Has California's Passage of Proposition 227 Made a Difference in the Way We Teach?

Abstract

Passage of Proposition 227 has almost effectively eliminated bilingual education in California public schools, tying the hands of teachers who still have to educate students not fluent in the English language. The intent of bilingual education has been to educate the child first in the native language before immersion into the English language. One principal idea behind this philosophy is that a person who can read and write in his or her native tongue will transition less stressfully to a second language. Proposition 227 has virtually eliminated any chance for this to take place. As teachers, we ask if our English language learners (ELLs) may learn to read and write, but will they comprehend and become fluent in English without the basic knowledge in their primary language? We, as numerous other bilingual education supporters, don't believe so.

Our study looked at how 10 practicing educators were impacted by the passage of Proposition 227. Our research team was interested in how Proposition 227 changed their teaching styles, their beliefs regarding the proposition, and whether they believed it to be working or not.

We concluded that our teacher interviewees were impacted by the passage of Proposition 227 for several reasons. The first reason is that teaching strategies had to be changed to accommodate the new curriculum. Second, sufficient training was not provided to assist the teachers on the immediate implementation of the English-only initiative. Furthermore, teaching resources such as textbooks, curriculum guides, and new state standards were not received until the following school year, thus creating an unproductive teaching environment for both students and educators.