Thursday, March 28, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Monolingualism in a multicultural society:the effects of Proposition 227

By Daily Bruin Staff

July 5, 1998 9:00 p.m.

Monday, July 6, 1998

Monolingualism in a multicultural society:

the effects of Proposition 227

PROP. 227: Chaos resulting from initiative’s passage proves its
inadequacies

By Kori Jong

With the passage of Proposition 227 on June 2, California faces
the virtual elimination of bilingual education in its public
schools. The Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD) and the
entire educational system in the state of California are being
thrown into chaos by its passage, while others are filing lawsuits
against Proposition 227 in order to examine the initiative’s
constitutionality.

The initiative, specifically identifying English language
instruction as the primary and acceptable means of teaching for
language minority students, varies greatly from federal policy in
both the legislative and judiciary branches, and takes up the
spirit of the "Official English" and anti-immigrant movements. For
this reason, Proposition 227 cannot be debated and evaluated alone,
but must be taken in the context of just and equitable
decision-making that has preceded it, and the racist and xenophobic
attacks that are also a part of our country’s history.

The effects of Proposition 227 on California’s public schools
are far-reaching and affect education not only for limited English
proficient (LEP) students, but for all students. As each generation
of students comes of age, they dynamically impact the future of
California. However, with the wide-reaching impacts of the passage
of Proposition 227, those most directly affected within the next 60
days were barely represented at the polls. According to Silvia
Arqueta, an attorney at the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
(MALDEF) and one of the many attorneys who helped to draw up a
joint lawsuit against Proposition 227, only 17 percent of the
voters had children in school, let alone (LEP) students. She warned
that "when we say that the citizens of California voted for this
initiative, we must be very careful of who we are talking about. We
must consider who was voting and whether they had an interest in
the schools. The electorate did not reflect that."

The turnout for the election was extremely low, with only a 42
percent turnout, which also does not speak resoundingly that this
was an informed decision of the citizens of California. The Latino
and African American communities, with 63 percent and 52 percent
opposition respectively, did not vote in favor of the initiative,
and the passage of the initiative at around 60 percent reflects the
difficulties that minority communities suffer with low voter
turnout. Exit polls also show that immigrants voted against the
initiative. The Asian American community voted in favor of the
initiative by 57 percent, even while there was concerted opposition
against the initiative for its violation of the rights of several
thousand Asian Pacific Islander LEP students.

According to Arqueta, "this initiative will hurt more than help.
It has created mass confusion. MALDEF, as well as Asian Pacific
American Legal Center (APALC), have been getting calls from
confused people. And this is not just individuals, but districts
and teachers."

Parents who call are concerned that their children will not be
welcome in school.

Richard Katsuda, of the soon to be dismantled (related to recent
attacks on affirmative action) LAUSD’s Asian Pacific Education
Commission, similarly reports that there is incredible division and
chaos going on at all levels of California education. This division
begins with the teachers and in the schools, and continues to the
State Department and Board of Education. In Los Angeles, the United
Teachers-Los Angeles (UTLA) union, recently voted with only
marginal opposition (52 percent opposition) on a referendum as to
whether their members are in favor of dismantling bilingual
education. However, at that time, the vote was merely symbolic and,
according to a spokesperson from the LAUSD, had little effect on
the board’s implementation of the programs. However, this reflects
the hostilities that have been festering among teachers regarding
bilingual education.

Because of this conflict, some want to wait before throwing in
the towel on bilingual education, and others want immediate
implementation. As of now, LAUSD Superintendent Ruben Zacaries has
instructed teachers that despite the passage of Proposition 227,
the district is at status quo. Teachers are not to make any
immediate changes until further word. Thus, the districts are
waiting for instruction from the state. Many wait and still hope to
see if legal recourse may reverse Proposition 227.

According to Bonnie Tang, attorney at APALC, MALDEF, the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Employment Law Center of
San Francisco and Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy
(META) filed a complaint against Proposition 227. On June 17, a
preliminary injunction was filed to show how immediate, irreparable
harm will occur if the status of bilingual education programs are
not at least held at status quo until the trial. Proposition 187
was held under such an injunction and prevented implementation for
a number of years before it was ruled on and declared
unconstitutional.

The pleadings for the lawsuit attack the initiative in four key
areas. First, Proposition 227 violates the Equal Educational
Opportunity Act of 1974, as LEP students are being denied
meaningful educational opportunity and access to curriculum.

Second, according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Lau vs.
Nichols (1974), Proposition 227 falls under preemption. In other
words, the Supreme Court ruling preempts the initiative.

Third, Proposition 227 will have disparate impact on the
education of national origin minorities. According to Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act, any federally funded program cannot have
disparate impact on national origin people. The disparate impact
will include that LEP students will not learn English effectively
without primary language assistance. Not only will students suffer
in English, but also in math, science, social studies and other
content areas. In addition, the curriculum is not equal for all
children.

Finally, Article 8 of Proposition 227 denies minorities access
to the political process because it explicitly states the
initiative can only be amended by a statute to further the act’s
purpose. Furthermore, laws cannot change the educational code, and
thus lawsuits have also been filed against Delaine Eastin, state
superintendent of school instruction, Governor Pete Wilson and
others.

In the long run, the dismantling of bilingual education programs
means a loss of educational opportunity and access for these
students. Districts will be forced to implement programs of only
one year of sheltered English immersion. This program is untested,
and teachers are unclear as to the guidelines of the program.
Children of different ages and grade levels will very likely be
mixed together. This "one-size-fits-all" approach is detrimental to
the teaching process.

As long as there has been immigration to the United States,
bilingualism and the education of immigrants has been an issue.
According to the "History of Bilingual Education," provided by
MALDEF, Benjamin Franklin pushed to have English declared the
official language of the newly formed United States. However,
opposition from other delegates won out because the delegates
believed that it was the common goal of living in a democracy that
bound colonists together, not the English language.

Similarly, individuals that write or support citizens’
initiatives such as Proposition 227 should remember that
bilingualism does not divide our nation – but xenophobia, racism
and linguistic intolerance do. These individuals should look to the
principles of a democratic society and the right of all students to
receive a meaningful education. As we see throughout history,
through the legislation of both the judiciary and legislative
branches, bilingual education is something that should be
safeguarded.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts