SACRAMENTO, CA -- Proposition 227, the anti-bilingual-education initiative, passed in a landslide last year. The public-education establishment unsurprisingly responded with a lawsuit to protect a failed system that was advancing barely seven percent of California’s 1.4 million limited English proficiency (LEP) students to English fluency each year. In September, a state appellate court, thankfully, quashed these efforts.

The case involved the Oakland, Berkeley, and Hayward school districts’ cynical request to the California Board of Education to exempt them from complying with Prop. 227, now part of the state Education Code. The Education Code also gives the state Board the general power to grant waivers. The districts demanded exemption from Prop. 227’s requirement that bilingual education, which emphasizes instruction in LEP students’ native language, be replaced with English-immersion programs. The state Board, however, refused to grant the waivers and the districts sued.

The trial court ruled in favor of the districts, but the state Board appealed to the California First District Court of Appeals. The Pacific Research Institute (PRI), in conjunction with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), submitted an amicus brief supporting the state Board and the clear language and intent of Prop. 227. PRI and PLF argued that since Prop. 227 specifically allowed only parents to ask for waivers from the initiative’s provisions, the districts could not ask for a general waiver from the state Board. The appellate court agreed.

In its decision, the court said, "We conclude that the plain meaning of Proposition 227 was to guarantee that LEP students would receive educational instruction in the English language, and that English immersion programs would be provided to facilitate their transition into English-only classes." With regard to waivers, the courts stated: "Proposition 227 also vests parents of LEP students with the sole right to seek a waiver from the [measure’s] provision requiring English-only instruction for their own children. The [measure’s] language permits no other means by which the program requirements may be waived, and in fact, allows for civil action against school districts, educators, and administrators who fail or refuse to provide English-only instruction."

The court noted that after reading the ballot arguments for and against the initiative, "voters believed Proposition 227 would ensure school districts could not escape the obligation to provide English language public education for LEP students in the absence of parental waivers." The court concluded that, "We see no way that the guarantee of English-only instruction subject solely to parental waiver can be accomplished if school boards are allowed to avoid compliance with the entire [requirements of Prop. 227] by seeking waivers."

This sample of clear thinking is good news for California students, who will benefit from a measure that is already enjoying success at improving English fluency. Even some of the Proposition’s former opponents concede that it is working well. Bilingual education is dead and the courts are pounding nails in the coffin. It’s time that school districts in California accept this reality, stop dragging their feet, and get on with implementing Prop. 227.

-- Lance T. Izumi