Articles listed here are not necessarily endorsed by the CMMR; they are
listed for informational purposes only. If you would like to submit an item
for inclusion on this page please write our webmaster. To suggest a site to be
added to this web site please visit our "Submit a Site" page.
SAN FRANCISCO, September 28 -- A state appeals court tightened California's voter
approved ban on bilingual education Monday, ruling that only parents, not entire school
districts, can ask for exemptions from the law. Proposition 227, which passed with 61%
support and took effect last year, requires students to be taught "overwhelmingly" in
English. But it allows parents and students to seek waivers that would allow them to remain
in bilingual classes and learn some subjects in their native language if their teachers and
schools approve. To qualify, the students must be older than 10 or have special needs. In a
lawsuit by the Oakland, Berkeley and Hayward districts, Alameda County Judge Henry
Needham ruled last year that the state board must consider districtwide requests for
Proposition 227 waivers. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson said the decision could "eviscerate" the
law. The 1st District Court of Appeal disagreed with Needham, ruling 3-0 on Monday that
the intent of Proposition 227 was "that English instruction will be provided in all cases
except those where parental waivers are made." A long-standing California law allows the
state Board of Education to waive virtually any statewide educational law at a district's
request. But the appeals court said the proposition could not be reconciled with such
waivers. (Los Angeles Times)
LOS ANGELES, September 15 -- The California Teachers Association has lost a federal court
lawsuit challenging a provision of Proposition 227, the voter-approved initiative requiring
students be taught in English. U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie's ruling leaves standing
the right of parents and guardians to sue a teacher individually, if the teacher "willfully and
repeatedly" violates Proposition 227. Rafeedie's decision rejected the CTA contentions that
the lawsuit provision is vague, and that constitutional rights to free speech and due process
would be violated by such lawsuits. "We think the judge has misunderstood the law,"
Tommye Hutto, a spokeswoman for the CTA legal department, said Wednesday. An appeal was
likely, she said. (Sacramento Bee)
