What do the results of the elections tell us?

     - Proposition 227 was voted into law by an electorate with no
     stake in the results. The majority of California voters have no
     children in schools, and/or have no knowledge of language
     education. The communities directly affected by the proposition
     overwhelmingly voted against 227.

     - The Latino vote was approximately 2 to 1 against proposition
     227 (63% opposed the proposition) and in communities with large
     immigrant populations this margin increased to almost 3 to 1.

     - Proposition 227 caused a large voter turnout in the Latino
     community (they formed 12% of the electorate in comparison to
     6% in the primary elections of 1994)

     - In LA Times poling results released June 4th, the majority of
     Latinos stated that they saw the intention of Proposition 227 as
     fundamentally discriminatory.

     - Many Latinos regarded Proposition 227 as the 3rd blow against
     their community by politicians seeking a scapegoat for California's
     problems

      Legal Action

     - A lawsuit has been filed with Federal Court.

     - Plaintiffs in this case include The California Latino Civil Rights
     Network, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Mujeres Unidas y Activas,
     Parents for Unity, the National Council of La Raza, the Southern
     Christian Leadership Conference, and various parents with
     children attending California Public Schools.

     - The Defendants include Governor Pete Wilson, The California
     State Board of Education, and the California Superintendent of
     Public Schools.

     - The legal entities representing the plaintiffs in this case include
     the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
     (MALDEF), Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy (META),
     the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican-American
     Center, the Asian Law Caucus, the Asian Pacific American Legal
     Center, and the Employment Law Center.

     - The suit attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent
     implementation of 227, but the injunction was denied by Judge
     Legge. The lawsuit continues.

     - The basis for litigation against Proposition 227 is that it violates
     the Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA) of 1974, the Equal
     Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and Title VI of the Civil
     Rights Act of 1964.

     - The major arguments in this case are:

     1) The one-year "Sheltered English Immersion" program instated
     by Proposition 227 has no legal or educational standing, and
     forces Limited English Proficient in the state of California to
     participate in an educational experiment for which there exist no
     materials or curriculum.

     2) The program of Proposition 227 does not provide for any more
     than "a good working knowledge of English" denying LEP students
     access to curriculum offered to native English speakers.

     3) Students finishing their one year of "Sheltered English
     Immersion" will be placed in mainstream English-Only classrooms
     before they speak enough academic English to be able to
     participate equally with their English-speaking peers, and at the
     same time will have missed a year of the core curriculum studied
     by these peers.

     4) Because it is an initiative statute, educational practices
     implemented by Proposition 227 would be almost impossible to
     change even if they prove ineffective or new educational practices
     are developed.

     In summary, proposition 227 fails to provide educational
     opportunity to the approximately 1.4 million Limited English
     Proficient students in the state of California.

     Alert!

     It is important to know that Proposition 227 takes effect 60 days
     after the date of the election (June 2, 1998). This means:

     - There should be absolutely no changes to current programs or
     curriculum until after the 60 days.

     - Students who began their school year before the 60 days
     elapsed (August 2, 1998) should have had no changes in their
     current bilingual programs until after their first school term.

     - Parents should inform themselves of their rights under the terms
     of the proposition to request waivers.

     - Parents should be informed of the different options, including a
     written description of the program offered by their school and the
     materials to be used.

     - Parents must be aware of what portions of the law remain in
     effect, such as DBAC's and BAC's.