California Proposition 227, Require English Instruction in Public Schools Initiative (June 1998)

California Proposition 227
Election date June 2, 1998
Topic Education
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Propositition 227 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on June 2, 1998. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to require that public school instruction be conducted in English.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative to require that public school instruction be conducted in English.

Aftermath

California Proposition 58 (2016)

See also: California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education (2016)

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 58, which amended and repealed provisions of Proposition 227. Proposition 58 allowed schools to provide bilingual education and dual-language immersion programs, along with structured English immersion programs.

Overview

What did Proposition 227 change about education in California?

Proposition 227 required that public school instruction be conducted in English in California. The ballot initiative required that Limited English Proficient (LEP) students "be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year."

The ballot initiative allowed a child's parents or legal guardians to waive the requirement and enroll the child in bilingual classes provided that: (a) the child already knows English, (b) the child is at least 10 years old; or (c) the child has been in a class that uses English for 30 days and staff agree that learning in another language would be better for the child.

Election results

California Propositition 227
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,582,423	61.28%
No		2,263,672	38.72%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Propositition 227 was as follows:

“

English Language in Public Schools. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Requires all public school instruction be conducted in English. Requirement may be waived if parents or guardian show that child already knows English, or has special needs, or would learn English faster through alternate instructional technique. Provides initial short-term placement, not normally exceeding one year, in intensive sheltered English immersion programs for children not fluent in English. Appropriates $50 million per year for ten years funding English instruction for individuals pledging to provide personal English tutoring to children in their community. Permits enforcement suits by parents and guardians.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact (summary)

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided the following summarized estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 227:

“

Impacts on individual school districts would depend on how schools, parents, and the state respond to the proposition's changes. These impacts could vary significantly by district. "Requires state spending of $50 million per year for ten years to teach tutors of limited English proficient students. Total state spending on education, however, probably would not change.

”

Fiscal impact (detailed)

The California Legislative Analyst's Office prepared a detailed statement of the likely fiscal impact of Proposition 227 for the state's Voter Guide. It said:

“

School Costs and Savings This proposition would result in several fiscal impacts on schools. Savings. By limiting the time LEP students can be in special classes generally to one year, the initiative would reduce the number of special classes schools would have to offer. This could result in major savings for schools. Costs. The proposition could also result in new costs to schools, for a number of reasons. For instance, the one-year special classes could be more expensive than existing classes if schools provide more intensive services. Schools may also need to give LEP students extra help in academic subjects once they are moved to regular classes if they fall behind other students. Distribution of "Compensatory" Funds. The state provides "compensatory" funds to schools based in part on the number of LEP students. The proposition would likely reduce the number of students who are considered LEP at any given time. As a result, state funds would be allocated differently--some schools would get more compensatory funds and others would get less. Net Impact on Schools. We cannot predict the proposition's net impact on schools. It would depend in large part on how people respond to its passage, including: Parents' decisions on the types of services they want for their children. Schools' decisions on the types and levels of services provided to LEP students. State decisions on the allocation of "compensatory" funds it provides to schools with LEP students. The net impact could vary significantly by individual school. State Fiscal Effects: Under the proposition, the state would spend $50 million each year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. This provision, however, probably would not change total state spending for schools. (This is because the level of state spending for K-12 schools is generally based on a formula in the Constitution.) As a result, the costs to the state of this provision would likely reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount.

”

Support

Supporters

• Alice Callaghan, director of Las Familias del Pueblo
• Ron Unz, chairman, English for the Children
• Fernando Vega, past Redwood City School Board Member

Official arguments

The official arguments in support of Proposition 227 can be found here.

Opposition

Opponents

• John D'Amelio, president of California School Boards Association
• Mary Bergan, president of California Federation of Teachers
• Jennifer Looney, president of California School Administrators

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 227 can be found here.

See also

1998 Measures

• 1998 Measures
• Education on the ballot
• English language on the ballot
• 1998 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Official California Voter Guide
• Proposition 227
• Campaign Finance Information