The Role of Advocacy in Shaping Immigrant Education: A California Case Study

Abstract

Background Context

Throughout United States history, immigrant education has been shaped and defined by political struggles over immigration, language rights, national security, and educational equity and access. Bilingual education has become the contemporary battleground for these struggles. In 1996, in California, a struggle ensued between supporters of bilingual education and the English Only movement, culminating in a public ballot initiative, Proposition 227, designed to end bilingual education.

Purpose/Focus

This article explores the ways in which advocacy groups engage in efforts to protect immigrant students’ access to, and inclusion in, schools, and how that engagement is shaped and seeks to impact on prevailing policies and ideologies.

Design

This qualitative case study is based on historical records from the Proposition 227 campaigns, analysis of media coverage, and interviews, and was written as a reflective piece by a social scientist who was active in the campaigns.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The battle over Proposition 227 was just one episode in a historically broader and deeper societal struggle between fundamentally different perspectives about the role of public schools in a diverse society. Although the explicit conflicts between English Only and bilingual education forces in California before, during, and after Proposition 227 were focused on English learner program design—the language to be used for instruction, materials, and credentialing—this was and is an ideological struggle. Advocates for bilingual education were unprepared for fighting this battle in the public arena of a ballot initiative. In the course of the Proposition 227 campaign, advocates drew lessons that informed a revised strategy: to shift the basic paradigm within which immigrant education is framed beyond the framework of civil rights and a compensatory program to redefine immigration schooling in an affirmative, additive 21st-century global vision. This has resulted in a renewed advocacy movement, illustrating the role that advocacy organizations play in adapting and reshaping the dialogues and policies over immigrant education.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arriaza

(1997). Using the law to make a difference. In The Schools We Need Now (pp. 69—74). San Francisco: California Tomorrow.

August

, & Shanahan

(2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Baldassare

(2002). A California state of mind. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berman

P. J.

Chamber

Gandara

McLaughlin

Minicucci

Nelson

(1992). Meeting the challenge of language diversity: An evaluation of programs for pupils with limited proficiency in English. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates.

Binder

(1998). Report to the Executive Committee, Citizens for an Educated America. Unpublished manuscript, David Binder Research, San Francisco, CA.

California Secretary of State. (1997). English for the Children. Sacramento: Author.

California Secretary of State. (1998). Argument in Favor of Proposition 227, Primary 98 Analysis and Rebuttal. Sacramento: Author.

California Tomorrow. (1998). Why Proposition 227 is wrong for California. San Francisco: Author.

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2002). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in the U.S. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory

10.

Cline

, & Necochea

(2001). Basta Ya! Latino parents fighting entrenched racism. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1&2), 2—27.

11.

Cornelius

W. A.

(1995). Educating California's immigrant children: Introduction and overview. In Cornelius

W. A.

, & Rumbaut

R. G.

(Eds.), California's immigrant children: Theory, research and implications for educational policy (pp. 1—16). La Jolla: Center for U.S. Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego.

12.

Crawford

(1992a). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of English only. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

13.

Crawford

(1992b). Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Crawford

(1997). The campaign against Proposition 227: A post mortem. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 1—29.

15.

Cummins

(1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Dissemination and Assessment Center Evaluation, California State University (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3—49). Los Angeles: California Department of Education.

16.

Escamilla

Shannon

, & Garcia

(2003). Breaking the code: Colorado's defeat of the anti-bilingual education initiative. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 357—382.

17.

Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. (1981). Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Author.

18.

“Exit poll: Profile of the electorate.” (1998, June 4). Los Angeles Times.

19.

Gandara

, & Sun

(1997a). Bilingual education: Learning English in California. Sacramento: California State Legislature Assembly Office of Research Joint Publications Office.

20.

Gandara

, & Sun

(1997b). Review of the research on instruction of limited English proficient students: A report to the California State Legislature. Davis: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

21.

Gersten

, & Woodward

(1995). A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual education programs in one district. Elementary School Journal, 95, 223—239.

22.

Goldberg

(1998, March). Keynote speech, California Association for Bilingual Education meeting, San Jose Convention Center, San Jose, CA.

23.

Greene

J. P.

(1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.

24.

Griswold

(1998, May 13). The language lie: Bilingual education works; is that why Ron Unz wants to kill it? San Francisco Bay Guardian.

25.

Krashen

(1991, Spring). Bilingual education: A focus on current research [Special issue]. NCBE FOCUS: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 3.

26.

Lau V. Nichols. 414 U.S. 563, 94S. Ct.786, 39L.Ed.2dl 1974.

27.

Moran

R. F.

(1998). The politics of discretion: Federal intervention in bilingual education. California Law Review, 76, 1249—1352.

28.

Office of Civil Rights. (1970). May 25 Memorandum of 1970: Interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Washington, DC: Author.

29.

Olsen

(1990). Then and now: A comparative perspective on immigration and school reform during two periods in American history. California Perspectives, 1, 3—12.

30.

Olsen

, & Salinas

(1998, June 6). Concession speech/press release, Citizens for an Educated America, Los Angeles, CA.

31.

Owens

(1998, March). Interview with Ron Unz, KGO Newstalk Radio, San Francisco, CA.

32.

Parrish

Perez

Merikel

, & Linquanti

(2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners K–12: Findings from a five year evaluation; Final Report. San Francisco: American Institutes of Research and WestEd

33.

Pompa

(1998). Testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education on the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for Bilingual and Immigrant Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

34.

“Prop 63 deserves approval.” (1986, October 24). San Francisco Examiner.

35.

Ramirez

J. D.

Pasta

D. J.

Yuen

S. D.

Billings

D. K.

, & Ramey

D. R.

(1991). Final Report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

36.

Rossell

C. H.

, & Baker

(1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30 1, 7—74.

37.

Schmid

C. L.

(2001). The politics of language: Conflict, identity and cultural pluralism in comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

38.

Schrag

(1997, December 3). Initiative puts meat ax to bilingual education. Sacramento Bee.

39.

Schultz

(1998). Proposition 227: The morning after. Democracy Center On-Line, 14. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://www.democracyctr.org/newsletter/vol14.htm

40.

Slavin

R. E.

, & Cheung

(2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A Best evidence synthesis; Report for the Institute of Education Sciences. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Center for Data Driven Reform in Education.

41.

Welner

, & Escamilla

(2002, August). The unintended consequences of Colorado's anti-bilingual initiative (Report). Boulder: EPIC Policy Center, University of Colorado School of Education.

42.

Wolfe

(1996). Marginalized in the middle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.