The Education of Limited English Proficient Students in California Schools:
An Assessment of the Influence of Proposition 227 in Selected Districts and Schools

Eugene E. García and Julia E. Curry-Rodríguez
University of California, Berkeley

Abstract

Two separate but interrelated studies are reported regarding the implementation of Proposition 227 in California. The first "in-the-field" pilot study was conducted during a period of eight months after the passage of Proposition 227 in June 1998. The pilot study consisted of eight school districts selected in 1998-99 from a statewide group involved addressing issues of Proposition 227 implementation. The second study took place in 1999-2000. The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding the implementation of Proposition 227 a year after its passage from a more representative sample of districts throughout the state.

The data from first and second year studies provides documentation of local policy articulations related to the specific program implementation of Proposition 227. In general, sampled districts, schools, and classroom teachers have not ignored Proposition 227. Its implementation, however, has not produced a "sea of change" in programmatic efforts for LEP students nor any marked differential achievement gains on standardized exams. Instead, previous programmatic efforts seem to dictate the specific implementation strategies regarding the new state mandate, and ELL students showed similar patterns of test achievement when compared to non-ELL students.

Sections of the Article

Introduction

In the state of California, educators of English language learners (ELLs), formally identified under California law as limited English proficient (LEP) students, were faced with implementing a new statewide mandate regarding the educational program alternatives as articulated in Proposition 227. (See the California State Department of Education, Educating English Learners for the Twenty-First Century, 2000, for detailed regulations and guidelines. (A related web site is: http://www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/bien/bien.htm) Indeed, in many parts of the country today's teachers respond to students in their classrooms in different ways than teachers did in the classrooms of their own childhood. Today in California 1 in 3 children are from an ethnic or racial minority group, 1 in 5 speaks a language other than English at home, and 1 in 10 are born outside the United States. The linguistic and cultural diversity of California's school population has increased dramatically during the past three decades and is expected to increase even more in the future. The concept of "minority" group is becoming obsolete.

Educating children from immigrant and educating children from families of immigrant and ethnolinguistic groups is a major concern of school systems across the country, but particularly in California. For many of these children, education is not a successful experience. While one tenth of non-Hispanic White students leave school without a diploma, one third of Hispanic ELL students and two thirds of immigrant students drop out of school. This pattern of educational underachievement begins in the early grades (García, in press). The educational practice targeted at these students is the implementation of bilingual education programs. Bilingual education is defined here as the application of specialized educational techniques utilizing a student's native language to enhance the learning opportunities of students who come to school speaking a native language other than the predominant language of the school process. Such students reside throughout the world.

In the United States, bilingual education has received considerable research, policy, and practice attention because of the continued presence of non-English-speaking immigrants and indigenous people of the country who do not speak English as their native language. The U.S. Congress has authorized legislation targeted directly at these students on six separate occasions (1968, 1974, 1984, 1987, and 1994) while numerous states have enacted legislation and developed explicit program guidelines. The U.S. federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have specific enunciated judgements that protect the rights of language minority students. In response to these actions, U.S. schools have developed various models of bilingual education.

Major Educational Debates in Bilingual Education and Proposition 227

The debate regarding the education of limited LEP or ELL students in the United States has centered on the instructional use of the students' native language. Discussion of this issue has included cross-disciplinary dialogues involving psychology, linguistics, sociology, politics, and education. (See Cummins, 1979; Troike, 1981; Baker & de Kanter, 1983; García, 1983; Willig, 1985; Rossell & Ross, 1986; Hakuta & Gould, 1987; August & García, 1988; Baker, 1990; The Stanford Working Group, 1993; García, 1999; Rossell & Baker, 1996.)

Supporters of native language instruction are at one end of this debate. They recommend the utilization of the student's native language and mastery of that language prior to the introduction of an English curriculum. This approach suggests that the competencies in the native language, particularly as they relate to academic learning, provide important cognitive and social foundations for second language learning and academic learning in general. They argue, "you really only learn to read once." At the other end of this debate, introduction to the English language curriculum is recommended at the onset of the student's schooling experience with minimal use of the native language. This specially designed approach calls for English language "leveling" by instructional staff to facilitate the understanding of limited English proficient students, combined with an English-as-a-second-language component. In essence, the earlier the students are taught in English and the longer they are exposed to it, the greater the English linguistic advantage (Baker and de Kanter, 1983; Rossell, 1992).

Each of these approaches argues that the result of its implementation will be short-term linguistic advantages, which will lead to more long-term psychological, linguistic, and educational advantages resulting in direct social and economic advancement (Cárdenas, 1986; Rossell & Ross, 1994). Simply put, each of these approaches suggests that a simple twist to the educational curriculum focusing on the language of the curriculum will fix the problem. The belief is that this is particularly true if this intervention is carried out in the early years. Thus, it has been the case that policy and practice have been driven by this debate and its related assumptions regarding the importance of the language character of the linguistically diverse student.

In California, the most impressive empirical analysis related to this debate comes from the evaluations of three types of efforts: a large scale bilingual education evaluation in five predominantly Hispanic populated elementary schools in Los Angeles in the early 1990s; a more recent 1998 analysis of over 17 elementary schools and 7 middle schools offering bilingual education programs to Hispanic and Chinese students in San Francisco, and; a set of evaluation studies of two-way bilingual education programs in San Jose and Marin counties (August and Hakuta, 1997). These two-way programs combine Spanish native speakers with English native speakers with the goal of producing bilingual and biliterate students by the fifth grade. In each of these studies students in bilingual programs were achieving at or above the level of comparison group student peers. Most impressive is the data from San Francisco that indicate that students who had been in bilingual programs for four consecutive years were significantly out-performing English-speaking students on measures of English reading and math at the seventh grade. The analysis of the two-way programs indicates that English-only speaking students in these programs performed at the same levels as their similar cohorts who attended English-only programs of instruction.

Unfortunately, propopents of the "native language instruction policy" have ignored the contributions of Freire (1970), Bernstein (1971), Cummins (1979, 1986), Heath (1986), Ogbu (1986), Trueba (1987), Levin (1988), Moll (1992), and García (in press), who have concluded that the schooling vulnerability of such students must be understood within the broader contexts of this society's treatment of minorities in and out of schools. That is, no quick fix is likely under social and schooling conditions that mark the ELL student for special treatment of his/her language difference without consideration for the psychological and social circumstances in which that student resides. This is not to suggest that the linguistic character of this student is insignificant. Instead, it warns us against the isolation of this single attribute as the only variable of importance. This more comprehensive view of schooling includes an understanding of the relationship between home and school, the socio-cultural incongruities between the two, and the resulting effects on learning and achievement (Tharp, 1989).

As part of this debate, a new California state initiative is the most recent action to specifically address educational services to ELL students. With regard to such educational services, the new ballot measure identified as Proposition 227, English for the Children, passed with 61% of the vote on June 2, 1998, implementing the following:

Therefore, Proposition 227 allows native language instruction only through an exclusionary and complicated process and promotes English language instruction as the norm for ELL students. Moreover, teachers, administrators, and school board members would be held personally liable for fees and damages by the child's parents and guardians for improper implementation. These provisions, taken together, are the most restrictive measures yet for serving ELL students either nationally or within any state via legislation or the courts.

The initiative was adjudicated in both state and federal court venues, with the courts finding that the proposition is appropriately aligned with federal and state rulings related to the education of ELL students. It is anticipated that the political and educational effects of Proposition 227 will have substantive influence on the future of bilingual education policy and its practice within and outside the state of California. Opponents of the policy and its related practice implications have indicated that the proposition is completely out of alignment with recent federal policy. In their view, effective classroom practices and new theoretical formulations for these same students are essential (Gándara, Larson, Mehan, & Rumberger, 1999; García & González, 1995).

The express purpose of the research reported here was not to attempt any further elaboration of the bilingual education debate. Instead, this research effort is intended explicitly to explore the link between the new Proposition 227 policy environment and the policy/programmatic effects on a selected but representative set of school districts and schools in California.

Methodology

We used qualitative research techniques for this study. We conducted in-depth interviews using structured open-ended interviewing protocols designed for each of the three groups (district personnel, principals, and teachers). The interviews were conducted over the telephone. Our samples consist of 8 districts based on geographical representation in the state to include urban and rural school districts and a random sample of 39 districts, which had a minimum enrollment of 25% LEP students. The present study concentrates on an analysis of 46 district personnel and 58 school principal interviews.

For both studies research participants were identified in the following manner. District participants were selected in terms of their identified leadership role in overseeing the implementation of educational programs for ELL students. The district person was asked to nominate two principals in the district using the following criteria: one from a school that represents the district's overall response to 227, and one whose school individually developed Proposition 227 implementation plans. The principals were asked to refer two teachers from their schools. Our first choice was first-grade teachers who met the following characteristics: someone whose classroom represents the district's overall response to Proposition 227; and a teacher who has developed procedures for Proposition 227 at their site which are different than the district's overall response. Participants were informed that their answers would remain confidential. Respondents were coded linking clusters of participants by district: school/principal and teacher/classroom. This procedure allows us to analyze the relationship between the district's stated form of implementation of Proposition 227 and the eventual classroom practices used at a sample site.

While we constructed interviewing protocols according to the respondent role in the district, we asked the following questions of each set of respondents:

Our research data illustrate preliminary insights that provide a foundation for a more extensive understanding of the influence of policy instruments like Proposition 227 over time.

The Samples

District characteristics and implementation outcomes: The pilot sample

The pilot group respondents consisted of 8 school district personnel, 8 principals, and 16 elementary school teachers. These districts had a 30% to 50% LEP student population and were selected to represent districts that had been identified by a study advisory group as having eliminated or maintained bilingual education.

Interviews for the pilot study were conducted between November and June of 1998-99, very soon after the passage of Proposition 227 in June 1998.

Table 1
Pilot Study District Profiles, 1998-1999

District characteristics and implementation outcomes: The random sample

The random sample includes 39 school districts selected from California Department of Education demographic data (CBEDS). The districts were drawn only from areas reporting a minimum of 25% ELL students. Of the 905 school districts in California that serve ELL students, 77 school districts met all of our criteria. Therefore, our sample constitutes 50% of the eligible districts within the state. Ten districts have fewer than 5,000 students, while 29 districts have a total student population greater than 5,000.

Our initial sample included 40 districts of which 11 districts chose not to participate in the study. When districts declined to participate they were replaced with districts meeting their specific characteristics and were also drawn through random selection. Replacement attempts were limited to three times. After that, a district was considered a failed district. Ten declining districts were successfully replaced. One district became a failed district, as we were unable to successfully replace it from our random sample pool. Thus, we completed our study with an adjusted sample of 39 districts.

We conducted our interviews during January and July of 2000. The data were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interviews ranged from 29 to 115 minutes with most taking between 44 and 55 minutes.

Respondent characteristics: Random Sample

We interviewed 170 respondents (39 district personnel, 50 principals, and 81 teachers). Our sample was overwhelmingly female, with a total of 134 women and 36 men. Men tended to be principals and district personnel (30 out of 35), while women tended to be teachers (75 out of 134). The teachers in our sample had various types of credentials. Forty five percent were CLAD (Dross Cultural Language Academic Development) or BCLAD (Bilingual, Cross Cultural Academic Development) certified. Eleven percent had multiple subject credentials that were not CLAD or BCLAD. Thirteen percent had BCC multiple subject credentials, and 8% had an emergency credential. Twenty-two percent of our teacher sample had credentials categorized as "other." These included LDS (Language Development Specialist), lifetime, single subject, special education, specialist credential, and TESOL (Teaching English as a Second or Other Language).

Results

All districts and schools reported implementing 227 as prescribed by the California State Department guidelines and related actions of the California State Board of Education.

One school administrator's comments illustrated the sentiments of both district and school administrators in our sample, "we followed the law to the letter." Even though all districts reported thorough implementation of Proposition 227, they also consistently reported substantial pressures and confusion in developing and implementing a plan prior to the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. One district administrator of an urban district indicated:

Several districts with large numbers of language minority students admitted that their implementation plans were drawn up rapidly and with little consultation:

Another district administrator reported that in his district there was specific tension between federal regulations and Proposition 227:

It is evident from our sample that district and school personnel attempted to respond directly to the new state law. However, they faced ambiguity and program conflicts. No district reported ignoring the new set of regulations although they consistently worried about the specific interpretation of the general policies to their specific circumstances. Moreover, their plans developed in a climate of urgency with limited consultation with a broad set of constituencies. For this reason, even at the time of our interviewing, deep into the second school year, district administrators indicated that their implementation was preliminary in nature and would require further review and modification.

Table 2
Random Sample District Profiles, 1999–2000

Table 2 (continued)
Random Sample District Profiles, 1999–2000

Table 2 (continued)
Random Sample District Profiles, 1999–2000

Results by Implementation Strategies

Districts reported that they implemented Proposition 227 in three major categories. In the pilot study districts overwhelmingly reported implementing by maintained or offered "choice" (6 out of 8 districts). One district fully eliminated bilingual education, while another had instituted a structured English immersion program prior to the passage Proposition 227. In the random sample, the findings were similarly distributed. Twenty-six of the districts (66%) implemented by maintaining or allowing "choice," while nine (24%) eliminated bilingual education, and four (10%) had already implemented structured English immersion programs.

Districts that maintained bilingual education through waivers

In general we learned that districts with longstanding that bilingual program policies supported at the district level (12 of 39 districts) tended to pursue parental waivers which allowed them to legally maintain aspects of their existing programs. (See Table 2 for the characteristics of these districts). In these districts, extensive districtwide efforts were mounted to secure the necessary waivers at each school. Efforts included principal-led meetings with staff and parents; letters from the superintendent or district-level staff to each school principal requesting their urgent action to implement the parental waiver process, letters to parents translated into the appropriate language; and, school-wide meetings with parents. In one urban school district an active parent waiver effort was described in the following manner:

Other school districts developed activities for the entire district to allow parents to learn about the programs available for their children under Proposition 227. The district provided the information, also permitting parents to sign waivers for the bilingual program:

Schools in these districts often followed district directives to maintain programs of bilingual education, as one principal indicates:

Another principal interviewed indicated:

Both of these respondents indicate that districts that pursued the waivers were places where there was a philosophically consistent position from superintendent to teachers about the benefit of primary language instruction. From the policy perspective, the role that principals played in acting on this philosophy seems to be an important part of 227 implementation.

Districts implementing with structured English immersion with diminishing bilingual education

Districts where bilingual programs were on limited standing were more likely to fully implement the English immersion provisions of Proposition 227, switching to an English-only/immersion model for language minority students. In these districts, a minimal district-wide effort was conducted to secure waivers. Schools were asked to send information home regarding the implementation of Proposition 227. Parent meetings were neither suggested nor required. Little if any effort was made to communicate with parents about the options available to them. If letters were sent home, they were often not translated to the home language. In one metropolitan district with over 30% LEP students, little effort was directed at providing parental choice or waivers. This practice was an extension of district policy adopted prior to the passage of Proposition 227:

Districts implementing by true choice

School districts in this category developed efforts to maintain bilingual education, while others sought to switch to English only. In any case, the district fully supported any decision made by the schools by providing them with training, materials, and any other needs. Individual schools were required to report their implementation of Proposition 227 to the district. In one of these schools "true choice" was discussed as the ability to determine the specific aspects regarding the implementation of the law:

The school choice strategy took place in large and small school districts alike. One respondent whose district allowed for choice of programs explained the process in this manner:

This school served fewer than 5,000 students and had a diverse cultural grouping within the community. Schools with longstanding bilingual programs staffed by BCLAD teachers tended to pursue parental waivers that allowed them to legally maintain aspects of their existing programs. In the pilot sample this result occurred in 3 out of 16 schools. Principals and teachers played an important role in securing waivers when that was the choice of implementation.

Districts that eliminated bilingual education

At schools where bilingual programs were not fully staffed and implemented, or were already implementing English language development (ELD) programs, it was more likely that they would fully implement English Immersion provisions specified in Proposition 227. Nine out of the 39 districts in our random sample and one district in the pilot study followed this procedure.

These districts switched to programs they identified as "English-only," "immersion," or "ELD" models to serve ELL students.

Proposition 227 and standardized testing results

Because state and school level testing results are made public in California, we have been able to review the SAT-9 test scores for those districts in our random study sample. Tables 3-6 present a set of analyses regarding these test scores. Please keep in mind the SAT-9 is administered only in English in grades 2-11. However, it is administered to all students regardless of language status of the student or program. Provisions are made for a parent waiver allowing students to be exempted from testing; however, few parent waivers were obtained for such purposes. Our present analysis helps assess SAT-9 results utilizing a random selection of districts that may have implemented 227 differentially. Since our classroom level interviews concentrated on the early grades, most of our test score analyses do the same.

Table 3 provides a statewide perspective regarding specific LEP student scores and non-LEP scores for the second grade. This data indicates that, statewide, no differences in LEP and non-LEP test scores are apparent. Table 4 presents similar LEP student data for districts in our sample that implemented Proposition 227 differently, either by dismantling bilingual programs, maintaining those programs or sustaining programs identified as structured English immersion (SEI). Again, no significant change in student scoring is apparent across these implementation strategies. In a more substantive analysis of the effect of dismantling bilingual education programs, tables 5 and 6 present Grade-2 data comparing SAT-9 Reading, Math, and Language scores for LEP students and non-LEP students in these districts. This analysis reveals that there is no difference between LEP and non-LEP students. The data in general suggest strongly that within these randomly selected districts the implementation of Proposition 227 did not effect SAT-9 score results for LEP students.

Discussion

In general, we found in both the pilot study and random district analyses that previous policies regarding the use of education strategies for ELL students were adapted to conform to Proposition 227 and related program practices were not significantly affected by those adaptations. The data clearly indicate that the response to the new state law and its related regulations created confusion regarding its implementation but did not seem to drastically redirect district or school policies and related practices regarding the instruction of language for minority students. In general, districts complied with the legislation by fitting it to the programmatic plans that were already in place in their districts. One administrator in a large urban district illustrates the sentiments of respondents from other districts despite their regional site:

The same respondent reflects on the significance of the seemingly inconsequential change in teaching language minority students at the district. He states a sentiment that seems to be present in many of the school districts in our sample. The fact that Proposition 227 may have prompted counter outcomes to its intent of "doing away with" bilingual education remains a paradox.

At first glance it appears that there is a lack of change in bilingual education offerings in many districts. Yet, this district, in a similar manner to districts with a comparable outcome, report changes of an unintended manner. We have found that this outcome is not quite counter to Proposition 227, which had left much to interpretation at the district, school, and classroom level. This respondent wisely ponders the implications of Proposition 227 over the years. He asserts that it is too soon to know the true outcome.

Table 3
Grade 2 SAT-9 State-Wide Scores

Table 4
LEP Student SAT-9 Scores by 227 Implementation

Table 5
LEP Students’ SAT-9 Scores (2nd grade) in Schools that Dismantled Bilingual Education

Table 6
Non-LEP Students’ SAT-9 Scores (2nd grade) in Schools that Dismantled Bilingual Education

References

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: Research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Baker, K. A. (1990). Bilingual education's 20-year failure to provide rights protection for language-minority students. In A. Barona & E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority status and other issues in educational equity (pp. 29-52). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Baker, K. A., & De Kanter, A. A. (1983). An answer from research on bilingual education. American Education, 56, 157-169.

Bernstein, B. (1971). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization with some reference to educability. In B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language (pp. 146-171). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Cárdenas, J. (1986). The role of native-language instruction in bilingual education. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 359-363.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 19, 222-251.

Cummin, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56 (1), 18-35.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Gándara, P., Larson, K., Mehan, H., & Rumberger, R. (1999). Capturing Latino students in the academic pipeline. CLPP Policy Report, 1 (1). University of California, Institute for the Study of Social Change.

García, E. (1983). Bilingualism in early childhood. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

García, E. (1999). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge. (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

García, E. (in press). Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. International Journal of the Sociology of Language.

García, E., & González, R. (1995). Issues in systemic reform for culturally and linguistically diverse students. College Record, 96 (3), 418-31.

Hakuta, K., & Gould, L. J. (1987, March). Synthesis of research on bilingual education. Educational Leadership, 44 (6), 39-45.

Heath, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. In California Department of Education, Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp.143-186). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University.

Levin, I. (1988). Accelerated schools for at-risk students. (CPRE Research Report Series RR-010). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Policy Research in Education.

Moll, L. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21 (2), 20-24.

Ogbu, J. (1986). The consequences of the American caste system. In Ulric Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives. (pp. 126-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rossell, C. H. (1992). Nothing matters? A critique of the Ramirez, et al., longitudinal study of instructional programs for language-minority children. Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (1, 2), 159-186.

Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30 (1), 7-74.

Rossell, C., & Ross, J. M. (1994). The social science evidence on bilingual education. Boston: Boston University.

Stanford Working Group on Federal Education Programs for Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) Students. (1993). Federal education programs for limited-English-proficient students, A blueprint for the second generation: Report of the Stanford Working Group. Diane August [Executive Director], Kenji Hakuta [Chair]. Stanford, CA: Stanford Working Group.

Tharp, R. G. (1989). Challenging cultural minds. London: Cambridge University Press.

Trioke, R. C. (1981). Synthesis of research in bilingual education. Educational Leadership, 38, 498-504.

Trueba, H. T. (1987). Success or failure? Learning and the language minority student. Scranton, PA: Harper and Row.

Willig, A. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55 (33), 269-317.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported with resources provided by the U.S. Department of Education, the Stuart Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, and the Institute for the Study of Social Change, UC Berkeley. We had graduate research assistance in conducting the data gathering from Sara Paredes, Tom Stritikus, Betty Pazmiño, Deborah Palmer, Celia Viramontes, and Laura Alamillo. Octavio Estrella, Elena Tinker-Valle, and Paloma Esquivel were our undergraduate assistants.