Abstract This paper instants findi...

Abstract

This paper instants findings from a mini-study forward the reactions of California bilingual educators to the implementation of Proposition 227 Overall, the be of importance tos of these educators are consistent with those reported in other studies of educators from first to last California. Teachers worry about the erosion of primary language programs, about the imposition of English-only standardized testing, and about the lack of clear leadership onward policy and practice for language minority close examiners Administrators are concerned mainly with issues of interpretation of the law, of accountability, and of communication with parents and community. The authors close that, not surprisingly, teachers and administrators continue to be pragmatic, serving their bookish mans as best they can despite adversity.

When California voter passed Proposition 227 in June of 1998 they passed into law a series of mandates the intent of which was to affect directly classroom experiences for language minority children statewide by way of forcing greater emphasis on the acquisition of English. To that fall of the curtain the new law contained within it several direct respects to classroom practices. It required learners to be instructed "overwhelmingly" in English. For young children who were acquiring English, it mandated a "structur English immersion, or sheltered English immersion" program in which "nearly all classroom instruction is in English moreover with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language." Finally, the of recent origin law specified that children must be placed "for a period of not les than 30 days during that educate year in an English language classroom" before a parental waiver would be able to propel the child into an "alternative" (i.e., bilingual) program.

The vague nature of these mandates did not stop them from becoming part of the California Education digest (sections 300-340). In an effort to clarify the definitions of similar expressions as "overwhelmingly," "reasonable fluency" and "nearly all," and to build a clearer picture of the structur English immersion program prototype the California Department of Education published a number of documents, including state regulations (Title 5 Division 1 Chapter 11 12/30/98) and guidelines (Educating English Learners for the Twenty-First centenary Report of the Proposition 227 Task Force, 1999) notwithstanding confusion remains around these areas of the law, leaving frequently of the interpretation up to districts, teachs and ultimately, individual teachers in their classrooms.

The opennes of the law for interpretation has created a wide array of unintended dependence of cause and effects A law which many feared would uninjured a death knell for bilingual programs statewide has, in many locations, gone virtually unnoticed. In one instances, it has allowed for a rallying of forces to create additional programs and services for language minority children who had previously been underserv In many places, it has had the inference intended by its authors, of inhibiting or dissolving primary language support and instruction for language minority bookish mans

As a group of researchers at UC Berkeley, we chose to track the ends of this new policy. We designed our studious mood to examine the wide variety of interpretations of the of the present day law. Thus, we chose to interview the community affected by the law: district representatives, principals, and teachers in a stratified random sample of 40 districts statewide which wait on greater than 25% limited English speaking (LEP) children. (See Garcia & curry-sauce this volume, for a more detailed description of the study's design.) As of March 2000 we had complet approximately individual quarter of our data collection. In our preliminary findings, we were identifying three distinct categories of interpretation. more [i]or[/i] less districts, due to a diverse mix of languages, had not implemented bilingual education but rather had in place a type akin to the new law's mandated "structur English immersion" program to support LEP children in their academics while they learn English without use of the primary language. These districts pocketed little change. A second dispose of districts actually dismantled bilingual education programs, eliminated primary language instruction, and implemented one version of the structured English immersion program, as directed from the law. In the districts in which this took place, teachers and administrators reported the greatest in quantity upheaval. The third category of interpretation which we isolated was the principally complex; these were the districts which attempted to tender some variety of programs for English language learners (ELLs) While many of these latter districts be seened to emphasize English acquisition more and more at the cost of their bilingual programs, we did identify a not many districts which appeared to give a variety of programs forward equal footing, and a not many districts in which bilingual education remained prevalent, apparently according to parent choice.

Yet, while our random sample was providing us with the variety of interpretations and reactions to the law among those directly affected, we felt there was still an important piece missing. We wished to gain access to the perspective of the professionals in the field of bilingual education itself, to that subset of teachers and administrators who have worked within the bilingual education programs which, ultimately, were the target of Proposition 227 in what manner were they reacting to the changes imposed by way of the new law? We decided to fare to the professionals and ask them directly.