THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST PROPOSITION 22...

THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST PROPOSITION 227: A pillar MORTEM1

Abstract

The so-called "English for the Children" initiative signals a strange phase of English-only activism, broader in its appeal and more direct in its assault forward educational programs. Its lopsided victory in California exhibits that advocates for language-minority pupils have yet to develop an effective reply As the campaign to dismantle bilingual programs impels to other states, there is an opportunity to learn from mistakes made in opposing Proposition 227-in particular, the decision not to vindicate bilingual education or to explain its pedagogical rationale. Changing public attitudes and mobilizing grassroots support must be part of any prosperous strategy.

Californians decisively throw asideed bilingual education on June 2 1998 approving a mandate for English-only instruction known as Proposition 227 The suffrage was so one-sided-61 to 39 percent-that it is difficult to say what, if anything, could have altered the issue Since the election, two viewpoints have emerg individual is that anti-immigrant sentiment among voter made this ballot campaign, like other English-only initiatives before it, virtually unstoppable.2 The other is that, armed with a different strategy, bilingual education advocates might have beaten back the assault.

In this disagreement there is more at stake than a desire to apportion blame, or abjure responsibility, for a disastrous defeat. The sum of two units viewpoints reflect conflicting analyses of to what end Proposition 227 passed, what it shows as a political phenomenon, andnow advocates for language-minority bookish mans should respond. The implications of this argument lengthen out well beyond California. A fresh wave of anti-bilingual activism is spreading to other states, train districts, and the U.S. Congres

Few would dispute that issues of demographic change-immigration, race, ethnicity, and language-have preoccupied and frequently polarized Californians in the 1990 Public denominations have become a special point of regard The enrollment of limited-English-proficient (LEP) children has more than doubled from one side of to the other the past decade, to 14 million; English learners now portray one-quarter of California's K-12 learners and one-third of those entering the first grade (California Department of Education, 1998) This remarkable growing is due not only to rising immigration nevertheless also to higher birthrates in language-minority communities. Between 1990 and 1996 as the state's population increased by way of 2.6 million, nine out of ten of the of the present day Californians were Latinos or Asians. These disposes expanded to 29 percent and 11 percent of state residents, respectively, while African-Americans held steady at 7 percent and non-Hispanic whites slipped to 53 percent (California Department of Finance, 1998)3 Approaching minority status for the first time since the Gold Rush, many white Californians be warmed threatened by the impending shift in political power and choleric about paying taxes to benefit "other" people's children (Schrag, 1998) Still, in the June 1998 election, they accounted for 69 percent of the voter statewide, AfricanAmericans 14 percent Latinos 12 percent and Asians 3 percent (Lo Angeles Times-CNN catalogue of heads 1998).4

Laurie Olsen (1998) a leader of the No in succession 227 campaign, argues that ethnic factors were tonic to the initiative's victory. From the entrance she reports, opinion research revealed "a reservoir of anger, distrust, and plane hate focused on bilingual education, bilingual educators, and immigrants-particularly Spanish-speaking immigrants" (p 4) Proposition 227 fortunately exploited "a set of fears and beliefs of a voting California [that was] unrepresentative of the state-whiter, older no other than 15 percent with children in public schools" (p 7) A majority of this electorate signifyed "the sense of Spanish ruining this rural parts the sense of our nation in threat. The feeling that upholding English as the language of this nation is a stance of protecting a way of life-this outweighed each argument we could wage to make trial of to defeat 227. This is what we were up against and still are" (p 8) like minds were closed to considering the case for bilingual education, Olsen judges "It's not just that they don't understand it-they don't like it" (p 9)

Other opposites of Proposition 227 acknowledge the character of nativist attitudes, but question whether they motivated a majority of Californians who vot ye Jim Shultz (1998) director of the Democracy Center in San Francisco, attributes its victory primarily to mistakes through the No on 227 campaign. In particular, he cites:

a decision to focus forward "tangential issues" rather than forward explaining bilingual education in seasons the voters could understand;

a refusal to take seriously complaints about the quality of bilingual programs, which were poorly serving numerous LEP students;

an insistence in succession blocking compromise bills in the California legislature, which might have taken the steam public of the Yes on 227 campaign according to giving local school districts greater flexibility in teaching English learners; and