SACRAMENTO BEE

December 22, 1999

Court won't let districts keep bilingual programs

By BOB EGELKO Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The state Supreme Court refused Tuesday to consider letting entire school districts keep bilingual education programs that were spurned by state voters last year.

The justices unanimously denied review of an appellate ruling in favor of the state Board of Education, which had refused to consider school districts' requests for waivers from Proposition 227.

The appellate court said such waivers would undermine the ballot measure, which was intended to dismantle bilingual programs. The ruling is binding on trial courts statewide and can be overridden only by another appellate court, if a new case arises.

Proposition 227, approved by 61 percent of the voters in June 1998, required all students to be taught "overwhelmingly" in English.

The initiative allows parents and students to seek waivers allowing them to remain in bilingual classes and learn English and other subjects in their native language. The waivers are subject to approval by their teachers and schools and are available only if a child is over 10 or has "special needs."

The measure did not mention a long-standing state law, designed to preserve local control of schools, that allows the state Board of Education to waive virtually any statewide educational law at a district's request. The board must grant a waiver if the district's programs are meeting its students' needs.

Citing that law, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Henry Needham ruled in August 1998 that the state board must consider requests by the Oakland, Berkeley and Hayward districts to waive Proposition 227 and leave bilingual programs in place. The board contended it has no authority to consider such waivers.

The 1st District Court of Appeal overruled Needham two months ago, saying Proposition 227 was intended to require English-only instruction unless parents sought waivers.

"Parents favoring English instruction for their children are assured by law that it will be provided without the need to lobby school boards or form parent groups," said Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in the 3-0 appellate ruling.

"It is only when a parent decides that English-only instruction is not appropriate for his or her child that an individual waiver need be sought."

The ruling was appealed by the Berkeley and Hayward districts. Laura Schulkind, a lawyer for the districts, argued in court papers that the justices should follow the literal language of Proposition 227, which contains no exemption from the law allowing district wide waivers.

Voters who pass initiatives are presumed to be aware of existing laws, she said. But Deputy Attorney General Paul Reynaga, representing the state board, said the intent of Proposition 227 was clear from ballot arguments and would be thwarted if entire districts were exempted.

The case is McLaughlin vs. State Board of Education, S083407.