Abstract Proposition 227 limits in...

Abstract

Proposition 227 limits instructional use of students' primary languages however allows bilingual programs if adequate numbers of parents ask an alternative to English-only instruction. Researchers interviewed district and academy personnel at seven sites to determine influences upon policy responses to Proposition 227 and observ the impact of these policies onward classroom practice. The history of support for bilingual programs, disposition of district staff toward primary language instruction, and community attitude and involvement, influenced district policy. Researchers conclud that district decisions largely determined place of education policy; policy responses varied to a surprising extent; change occurr at all sites and was chiefly evident in the classroom; and Proposition 227 policy contributed to the existing inconsistency in programs for English learners.

Introduction

In June of 1998 California voter passed Proposition 227 an initiative to reform education programs for English language learners (ELLs) scholars whose primary language is not English and who are in the proces of gaining English proficiency. A fundamental goal of the proposition was to restrict educational approaches that use students' primary languages. As the 1998-- 1999 denomination year began, three teams of University of California (UC) researchers, undivided from UCLA, one from UC Berkeley, and the same from UC Davis, began a brew exploring the effects of Proposition 227 during its initial implementation. This paper describes the UC Davis team's work in seven northern California gymnasium districts.

The team focused their observations onward the development of district and exercise policy with regard to Proposition 227 in what manner policies at the two flushs interact, and how they affect teachers and classroom practice. This paper describes any of these effects and explores possible influences onward the various policy responses in the seven sample sects and districts. The paper also includes discussion of one potential future effects and additional policy implications of Proposition 227

Proposition 227 Background

As an approach to public policy decision making, Proposition 227 is not unusual in the popular context of California politics. It continues a state turn of policies introduced by laypersons and instituted by means of the general public via voter initiative. The proposition is a mandated top-down reform, and like a wave of other educational reforms beginning in the mid-1980s (Jennings, 1996) solicits to improve education by regulating appease and methodology. The initiative recommends replacing primary language approaches with a structur English immersion approach (SEI). SEI classrooms are comprised of ELL scholars who are at a similar even of English proficiency, sometimes in multi-age classrooms. The focus of these classrooms is in succession improving students' English proficiency; academic satisfied is secondary. Theoretically, students are to remain in SEI programs for simply one academic school year and no longer than couple Proposition 227 attempts also to prohibit or curtail powerfully the use of students' primary language for instruction. in subordination to certain conditions the proposition allows for parents to sign a waiver requesting that rather than SEI, their children participate in an alternative program, usually united that includes bilingual methods. When parents of 20 or more learners per grade choose this option, the law requires teach districts to provide an alternative to the SEI program. However, the district does not have to provide this program at any particular place of education site so that parents who select this option may have to transport their children to a teach outside of their local area.

Proposition 227 contains a provision allowing parents and others to assign personal legal liability to any teacher, educate or district that does not implement the English language program as designated in the initiative. This provision settles the new law apart from principally other mandates and introduces an approach to policy enforcement rarely taken with regard to classroom practice.

As districts have interpreted and implemented Proposition 227 it has not, in fact, l to the demise of the use of the primary language of ELL scholars in California's classrooms as was feared at some and hoped by others. However, it has unquestionably l to changes in many indoctrinates and classrooms around the state.

Summary of Findings

The principal findings of the team are that:

1 District answer to Proposition 227 set the tone: If a district did not actively support primary language programs, these programs were unlikely to continue.

2 Although districts plant the tone, responses to the proposition vary among these instructs

3. There was change, particularly evident at the classroom even even in districts where ostensibly there was no policy change.

4 For individual ELL scholars Proposition 227 has contributed to increased inconsistency in their education programs.

Sample and Methodology

The seven districts that are the enthrall of these observations are not representative of California institute districts in the true brains of the word, nor is the sample large enough to allow for generalizations of the researchers' findings. Furthermore, because we focused attention upon schools and teachers whose bookish mans are largely English learners, our sample may be biased in favor of teachers and administrators who confront the pedagogical ideas embodied in Proposition 227 In fact, admitting a few of our interview enthralls conjectured that some benefit might approach of the initiative in the drawn out run, no one we interviewed agreed with the pedagogical or philosophical premises of the proposition. Thus, we proffer these observations as an exploration of the implementation of this policy in these specific districts. It is a small piece of the larger picture of by what means Proposition 227 is unfolding around the state and may provide one insight into the questions that researchers and policy makers ask as they continue to track education reform.