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

Urban Review

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 221-235

  Murillo Jr , Enrique G ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bilingual education; Educator beliefs; Implementation; Proposition 227; Teaching strategies (styles)

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247734031     PISSN: 00420972     EISSN: 15731960     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1010366004719     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anna Arellano-Houchin, Claudia Flamenco, Moisés M. Merlos, and Lorena Segura Address correspondence to Enrique G. Murillo, Jr., College of Education, Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture, California State University-San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397 emurillo@csusb.edu 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. KEY WORDS: implementation; educator beliefs; teaching strategies (styles); bilingual education; Proposition 227. © 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
2. Baker, K. (November 1998). Structured English immersion. Phi Delta Kappan 80: 3.
3. Chavez, L. (November 1998). Bilingual activists try to nullify election. Human Events 54: 45.
4. Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. (October 1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher 28: 7.
5. Crawford, James (1989). Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. Trenton, NJ.
6. Cummings, Jim (1989). Empowering Minority Students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
7. Darder, A., Torres, R. D., and Gutierrez, H. (eds.) (1997). Latinos and Education: A Critical Reader. New York and London: Routledge.
8. Flores, Susana Y. (2001) Towards a Latino Carino Paradigm in the Lives of Latino Teachers. Unpublished dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
9. Galindo, Rene (Spring and Summer 1997). Language wars: The ideological dimensions of the debates on bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal 21(2 & 3).
10. Gersten, R. (April 1999). The changing face of bilingual education. Educational Leadership 56: 7.
11. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
12. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzalez, R., and Amanti, C. (1993). Teacher Research on Funds of Knowledge: Learning from Households. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, Educational Practice Report 6.
13. Krashen, S. (May 1999). Bilingual education, Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics.
14. Lau v. Nichols (1974). 414 U.S. 563.
15. Macedo, Donaldo (1997). English-Only: The Tongue-Tying of America. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres, and H. Gutierrez, (eds.), Latinos and Education: A Critical Reader, pp. 269-278. New York and London: Routledge.
16. McMillan, J., and Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction (5th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
17. Meier, N. (May 1999). A fabric of half truths. Phi Delta Kappan 80: 9.
18. Mitchell, D. et al. (Jan-Mar 1999). The politics of bilingual education. Educational Policy 13: 1.
19. Mortensen, Eileen (1984). Reading achievement of native Spanish-speaking elementary students in bilingual vs. monolingual programs. Bilingual Review 11: 3.
20. Nieto, Sonia (1996). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
21. Rothstein, Richard (1998). Bilingual education: The controversy. Phi Delta Kappa International
22. Steinberg, Shirley R., and Kincheloe, Joe L. (eds.) (1998). Students as Researchers: Creating Classrooms That Matter. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
23. Trevino, J. (May 1999). Proposition 227 backlash hits Los Angeles area. Hispanic 13: 5.
24. Ulichny, Polly, and Schoener, Wendy (Fall 1996). Teacher-researcher collaboration from two perspectives. Harvard Educational Review 66(3).