Factors influencing implementation of mandated policy change: Proposition 227 in seven northern California school districts

Bilingual Research Journal, Winter 2000 by Maxwell-Jolly, Julie

Abstract

Proposition 227 limits instructional use of students' primary languages but allows bilingual programs if adequate numbers of parents request an alternative to English-only instruction. Researchers interviewed district and school personnel at seven sites to determine influences on policy responses to Proposition 227 and observed the impact of these policies on classroom practice. The history of support for bilingual programs, disposition of district staff toward primary language instruction, and community attitude and involvement, influenced district policy. Researchers concluded that district decisions largely determined school policy; policy responses varied to a surprising extent; change occurred at all sites and was most evident in the classroom; and Proposition 227 policy contributed to the existing inconsistency in programs for English learners.

Introduction

In June of 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, an initiative to reform education programs for English language learners (ELLs), students whose primary language is not English and who are in the process of gaining English proficiency. A fundamental goal of the proposition was to restrict educational approaches that use students' primary languages. As the 1998-- 1999 school year began, three teams of University of California (UC) researchers, one from UCLA, one from UC Berkeley, and one from UC Davis, began a project exploring the effects of Proposition 227 during its initial implementation. This paper describes the UC Davis team's work in seven northern California school districts.

The team focused their observations on the development of district and school policy with regard to Proposition 227, how policies at the two levels interact, and how they affect teachers and classroom practice. This paper describes some of these effects and explores possible influences on the various policy responses in the seven sample schools and districts. The paper also includes discussion of some potential future effects and additional policy implications of Proposition 227.

Proposition 227 Background

As an approach to public policy decision making, Proposition 227 is not unusual in the current context of California politics. It continues a state trend of policies introduced by laypersons and instituted by the general public via voter initiative. The proposition is a mandated top-down reform, and like a wave of other educational reforms beginning in the mid-1980s (Jennings, 1996), seeks to improve education by regulating content and methodology. The initiative proposes replacing primary language approaches with a structured English immersion approach (SEI). SEI classrooms are comprised of ELL students who are at a similar level of English proficiency, sometimes in multi-age classrooms. The focus of these classrooms is on improving students' English proficiency; academic content is secondary. Theoretically, students are to remain in SEI programs for only one academic school year and no longer than two. Proposition 227 attempts also to prohibit or curtail strongly the use of students' primary language for instruction. Under certain conditions the proposition allows for parents to sign a waiver requesting that rather than SEI, their children participate in an alternative program, usually one that includes bilingual methods. When parents of 20 or more students per grade choose this option, the law requires school districts to provide an alternative to the SEI program. However, the district does not have to provide this program at any particular school site so that parents who choose this option may have to transport their children to a school outside of their local area.

Proposition 227 contains a provision allowing parents and others to assign personal legal liability to any teacher, school, or district that does not implement the English language program as designated in the initiative. This provision sets the new law apart from most other mandates and introduces an approach to policy enforcement rarely taken with regard to classroom practice.

As districts have interpreted and implemented Proposition 227 it has not, in fact, led to the demise of the use of the primary language of ELL students in California's classrooms as was feared by some and hoped by others. However, it has unquestionably led to changes in many schools and classrooms around the state.

Summary of Findings

The principal findings of the team are that:

1. District response to Proposition 227 set the tone: If a district did not actively support primary language programs, these programs were unlikely to continue.

2. Although districts set the tone, responses to the proposition vary among these schools.

3. There was change, particularly evident at the classroom level, even in districts where ostensibly there was no policy change.

4. For individual ELL students, Proposition 227 has contributed to increased inconsistency in their education programs.

Sample and Methodology

The seven districts that are the subject of these observations are not representative of California school districts in the true sense of the word, nor is the sample large enough to allow for generalizations of the researchers' findings. Furthermore, because we focused attention on schools and teachers whose students are largely English learners, our sample may be biased in favor of teachers and administrators who oppose the pedagogical ideas embodied in Proposition 227. In fact, though a few of our interview subjects conjectured that some benefit might come of the initiative in the long run, no one we interviewed agreed with the pedagogical or philosophical premises of the proposition. Thus, we offer these observations as an exploration of the implementation of this policy in these specific districts. It is a small piece of the larger picture of how Proposition 227 is unfolding around the state and may provide some insight into the questions that researchers and policy makers ask as they continue to pursue education reform.