Monday, September 19, 2016

Vote "YES" on California's Proposition 58: Let's bring back bilingual education in California

Blog readers:

PLEASE SHARE WIDELY. Many of us Tejan@s have family in California. Tell them that we need to bring bilingual education back and that they have a say about this and that they need to vote for it in the November 8, 2016 election. They need to vote, period. But this is an historic opportunity to build on the recent passage of the landmark bill, AB2016, that requires ethnic studies now in all California districts. We are a multilingual, muli-ethnic, multi-racial nation and we totally need to move the needle on this with the help of this legislation.

When programs are well staffed, well designed, and well implemented, bilingual education/dual language education programs are second to none.

The jury is in on this. We don't need another study to prove what we already know.

The debate over bilingual education is wholly about the politics of education, rather than what decades of evidence shows (I've posted on this numerous times on this blog). What we need is well staffed, well designed, and well implemented, bilingual education/dual language education

To register to vote, visit the Hispanic Heritage Month of Action website: http://www.hhmaction.com/

Sí se puede! Yes we can!

Angela Valenzuela

c/s

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

California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education

Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Education and English language
Status On the ballot
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

2016 measures

June 7
Proposition 50
November 8
Proposition 51
Proposition 52
Proposition 53
Proposition 54
Proposition 55
Proposition 56
Proposition 57
Proposition 58
Proposition 59
Proposition 60
Proposition 61
Proposition 62
Proposition 63
Proposition 64
Proposition 65
Proposition 66
Proposition 67
Campaign finance
Polls

The California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act (Senate Bill 1174), also known as Proposition 58, will be on the California ballot as a legislatively referred state statute on November 8, 2016.^[1]

A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of repealing most of the 1998 Proposition 227, the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, thus effectively allowing non-English languages to be used in public educational instruction.

A "no" vote is a vote against repealing most of the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, which was designed to prohibit non-English languages from being used in public schools.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33) developed Proposition 58 as Senate Bill 1174.

Overview

Proposition 227

See also: California Proposition 227, the "English in Public Schools" Initiative (1998)

Proposition 58 was designed to repeal the English-only immersion requirement and waiver provisions required by Proposition 227 of 1998. In English-only programs, students learn subjects from teachers who speak only in English. Proposition 227 required English learners to take one year of intensive English instruction before transitioning to English-only classes. ^[2]
Under Proposition 227, parents of English learners can opt their children into bilingual programs by signing a waiver. The waiver is approved if one of three conditions are met. First, the student must have "attended an English-only classroom for at least 30 days and whose teachers, principal, and district superintendent all agree would learn better in a bilingual program." Second, the student must be at least 10 years old. Third, the student is already a fluent English speaker.

How would English learning change?

Proposition 58 would no longer require English-only education for English learners. Schools would be allowed to utilize multiple programs, including bilingual education. In bilingual programs, students learn from teachers who speak both their native language and English. Furthermore, parental waivers would no longer be needed to take non-English-only classes. ^[2]
If requested by enough parents, schools would be required to offer specific English learner programs. School districts and county offices of education would ask for annual feedback on English learner programs from parents and community members.

Text of the measure

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:^[2]

“

SB 1174 (Chapter 753, Statutes of 2014), Lara. English language education.^[3]

”

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary is as follows:^[2]

“

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students become proficient in English.
Requires school districts to solicit parent and community input in developing language acquisition programs to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible.
Requires that school districts provide students with limited English proficiency the option to be taught English nearly all in English.
Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers.
Allows parents/legal guardians of students to select an available language acquisition program that best suits their child.^[3]

”

The shorter ballot label summary is as follows:^[2]

“

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.^[3]

”

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 58 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement for this initiative is:^[2] Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

“

No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.^[3]

”

Full text

The full text of the initiative measure is available here.

Support

Yes on 58, also known as Californians for English Proficiency, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 58.^[4]

Supporters

Officials

Proposition 58 was sponsored by the following officials in the legislature:^[5]

Other officials supporting the measure include:

Parties

California Democratic Party^[7]
California Peace and Freedom Party^[8]
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club^[9]
Santa Monica Democratic Club^[10]

Organizations

Advancement Project^[11]
Alliance for a Better California^[6]
American Anthropological Association^[12]
Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Los Angeles
Association of Mexican American Educators
Asian Business Association
Asian Americans for Community Involvement
Asian Law Alliance
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles
Association of California Administrators
Association of Two-Way Dual Immersion Education
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Association of Latino School Administrators
California Association of School Administrators
California Chamber of Commerce^[13]
California Faculty Association
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Language Teachers Association
California Latino Caucus
California Latino School Boards Association
California Linguistic Anthropology Association
California Medical Association
California School Boards Association
California State Parent Teachers Association
Californians Together
Campaign for College Opportunity
Children NOW
Chinese American Council of Sacramento
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership
Council on Teacher Education
Early Edge California
Echo Park Neighborhood Council
EdTrust West
Families to Schools
First 5 LA
Inner City Struggle
Korean Resource Center
La Raza Roundtable de California
League of California Cities Asian Pacific Islander Caucus
League of Women Voters of California
Lingual Learning
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Compact
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Luna Press
Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Social Workers
Parent Institute for Quality Education – PIQE
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Regional Chamber of Commerce-San Gabriel Valley
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Sierra Club, California
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Society for Linguistic Anthropology
United Way of Greater Los Angeles

Unions

Schools

Sen. Lara (D-33) unveiling the bill to the media in April 2014.

San Diego State University^[11]
Alhambra Unified School District^[6]
Alum Rock Unified School District
Anaheim City School District
Berkeley Unified School District
El Rancho Unified School District
Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District
Garvey Unified School District
Hueneme School District
Los Angeles Unified School District
Lynwood Unified School District^[11]
Montebello Unified School District
Norton Space and Aeronautics Academy Board of Education
Oceanview School District
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
San Bernardino City School District
San Francisco Unified School District
Woodland Joint Unified School District

Individuals

Margaret Grogan, Dean, College of Educational Studies, Chapman University^[6]
Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco

Arguments

Supporters make the following arguments in support of Proposition 58:^[2]

The proposition would allow all students to become proficient in English as soon as possible.
The proposition would encourage schools to use instruction programs rather than expand multilingual education, thereby providing English speakers the opportunity to learn a second language.
The proposition would restore local control for California schools.
The proposition's changes would prepare students more effectively for the future.
Multilingual education encourages "intercultural interactions and empathy."^[12]

Official arguments

The following argument in support of Proposition 58 was provided in the official voter guide:^[2]

PROPOSITION 58 ENSURES ALL STUDENTS CAN ACHIEVE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Too many California students are being left behind and not given the opportunity to learn English with the most effective teaching methods possible. This is because of an outdated nearly 20-year-old law, Proposition 227, which restricts the instructional methods school districts can use to teach English.

Proposition 58 revises Proposition 227 to remove these restrictions so schools are able to use the most up-to-date teaching methods possible to help our students learn.

Proposition 58:

Requires local school districts to identify in their annual K-12 Local Control and Accountability Plans the instructional methods they will offer to help ensure all students become proficient in English as rapidly as possible.
Requires schools to offer a structured English immersion program to English learners. But schools also can adopt other language instruction methods based on research and stakeholder input.
School districts must seek input from educators, parents and the community.

PROPOSITION 58 ALSO EXPANDS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS TO LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE.

Proposition 58 removes barriers hurting students by discouraging schools from expanding multilingual education. Proposition 58 encourages school districts to provide instruction programs so native English speakers can become proficient in a second language:

School districts must include in their annual K-12 Local Control and Accountability Plans programs giving English-speaking students the opportunity to achieve proficiency in a second language.
District choices of non-English languages must reflect input from parents, the community and the linguistic and financial resources of schools.
Research shows that students participating in programs taught in more than one language attain higher levels of academic achievement.

PROPOSITION 58 RESTORES LOCAL CONTROL TO OUR SCHOOLS.

Proposition 58 allows local school districts to choose the most up-to-date language instruction methods to improve student outcomes free from legal restrictions imposed on them by a decades-old law.

PROPOSITION 58 PROVIDES A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR STATE.

The world economy is changing rapidly. Today, technology allows even the smallest businesses to have a global reach. Students proficient in English and a second language will be more employable, start out earning higher wages, and make California's workforce better prepared to compete for jobs in the global economy.

PROPOSITION 58 HAS BROAD-BASED SUPPORT FROM LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, EDUCATORS, PARENTS AND EMPLOYERS.

Giving local schools the tools they need to improve outcomes for students is not a partisan or political issue. Proposition 58 was placed on the ballot by a bipartisan vote of the legislature. Support for Proposition 58's common sense reforms to improve language instruction in our schools is broad-based and includes: Local school boards (the California School Boards Association), Teachers (the California Language Teachers' Association, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers), Parents (California State PTA), and Employers (including the San Jose I Silicon Valley and Los Angeles Chambers of Commerce).

Proposition 58's reforms allow schools to adopt the most up-to-date methods of language instruction to improve student outcomes and make better use of taxpayer dollars.

More information at www.SupportProp58.com.

VOTE YES ON 58.

Opposition

Keep English for the Children is leading the campaign in opposition to Proposition 58.^[14]

Opponents

Parties

Individuals

Ron Unz, advocate for Proposition 227
Mauro E. Mujica, U.S. English Chairperson

Arguments

Opponents make the following arguments in opposition of Proposition 58:^[2]

The proposition would repeal the requirement that California children be taught English in public schools.
The proposition would lift restrictions on the California legislature making future changes, enabling the legislature to reestablish Spanish-Almost-Only instruction in public schools.
The proposition would overturn policies that actually improved language education.

Official arguments

The following argument in opposition of Proposition 58 was provided in the official voter guide:^[2]

THIS BALLOT MEASURE IS A DISHONEST TRICK BY THE SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS

The official title of Proposition 58 is "English Language Education," But it actually REPEALS the requirement the children be taught English in California public schools. It's all a trick by the Sacramento politicians to fool the voters, who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 227, the "English for the Children" initiative in 1998.
The worst part of Proposition 58 is hidden away in Section 8, which REPEALS all restrictions on the California Legislature to make future changes. This would allow the Legislature to reestablish SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY instruction in the public schools by a simple majority vote, once again forcing Latino children into those classes against their parents' wishes.
Teaching English in our public schools is overwhelmingly supported by California parents, whether immigrants or non-immigrants, Latinos or Anglos, Asians or Blacks. That's why the politicians are trying to TRICK the voters by using a DECEPTIVE TITLE.

VOTE NO AND KEEP "ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN"---IT WORKS!

For decades, millions of Latino children were FORCED INTO SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY CLASSES dishonestly called "bilingual education." It was an educational disaster and never worked. Many Latinos never learned how to read, write, or even speak English properly.

But in 1998, California voters overwhelmingly passed Prop. 227—the "English for the Children" initiative---providing sheltered English immersion to immigrant students and requiring that they be taught English as soon as they started school.
Jaime Escalante of Stand and Deliver fame, one of America's most successful teachers led the Prop. 227 campaign as Honorary Chairman, rescuing California Latinos from the Spanish-only educational ghetto.
It worked! Within four years the test scores of over a million immigrant students in California increased by 30%, 50%, or even 100%.
All the major newspapers, even the national New York Times, declared the new English immersion system a huge educational success.
The founding president of the California Association of Bilingual Educators announced that he'd been wrong about bilingual education for thirty years and became a leading national advocate for English immersion.
Since "English for the Children" passed, there has been a huge increase in the number of Latinos scoring high enough to gain admission to the prestigious University of California system.
Prop. 227 worked so well in California schools that the whole issue was forgotten by almost everyone except the bilingual education activists. Now they're trying to trick the voters into allowing the RESTORATION OF MANDATORY SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY CLASSES.

Vote NO, keep "English for the Children," and protect Jaime Escalante's educational legacy for California's immigrant schoolchildren.

For more information, visit our website at www.KeepEnglish.org

Campaign finance

Total campaign cash^[17] as of September 14, 2016^[18]
Support:	$814,658.00
Opposition:	$0.00

As of September 14, 2016, the support campaign had raised $627,868.39 for Proposition 58, and the opposition campaign had raised $0.^[19]

Support

As of September 14, 2016, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 58 and the total amount raised below was current as of the same date. The amount spent listed below was current as of June 2016.^[20]

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Yes On 58, Californians For English Proficiency Sponsored By Teachers And Service Employees Organizations Click here for details	$814,658,00	$221,691.27
Total	$814,658,00	$221,691.27

As of September 14, 2016, the top six largest donors in support of Proposition 58 were:^[20]

Donor	Amount
California Teachers Association PAC	$500,000
Association of California School Administrators Issues PAC	$100,000
SEIU Local 2015 Issues PAC	$50,000
United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Issues PAC	$25,000
California Faculty Association Political Issues Committee	$15,000
United Domestic Workers of America PAC	$15,000

Opposition

As of September 14, 2016, there were no PACs registered to oppose Proposition 58.^[21]

Methodology

In calculating campaign finance for supporting and opposing committees, Ballotpedia does not count donations or expenditures from one PAC to another since that would amount to counting the same money twice. This method is used to give the most accurate information concerning how much funding was actually provided to and spent by the opposing and supporting campaigns. Ballotpedia reports all in-kind donations reported by the state government.

Media editorials

Support

Los Angeles Times: "... there's a difference between bilingual education done badly and bilingual education done right. A vast store of research shows that bilingual education, when it is well-designed and implemented, can be at least as good, and often better at helping immigrant and other non-English speaking students gain academic proficiency... And if students aren't achieving academically, Proposition 58 could be amended through a simple majority vote of the Legislature. Immigrant parents and their local school districts should be trusted to work this out together. Vote yes on Proposition 58."^[22]

The Press Democrat: "Proposition 58 on the Nov. 8 ballot would repeal Proposition 228 and restore the ability of local school districts, in consultation with parents, to offer bilingual education programs. Over the past several years, California has been increasing local control of K-12 education. Proposition 58 is another step in that direction, and The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote."^[23]

Opposition

The Bakersfield Californian: "One might assume Prop. 227 was an outgrowth of intolerance. But actually many supporters included Latino parents who were frustrated by their English-learner students languishing for years in bilingual classes and failing to acquire the language proficiency needed to prepare for good-paying, professional jobs. English-learners are students who are unable to communicate fluently or learn effectively in English. ... “It’s our job to provide the language and the culture of the nation, which is English,” Noonan said. “Why screw up a good thing? This is working. This is working so well.” We agree. Californians should vote no on Prop. 58."^[24]

Background

Legislation trajectory

Proposition 58 was sponsored in the California State Legislature by State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-33) as Senate Bill 1174, or the Multilingual Education for a 21st Century Economy Act.
The bill passed through the legislature largely along party lines. In the House, all "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators and all but two "nay" votes came from Republican legislators. In the Senate, all "nay" votes came from Republican legislators while all but three "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators.^[25]

Proposition 227

Proposition 227 (the English Language in Public Schools Statute), also known as the English for the Children Act, was introduced by Ron Unz, a software entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, and Gloria Mata Tuchman, a teacher in Santa Ana, California. The statute called for changes to the approach used to teach "Limited English Proficient" (LEP) students in California public schools, requiring that special classes be taught predominantly in English and shortening the time that LEP students were in special classes before moving to regular classes.^[26]

Ron Unz senate run

Before drafting Proposition 227, Ron Unz ran for governor in California in 1994. In March 2016, Unz entered into the race for Senator Barbara Boxer's vacant seat as a Republican candidate, saying that the main reason for his candidacy was to raise awareness about SB 1174 and efforts to repeal Proposition 227. "After considering various options, I decided that becoming a statewide candidate myself was the probably the best means of effectively focusing public attention on this repeal effort and defeating it," Unz stated on his website.^[27]^[28]^[29]

Path to the ballot

[show]Local

See also: Laws governing legislative tampering in California

Senate Bill 1174 would repeal most of Proposition 227. Since Proposition 227 was approved in 1998, the California State Legislature must submit the change to voters.
The timeline for Senate Bill 1174 was:^[25]

February 20, 2014: Introduced into the California Legislature
April 30, 2014: The Senate Education Committee, in an eight to zero vote, recommended the bill's approval
May 23, 2014: The Senate Appropriations Committee, in a seven to zero vote, recommended the bill's approval
May 27, 2014: Approved by California Senate for the first time
June 26, 2014: The Assembly Education Committee, in a five to two vote, recommended the bill's approval
August 14, 2014: The Assembly Appropriations Committee, in a twelve to five vote, recommended the bill's approval
August 25, 2014: Approved by California State Assembly
August 26, 2014: Senate concurred with assembly's amendments
September 28, 2014: Gov. Brown (D) signed the legislation, thus placing Proposition 58 on the ballot

Assembly vote

August 25, 2014

California SB 1174 Assembly Vote
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	53	67.09%
No	26	32.91%

Senate vote

May 27, 2014

California SB 1174 Senate Vote
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	27	67.50%
No	8	20.00%

Verbatim fact check: Does an increase in the number of propositions on the ballot in California lead to more of those propositions being rejected by voters?

We examined the election results for statewide propositions on the ballot between 1912 and 2014 to determine if there is a simple correlation between the number of propositions on the ballot and the proportion of propositions that are rejected by voters. In elections with more than 13 propositions, the average number of propositions on the ballot per election during the period, voters rejected 44 percent of propositions. In elections with 13 or fewer statewide propositions on the ballot, 42 percent were rejected.
Read Ballotpedia's Verbatim fact check »

State profile

California's population in 2014 was 38,802,500.

California's population in 2014 was 38,802,500, according to the United States Census Bureau. This estimate represented a 4.2 percent increase from the bureau's 2010 estimate. The state's population per square mile was 239.1 in 2010, exceeding the national average of 87.4.
California experienced a 2 percent increase in total employment from 2011 to 2012, falling below the 2.2 percent increase at the national level during the same period.^[30]

Demographics

California exceeded the national average for residents who attained at least bachelor's degrees, according to data from 2009 to 2013. The United States Census Bureau found that 30.7 percent of California residents aged 25 years and older attained bachelor's degrees, compared to 28.8 percent at the national level.
The median household income in California was $61,094 between 2009 and 2013, compared to a $53,046 national median income. Census information showed a 16.8 percent poverty rate in California during the study period, compared to a 14.5 percent national poverty rate.^[30] To expand the boxes below, click [show] on the right side of each box.

[show] Racial Demographics, 2013^[30]

[show] Presidential Voting Pattern, 2000-2012^[31]^[32]

Note: Each column will add up to 100 percent after removing the "Hispanic or Latino" percentage, although rounding by the Census Bureau may make the total one- or two-tenths off. Read more about race and ethnicity in the Census here.^[33]

Recent news

This section displays the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 58 language 2016. This list of articles is automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.

California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education (2016) - Google News Feed

Related measures

Education measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Alabama	Alabama Auburn University Board of Trustees, Amendment 1
Alaska	Alaska State Government Debt for Postsecondary Student Loans, Ballot Measure 2
California	California Proposition 51, Public School Facility Bonds
Georgia	Georgia Authorization of the State Government to Intervene in Failing Local Schools, Amendment 1
Louisiana	Louisiana Authority of College Boards to Establish Tuition and Fees without Legislative Approval, Amendment 2
Maine	Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Authorization of Additional Charter Schools and Charter School Expansion, Question 2
Oklahoma	Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779
Oregon	Oregon Outdoor School Lottery Fund, Measure 99
Oregon	Oregon State Funding for Dropout Prevention and College Readiness, Measure 98
South Dakota	South Dakota Governing Technical Education Institutes Amendment

Additional reading

External links

Basic information

Support

Opposition

Keep English for the Children

Footnotes

Southern California Public Radio, "New bill seeks to ask voters to legalize bilingual education in California," February 21, 2014

California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016

Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

Yes on 58, "Homepafe," accessed September 15, 2016

California Legislature, "Senate Bill 1174," accessed August 28, 2014

Yes on 58, "Endorsements," accessed September 15, 2016

California Democratic Party, "2016 Ballot Initiatives," accessed September 15, 2016

Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016

Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016

‘’Santa Monica Daily Press’’, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016

California Legislature, "SB-1174 Bill Analysis," accessed November 12, 2014

Huffington Post, "Save CA Residents from a Language Drought: Vote ‘Yes’ This Fall," August 8, 2016

California Chamber of Commerce, "CalChamber Takes Position on Proposition 58; Recaps Positions on All Ballot Measures," September 15, 2016

Keep English for the Children, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016

‘’California Republican Party’’, “CAGOP Endorsements of Propositions on the California 2016 Ballot,” accessed September 12, 2016

Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016

Note: These totals may include in-kind donations as well as cash donations.

Note: This date is the most recent date on which Ballotpedia staff researched campaign finance data. The actual date through which this information is accurate depends on the campaign finance reporting requirements in this state.

California Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance: SB 1174 (CHAPTER 753, STATUTES OF 2014), LARA. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION," accessed September 14, 2016

Cal-Access, "YES ON 58, CALIFORNIANS FOR ENGLISH PROFICIENCY SPONSORED BY TEACHERS AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATIONS," accessed September 14, 2016

Cal-Access, "PROPOSITION 058 - SB 1174 (CHAPTER 753, STATUTES OF 2014), LARA. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION," accessed August 16, 2016

Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 58 would bring back bilingual education in California. And that's a good thing," September 7, 2016

The Press Democrat, "Thumbs up: Vote yes on Prop 58," September 2, 2016

The Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: Put California students first: Vote no on Prop. 58," September 8, 2016

California Legislature, "SB 1174 Complete Bill History," accessed March 3, 2014

League of Women Voters - Smart Voter, "Proposition 227 English Language In Public Schools.," accessed May 5, 2016

The Washington Times, "Republican Ron Unz joins race for Boxer’s US Senate seat," March 16, 2016

Education Week, "Ron Unz, Architect of California's Proposition 227, Running for U.S. Senate," April 20, 2016

The Unz Review, "My Last-Minute Decision to Enter the U.S. Senate Race in California," March 21, 2016

United States Census Bureau, "QuickFacts Beta," accessed March 24, 2015

California Secretary of State, "Statewide Election Results," accessed April 14, 2015

The American Presidency Project, "Presidential Elections Data," accessed March 24, 2015

United States Census Bureau, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed April 21, 2014

[show] v • e 2016 ballot measures

Curated by the Ballotpedia State Desk:
Jackie Beran • Ryan Byrne • Joshua Donovan • Jessica Dravecky • Scott Duryea • Rebecca Hellmich • Cindy Kehler • Wes Taliani • Samantha Waldroup
Editor: Jason Swadley • Project Director: Josh Altic • Project Director: Tyler King
Contact the desk

	[show] v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)

Categories:

1 comment:

ojo9:57 AM
http://trendebook.com/kizi-com-play-free-online-games-kizi-games/
Majority of games played today are played online. Kizi.com is an online gaming web platform where users can play games online without installing the game on his or her device.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Translate

Tx Trib Schools Explorer

Monday, September 19, 2016

Vote "YES" on California's Proposition 58: Let's bring back bilingual education in California

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

Overview

Proposition 227

How would English learning change?

Text of the measure

Ballot title

Ballot summary

Fiscal impact

Full text

Support

Supporters

Officials

Parties

Organizations

Unions

Schools

Individuals

Arguments

Official arguments

Opposition

Opponents

Parties

Individuals

Arguments

Official arguments

Official arguments

Campaign finance

Support

Opposition

Methodology

Media editorials

Support

Opposition

Background

Legislation trajectory

Proposition 227

Ron Unz senate run

Path to the ballot

Assembly vote

Senate vote

State profile

Demographics

Recent news

Related measures

See also

Additional reading

External links

Basic information

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

1 comment: