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

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

Increased translation was another trend observed in these classrooms. Thus, rather than present a lesson using bilingual teaching techniques (for example, preview-review or alternate languages on alternate days), teachers presented all material in English and engaged in ad hoc translation for students with the most incipient English language skills. Teachers who knew the student population well commented that these same students were not as engaged in the classroom as they had been in bilingual classrooms.

Finally, the words "anger" and "frustration" were common in teacher interviews. Teachers used these terms in referring to the prohibition against "an important teaching tool" i.e., the primary language. These teachers stressed the need for a variety of tools and strategies for teaching ELL students, a view supported by the literature:

The more linguistically and culturally diverse the students are in the school community the greater the variety of teaching and learning strategies should be, with multiple opportunities to learn from peers as well as the teacher and other adult staff. (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998, p. 66)

Teachers we interviewed were dismayed over the attempt to limit a set of strategies that they felt were critical to the effective learning of these students. They expressed similar feelings about the disregard of teachers' views and wishes by voters who passed the initiative, disrespect for the expertise of educators who teach ELL students by those who designed Proposition 227, and lack of training and materials for coping with the new policy. These motifs also emerged in relation to the use of language. The emotional and political importance of the prohibition against the primary language of students and many teachers, was a critical aspect of this initiative to many of the teachers we interviewed. It has had the effect of making their use of students' primary language furtive and made children's primary language "unwelcome" in the classroom. This is contrary to a fundamental goal of primary language programs, which is to help students and families view having two languages as a plus rather than a minus.

There were other teacher adaptations to Proposition 227. As mentioned above, each of the more than 30 teachers we spoke with and observed had a unique voice and response. Table 4 includes a summary of the teacher responses we gathered and of classroom behaviors we observed.

Summary of Principle Themes of Findings

Four principle themes emerged from the team's observations and interviews. Although researchers could have focused on other aspects of the data, or taken a different perspective on the factors presented here, this approach and these factors seemed to be the most salient at this early stage of implementation and investigation.

Districts set the tone

Researchers found that without strong, active, and long-standing district support, bilingual programs were unlikely to persist. Districts that continued programs were those where there was a history of strong support for primary language programs among the community, the school board, and district staff, as well as an existing corps of bilingual teachers. Thus, even in districts where there was mixed support for bilingual approaches, many classrooms and/or schools discontinued programs. The support of district staff or the community alone was not enough.