
From 2000-01 to 2001-02, the number of ELs enrolled in the
Districts’ K-12 schools, including special day classes, decreased
by 1.7% from 307,594 to 302,272. These students constitute 41%
of the District’s K-12 students. Ninety-one (91) primary
languages were reported for ELs and FEP students. Of these
primary languages, 84 were reported for ELs. From 2000-01 to
2001-02, the total enrollment of K-12 reclassified fluent-English-
proficient students increased by 10.43% from 119,169 to
131,601. Between December 2000 and February 2002, 30,829 K-
12 ELs met the criteria to be reclassified as FEP students. The
reclassification rate for this period was 10.0% as compared to
11.2% for the previous on-year survey period (CDE, 2002).
LAUSD has the highest percentage of EL’s redesignated to FEP compared to the
LA County or the State of California ranging from 8.0% (23,494) in 1996 to 11.2%
(34,866) in 2001. Whereas the County ranged from 7.4% (38,700) in 1996 to 10.4%
(59,499) in 2001 and the state ranged from 6.5% (81,733) in 1996 to 9.0% in 2001
(133,964) (CDE, 2002). These data show that even with the passage of Proposition 227,
the pure numbers and percentage of students reclassified to Fluent English Proficient has
shown little change. In addition, the types of language settings vary in the district as well
as the county and state showing that the bilingual education programs have not drastically
changed with the passage of the proposition. The CDE (2002) shows that the number of
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
English leaner students enrolled in specific instructional settings for LAUSD was
204,877 in structured English immersion, 19,057 in alternative course of stud}', 74,272 in
English language mainstream or students meeting other criteria, 1,881 in English
Language mainstream by parent request, and 2,191 in other settings (total number 302,
278).
Kerper Mora (2002) analyzed SAT-9 reading scores for California ELL students
and compared the scores to native English and FEP student scores. She found that
English Language Learners made gains similar to those made by all students in California
schools. Kerper Mora and others have attributed increased test scores to the myriad of
reforms in California elementary schools during the period of the Proposition 227
implementation. Reforms include decreased class size, increased remedial programs, and
improved teacher training.
The following tables illustrate similar findings in LAUSD schools for LEPs and
their English only/FEP counterparts. Similar to the California rankings for both LEPs and
English only/FEP students, LAUSD test scores for both LEP and English only have
increased steadily since 1998. Table II shows the 1998-2001 SAT-9 scores for LAUSD
students grades 2-4 in English Language Arts. Although the LEP student scores have
improved, the scores are still remarkably lower than English only students with a
difference of -20 in the second grade and -26 in the third and fourth grades in 2001.
Since, 1998 LEP students in LAUSD have fallen no less than 20 points behind their
English only counterparts in English/Language Arts. In addition, the majority of English
learners fall in the bottom quartile of the scores for language arts, reading and math.
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aligned with California test scores, “English language learners at every grade level
except second grade in 2000 and 2001 continue to perform in the bottom quartile in the
SAT-9 in reading” (Kerper Mora, 2002, p. 2).
Table 2
LAUSD SAT-9 (STAR) Scores—English/Language Arts National Percentile Rankings
(NPR)
Grade All Students English Only and
FEP
LEP Difference
2001 2001 2001 2001
2 40 55 31 -20
3 44 59 33 -26
4 41 55 29 -26
2000 2000 2000 2000
2 36 53 26 -27
3 37 53 27 -26
4 37 51 25 -26
1999 1999 1999 1999
2 29 46 20 -26
3 30 45 21 -24
4 31 44 21 -23
1998 1998 1998 1998*
2 28 NA 18 -10
o
J 27 NA 18 -9
4 30 NA 21 -9
Note: From California Department of Education, Education Demographics Unit. ( 2002). [On-Line]
Available at: http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
*Data for 1998 compared to all students.
Table 3 compares the SAT-9 scores for LAUSD LEP and English only students
for mathematics from 1998-2001. Test scores for mathematics have increased for all
students regardless of language classification since 1998. Again, the LEP students fall
drastically lower on the scale than the English only students. In 2001, second graders fall
15 points lower than English only students, third graders fall 20 points lower, and fourth
graders are 25 points behind. These data show that although all students have had
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increases in mathematics scores, LEP students are still struggling and have not made any
major gains on their counterparts in LAUSD.
Table 3
LAUSD SAT-9 (STAR) Scores—Math National Percentile Rankings (NPR)
Grade All Students English Only and
FEP
LEP Difference
2001 2001 2001 2001
2 44 53 38 -15
3 49 60 40 -20
4 39 52 27 -25
2000 2000 2000 2000
2 41 52 35 -17
3 42 53 34 -19
4 35 48 25 -23
1999 1999 1999 1999
2 36 45 31 -14
3 35 46 29 -17
4 30 42 22 -20
1998 1998 1998 1998*
2 32 NA 26 -6
n
J 30 NA 24 -6
4 27 NA 19 -8
Note: From California Department of Education, Education Demographics Unit. ( 2002). [On-Line]
Available at: http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
*1998 scores compared to all students.
Table 4 shows the most disturbing look at the disadvantages facing LEP students
at LAUSD and in California. This table presents the SAT-9 scores in reading for LAUSD
students from 1998-2001. All students in LAUSD have improved their reading scores
since 1998. However, LEP students remain 23-29 points below English only students in
reading in 2001. Reading is perhaps the most important measure of student success in
school as it forms the basis for all other school performance. LEP students are at a
significant disadvantage in reading achievement in LAUSD schools and in California.
“Alarmingly, the majority of ELL students’ scores in English reading drop after they
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
leave second grade, by as much as an average of 11 NPR points. This means that the
majority of ELL Students in grades 3-11 have not shown sufficient improvement to move
them out of the lowest range of academic performance during the three years of
implementation of Proposition 227. In educational terms, the majority of these students
continue to perform one to two grade levels below their English proficient peers” (Kerper
Mora, 2002, p. 4).
Table 4
LAUSD Stanford-9 (STAR) Scores—Reading National Percentile Rankings (NPR)
Grade All students English Only/
FEP
LEP Difference
2001 2001 2001 2001
2 38 52 29 -23
3 34 50 23 -27
4 32 48 19 -29
2000 2000 2000 2000
2 3d 48 24 -24
3 28 44 18 -26
4 29 46 17 -29
1999 1999 1999 1999
2 27 41 18 -23
3 23 39 15 -24
4 25 41 14 -27
1998 1998 1998 1998*
2 27 NA 17 -10
3 21 NA 13 -8
4 23 NA 13 -10
Note: From California Department of Education, Education Demographics Unit. (2002). [On-Line]
Available at: http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
*1998 scores based on all students.
The Spanish Assessment of Basic Skills Version 2 (SABE/2) measures
comparable achievement areas to the SAT-9 for Spanish speaking students in California
bilingual education programs. Table 5 compares the average student score from
California and LAUSD on the SABE/2 from 1999-2002.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
California and LAUSD SABE/2 Summary Report for All Students. 1999-2002—Reading,
NPR for “average” student score
YEAR LAUSD California
2 3 4 2 3 4
1999 31 43 50 54 58 56
2000 32 46 53 58 61 60
2001 34 47 54 59 64 60
2002 36 48 57 61 64 63
Note: From California Department of Education, Education Demographics Unit. (2002). [On-Line]
Available at: http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
Kerper Mora (2002) found in comparing California SABE/2 reading scores to English
proficient reading scores that “the majority of students who are being taught to read in
their native language and tested in that same language are performing at or above grade
level in literacy” (p. 5). LAUSD SABE/2 scores fall behind those of California SABE/2
scores. This may be attributed to the differences in bilingual education programs in
LAUSD and to the sheer numbers of Spanish speaking LEP students in the district.
However, mirroring California, LAUSD Spanish speakers perform better on the SABE/2
in reading than they do on the SAT-9 English test for reading (see Table 4). The average
reading scores for LAUSD second graders on the SABE/2 and SAT-9 for 2001 were 34
and 29 respectively, for third graders 47 and 23, and for fourth graders 54 and 19. These
scores pointedly display the fact that Spanish speaking students continue to “sink” in their
reading scores in English while they improve drastically for reading in Spanish. This
supports the research (Cummins, 1992, Krashen, 1984, Ramirez, 1991) that students will
achieve academically while receiving instruction in their native language. Learning
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic content In the native language does not prohibit a student from achieving, but in
fact may improve chances for academic success.
In regards to the success of Proposition 227, Unz has made claim that the pure
increase in LEP student SAT-9 scores since 1998 proves that bilingual education does not
work. However, as discussed above, scores Increased for all students, not just LEP
students and LEP students still fall drastically behind English only students. Researchers
(Kerper Mora, 2002, Hakuta, 2001) on the pro-bilingual education side of the argument
find that looking at cohort groups shows the true picture of SAT-9 scores. Kerper Mora
(2002) found that cohort groups of LEP students in California have not made significant
gains academically since Proposition 227.
Table 6 shows the LAUSD SAT-9 scores for the 1998 cohort of LAUSD students
in reading, math, and language. If we assume that second grade LEP students tested in
1998 were also tested in the third grade in 1999, fourth grade in 2000, and fifth grade in
2001, then we can assess the level of academic improvement based on the yearly test
scores. Therefore, the 1998 cohort has dropped in reading scores from 17 in 1998 to 15 in
2001, not Increasing, but decreasing in reading scores. The same cohort initially improved
in mathematics from 26 to 29 from 1998-1999, but dropped again to 23 by 2001. In
language scores, the 1998 cohort Improved from 18 to 22 points by 2001. However, this
is still only two percentage points difference, remaining in the lowest quartile for
language. This coincides with the overall California LEP findings from Kerper Mora
(2002) that although overall student scores have increased, LEP students have shown
little or no increase since the passage of Proposition 227.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
LAUSD SAT-9 scores by cohort 1998-20Q2 Limited English Proficient National
Percentile Rankings (NPR)
Year (grade) Reading Math Language
1998 (2n d ) 17 26 18
1999 (3rd ) 15 29 21
2000 (4th ) 17 25 25
2001 (5th ) 15 23 22
The data analyzed here for LAUSD and compared to research based on the SAT-9
tests for California illustrate the inequities in the educational system for English language
learners. LAUSD paints an astounding example based on the sheer number of English
language learners in the district. If these students are not Improving in math, reading, or
language, and are not achieving sufficient English language skills to be reclassified as
fluent English proficient, then the current system Is not working. Although proponents of
Proposition 227 claim that Increased test scores prove that bilingual education does not
work, they do not give credit to the true test scores for all students. Students, regardless of
language designation, have improved their test scores on the SAT-9. English language
learners in California and in LAUSD have improved their test scores, but remain
significantly below English only students. By cohort, ELLs show little if any
improvement in test scores.
Spanish speakers in California and LAUSD have improved their reading scores on
the SABE/2, designed to test students In their native language. This cannot be attributed
to the elimination of bilingual education and points to the importance of academic
achievement in the native language as linked to overall academic achievement.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California as a state has initiated major educational reforms, especially in the
primary grades during the past several years. These reforms can be attributed to the
improvement in test scores, due to the increased attention students have from reduction
classroom sizes and improved remediation.
Test scores paint a picture, but only paint part of the picture. The success of
Proposition 227 and bilingual education cannot be measured on test scores from one
individual district or from an overall increase in test scores. Research on bilingual
education, supported by the test scores, provide preliminary evidence that bilingual
education can and does work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As bilingual education and the policies of inclusion and equality are discussed and
debated post Proposition 227, the true tale and impact on education and limited English
proficient students is detailed through the facts of test scores and proficiency results.
Proponents of Proposition 227 will propose that the elimination of bilingual education
programs in California has seen a profound success. Proponents of bilingual education
programs and limited English proficient students will present a different side of the story
and relate a profound loss of time and education for these students. Teachers describe
having their “hands tied”, with the inability to communicate with many of their students
and the struggle to provide equal education for all students. Parents are tom and many
have taken matters into their own hands, signing waivers and allowing their children to
remain in the best programs as they see fit. Students may tell the best tale that they are
struggling and are often at a loss in the classroom, when they cannot understand or even
begin to comprehend the stories being told around them.
The answer remains through comprehensive and accurate research on effective
programming. This can only been seen through both bilingual education programs and
immersion programs that have worked or failed at promoting students and educational
success. Results and student success are the ways to resolve the issue and assure that all
students are provided equity in education and success in their futures.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
ABCNEWS.com (1998). Non-English Speaking Children Develop Better English
Skills Studies in Bilingual Education. [On-Line]
http://www.abcnews.com:80/sections/us/DailyNews/bilingualed_research.html
ACLU of Northern California. (1997). Language Rights. What is language
discrimination? [On-Line] http://wwvcaclunc.org/language/lang-report.litml
Bazeley, Michael. (June 4, 1998). Rights groups sue to block Prop. 227. San Jose
Mercury News.
California Department of Education. (2002). STAR Summaries. [On-Line].
http://star.cde.ca.gov.
California Federation of Teachers. (November 25, 1997). Unz Initiative A
Dangerous and Ill-Advised Attack on Children, Schools and Teachers. [On-L:ine]
http: //www. cft.org/main-n/pressrel/unz. shtml
Crawford, James. (1997a) Initiative Canard of the Month. [On-Line]
http://ourworld.compuserve.eom/laomepages/jwcrawford/unzargs.htm#rates
Crawford, Janies (1997b). Language Loyalties. [On-Line]
http:// ourworld.compuserve. com/homepages/ JW CRAWF ORD/LLPT 4 .htm
Crawford , James. (1997c). Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual
Education Act Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [On-
Line], http://wwvcncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/bestevidence/research.html
Crawford, James. (1997d). Anatomy of the English-Only Movement: Social and
Ideological Sources of Language Restrictionism in the United States. [On-Line].
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htm
Crawford, James. (2002). English Learners in California. [On-Line].
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/castats.htm.
Cummins, Dr. James and Genzuk, Dr. Michael (1991). Analysis of final report
longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early exit and late-exit
transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. Reprinted from
the California Association for Bilingual Education Newsletter, Vol. 13, No. 5,
March/April. [On-Line] http: //www-rcf.usc. edu/~genzuk/Ramirez_report.html
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cummins, James. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic
achievement. In Patricia Richard-Amato and Marguerite Ann Snow (Eds.), The
multicultural classroom: Readings for content area teachers (16-26). Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Dicker, Susan J. (1996). Ten Official English Arguments and Counter-
Arguments. [On-Line]. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edU/tesol/official.html#Restrictionism
Draper, Jaime B. and Jimenez, Martha. (1996). A Chronology of the Official
English Movement. [On-Line].
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edU/tesol/official.html#Restrictionism
Kerper Mora, Jill. (2002). What do the SAT-9 Scores for Language Minority
Students Really Mean? [On-Line]. http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/imora/SAT9analvsis.htm.
Krashen, Stephen D. (1997). The Dropout Argument. [On-Line] http://www-
rcf.usc.edu/~cmmr/krashen_dropouts.html
Krashen, Stephen D. (1984). Bilingual education and second language
acquisition theory. In Charles Leyba (Ed), Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework (47-75). Los Angeles: Evaluation Dissemination and Assessment
Center.
LAUSD. (December 15, 1997). Resolution of Opposition to the Unz Initiative.
[On-Line]
http ://www-rcf. use. edu/~cmmr/LAUSD_unzResolution.html
MALDEF. (1997). Preliminary section-by-section analysis of Unz initiative. [On-
Line]
http://maldef.org/bieduc/unzdoc.html
National Education Association. March, 1996. The debate over English only. [On
Line] http://www.nea.org/society/engonly.html
NO on 227. (1997). Questions & Answers. [On-Line].
http://www.iioonunz.org/what/question.html
Orr, Jennifer, Butler, Yuko, Bousquet, Michele, and Hakuta, Kenji. (2000). What
Can We Really Learn About the Impact of Proposition 227 from SAT-9 Scores? [On-
Line] . http://www.stanford.edu/'hakuta/SAT9
Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, J.d., & Ramey, D.R. (1991). Longitudinal Study of
Structured English Immersion Srategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual
Education Programs for Language Minority Children.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ricento ,Thomas. (1996) A Brief History of Language Restrictionism in the
United States. [On-Line] http://www.ncbe.gwu.edU/tesal/Qfficial.html#Restrictionism
Riley, Richard W. (April 27,1998). Helping All Children Learn English .. .
Statement on California proposition 227 [On-Line]
http://ourworld.compuserve.eom/homepages/iwcrawford/riley.litm#3
TESOL. (1996). Sociopolitical Concerns Committee Official English? No!
TESOL'S recommendations for countering the official English movement in the U.S.
[On-Line]. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edU/tesol/official.html#Restrictionism
Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V. (1997). School Effectiveness for Language Minority
Students. NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 9. Arlington, VA: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Unz, Ron K. and Tuchman , Gloria Matta (1997) English Language Education for
Children in Public Schools —evaluated on Crawford home page [On-Line]
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/unztext.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Department of Education language in
education policy. [On-Line]http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/policy/edulangpolicy.html
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
English Language Education for Children in Public Schools
by Ron K. Unz and Gloria Matta Tuchman
Text:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 300) Is added to Part 1 of the
Educational Code, to read:
CHAPTER 3. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN
ARTICLE 1. Findings and Declarations
300. The People of California find and declare as follows:
(a) WHEREAS the English language is the national public language of the United States
of America and of the state of California, is spoken by the vast majority of California
residents, and is also the leading world language for science, technology, and
international business, thereby being the language of economic opportunity; and
(b) WHERE AS immigrant parents are eager to have their children acquire a good
knowledge of English, thereby allowing them, to fully participate in the American Dream
of economic and social advancement; and
(c) WHEREAS the government and the public schools of California have a moral
obligation and a constitutional duty to provide all of California's children, regardless of
their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills necessary to become productive
members of our society, and of these skills, literacy in the English language is among the
most important; and
(d) WHEREAS the public schools of California currently do a poor job of educating
immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly experimental language
programs whose failure over the past two decades is demonstrated by the current high
drop-out rates and low English literacy levels of many immigrant children; and
(e) WHEREAS young immigrant children can easily acquire full fluency in a new
language, such as English, if they are heavily exposed to that language in the classroom at
an early age.
(f) THEREFORE it is resolved that: all children in California public schools shall be
taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.
ARTICLE 2. English Language Education
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
305. Subject to the exceptions provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 310), all
children in California public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English.
In particular, this shall require that all children be placed in English language classrooms.
Children who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion
during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Local
schools shall be permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of different
ages but whose degree of English proficiency is similar. Local schools shall be
encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from different native-
language groups but with the same degree of English fluency. Once English learners have
acquired a good working knowledge of English, they shall be transferred to English
language mainstream classrooms. As much as possible, current supplemental funding for
English learners shall be maintained, subject to possible modification under Article 8
(commencing with Section 335) below.
306. The definitions of the terms used in this article and in Article 3 (commencing with
Section 310) are as follows:
(a) "English learner" means a child who does not speak English or whose native language
Is not English and who is not currently able to perform ordinary classroom work in
English, also known as a Limited English Proficiency or LEP child.
(b) "English language classroom" means a classroom in which the language of instruction
used by the teaching personnel is overwhelmingly the English language, and in which
such teaching persomiel possess a good knowledge of the English language.
(c) "English language mainstream classroom" means a classroom in which the students
either are native English language speakers or already have acquired reasonable fluency
in English.
(d) "Sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion" means an English
language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom Instruction
is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are
learning the language.
(e) "Bilingual education/native language instruction" means a language acquisition
process for students in which much or all instruction, textbooks, and teaching materials
are in the child's native language.
ARTICLE 3. Parental Exceptions
310. The requirements of Section 305 may be waived with the prior written informed
consent, to be provided annually, of the child's parents or legal guardian under the
circumstances specified below and in Section 311. Such informed consent shall require
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that said parents or legal guardian personally visit the school to apply for the waiver and
that they there be provided a full description of the educational materials to be used in the
different educational program choices and all the educational opportunities available to
the child. Under such parental waiver conditions, children may be transferred to classes
where they are taught English and other subjects through bilingual education techniques
or other generally recognized educational methodologies permitted by law. Individual
schools in which 20 students or more of a given grade level receive a waiver shall be
required to offer such a class; otherwise, they must allow the students to transfer to a
public school in which such a class is offered.
311. The circumstances in which a parental exception waiver may be granted under
Section 310 are as follows:
(a) Children who already know English: the child already possesses good English
language skills, as measured by standardized tests of English vocabulary comprehension,
reading, and writing, in which the child scores at or above the state average for his grade
level or at or above the 5th grade average, whichever is lower;or
(b) Older children: the child is age 10 years or older, and it is the informed belief of the
school principal and educational staff that an alternate course of educational study would
be better suited to the child's rapid acquisition of basic English language skills;or
(c) Children with special needs: the child already has been placed for a period of not less
than thirty days during that school year in an English language classroom and it is
subsequently the informed belief of the school principal and educational staff that the
child has such special physical, emotional, psychological, or educational needs that an
alternate course of educational study would be better suited to the child's overall
educational development. A written description of these special needs must be provided
and any such decision is to be made subject to the examination and approval of the local
school superintendent, under guidelines established by and subject to the review of the
local Board of Education and ultimately the State Board of Education. The existence of
such special needs shall not compel issuance of a waiver, and the parents shall be fully
informed of their right to refuse to agree to a waiver.
ARTICLE 4. Community-Based English Tutoring
315. In furtherance of its constitutional and legal requirement to offer special language
assistance to children coming from backgrounds of limited English proficiency, the state
shall encourage family members and others to provide personal English language tutoring
to such children, and support these efforts by raising the general level of English language
knowledge in the community. Commencing with the fiscal year in which this initiative is
enacted and for each of the nine fiscal years following thereafter, a sum of fifty million
dollars ($50,000,000) per year is hereby appropriated from the General Fund for the
purpose of providing additional funding for free or subsidized programs of adult English
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
language instruction to parents or other members of the community who pledge to
provide personal English language tutoring to California school children with limited
English proficiency.
316. Programs funded pursuant to this section shall be provided through schools or
community organizations. Funding for these programs shall be administered by the Office
of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and shall be disbursed at the discretion of the
local school boards, under reasonable guidelines established by, and subject to the review
of, the State Board of Education.
ARTICLE 5. Legal Standing and Parental Enforcement
320. As detailed in Article 2 (commencing with Section 305) and Article 3 (commencing
with Section 310), all California school children have the right to be provided with an
English language public education. If a California school child has been denied the option
of an English language instructional curriculum in public school, the child's parent or
legal guardian shall have legal standing to sue for enforcement of the provisions of this
statute, and if successful shall be awarded normal and customary attorney's fees and
actual damages, but not punitive or consequential damages. Any school board member or
other elected official or public school teacher or administrator who willfully and
repeatedly refuses to implement the terms of this statute by providing such an English
language educational option at an available public school to a California school child may
be held personally liable for fees and actual damages by the child's parents or legal
guardian.
ARTICLE 6. Severability
325. If any part or parts of this statute axe found to be in conflict with federal law or the
United States or the California State Constitution, the statute shall be implemented to the
maximum extent that federal law, and the United States and the California State
Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severed from the remaining
portions of this statute.
ARTICLE 7. Operative Date
330. This initiative shall become operative for all school terms which begin more than
sixty days following the date at which it becomes effective.
ARTICLE 8. Amendment.
335. The provisions of this act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon
approval by the electorate or by a statute to further the act's purpose passed by a two-
thirds vote of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ARTICLE 9. Interpretation
340. Under circumstances in which portions of this statute are subject to conflicting
interpretations, Section 300 shall be assumed to contain the governing intent of the
statute.
Ron K. Unz, a high-technology entrepreneur, is Chairman of One
Nation/One California, 555 Bryant St. #371, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
Gloria Matta Tuchman, an elementary school teacher, is Chair of
REBILLED, the Committee to Reform Bi-Lingual Education, 1742 Lerner
Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92705.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Educating women on sexual health and reproductive rights: A case study of a prevention program in Peru
PDF
Educational opportunism as the traditional policy of the South Caucasian international schools
PDF
A proxy for reconstructing histories of carbon oxidation in the Northeast Pacific using the carbon isotopic composition of benthic foraminifera
PDF
Educational development aid and the role of language: A case study of AIT -Danida and the Royal University of Agriculture in Cambodia
PDF
Communications plan for a HIV/AIDS education project
PDF
Filmmaking, language and culture learning in higher education: A USC case study
PDF
An examination of the contract education program in a multi-college community college district in Southern California: A descriptive and qualitative case study investigation
PDF
Altered skin wound healing in homeobox gene Msx-2 knockout mice
PDF
Auditory word identification in dyslexic and normally achieving readers
PDF
A guide for the teaching of English to foreign born adults.
PDF
Teaching English as a second language in the Philippine secondary schools.
PDF
Educational reform at the general secondary schools in Armenia
PDF
Helmets: The safe choice. A study on the benefits of helmet safety while skiing and/or snowboarding: A public relations program to encourage helmet use
PDF
Dealing with the United States' educational crisis: Studying baccalaureate programs
PDF
Cultural tourism and educational development: Creating new realities in the inner city
PDF
Ethnic identity and nationalism in Taiwan
PDF
Effects of email on learners' compositional ability: A quantitative and qualitative study
PDF
A study of audio-vidual [sic] aids for language improvement of Mexican-Americans.
PDF
Adapting the curriculum of the first year in school to the needs of the beginning non-English speaking Mexican-Americans.
PDF
Higher education's responses to economic development: Vietnam
Asset Metadata
Creator
Vega, Jennifer Blythe
(author)
Core Title
Bilingual education in California: A policy debate
School
Graduate School
Degree
Master of Science
Degree Program
Teaching English as a Second Language
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
language, linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Rideout, William M. (
committee chair
), Maxwell, William (
committee member
), Shakbagova, Julietta (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-313803
Unique identifier
UC11327418
Identifier
1420405.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-313803 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
1420405.pdf
Dmrecord
313803
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Vega, Jennifer Blythe
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
language, linguistics