Proposition 227 in California

Proposition 227 in California

Introduction

The proposition 227 was passed in the year 1998 through ballot. The underlying objective of the proposition is to include students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in the mainstream classes. This means that these children will not have to attend bilingual classes (The Civil Rights Project, 2008). Also, the amount of time that is spent on these children is shortened. Before the implementation of the proposition 227 in California there were many programs that offered multi-year special classes to the LEP students. These classes required the LEP students to enroll for the special classes but eventually move to regular classes once they have working knowledge of the English language. In addition, it was suggested that these classes should not be longer than a year. One year was considered to be enough for acquiring working knowledge of English language (Alvarez, 1999).

The proposition 227 was accepted and even implemented but it has raised a lot of question and is not favored by all. There are many stakeholders involved with the policy and some of them are against it. The paper presents the different positions that are there for or against policy and what the ideologies behind these positions are.

Overview of the policy issue

The policy issue that relates to the Proposition 227 is that the motive was good but it was implemented in a way that has raised heated debate on race, poverty and immigration. The very idea of the proposition 227 was based on the fact that Limited English Proficiency people should trained on a rapid basis so that they come at par with the others. However, the methods that have been proposed to be implemented for the education of these people mean that they support assimilation (Tórrez, 2001). This debate on the policy issue is interesting but does not provide one with a conclusion as to whether or not the policy should be abandoned or accepted.

Another major issue with the proposition is that it has been drafted in vague language. This led to the limited interpretation of the new law in that teachers as well as school administrators were held personally responsible for assuring compliance with the law (Galindo, 2004). Failure to do so was understood to lead to civil suit against the teacher or the administrator. Bilingual teachers found the new directive quite demoralizing.

Key stakeholders involved

The proposition 227 in California has ramifications not only for students and the school administrations but also for teachers as well as interns. Each of these stakeholders has his own views on the implementation of “English for the Children” Proposition 227. The law also has implications for the concerned authorities such as California PTA and California School Board Association.

Positions of the stakeholders

Consent of parents

The most important stakeholders in this case were the parents. While some were for it, a majority of parents were strictly against the implementation of Proposition 227. Most of these parents who are opponents of the new law fail to understand why ...