When it was approved by voters in 1998, Proposition 227 effectively ended bilingual education in the state of California. Before the passage of this proposition, I taught my students English, while at the same time providing instruction in the core content areas (mathematics, social studies and science) in my students’ native language–Spanish. Currently, I teach what is called a "Model B" class, in which I am expected to instruct my students in English, while providing any support that they might need in Spanish. Although I do my best to meet the language needs of my students within the parameters of the Model B program, I have become convinced that this program has resulted in my students receiving an unequal education. Indeed, bilingual education was first established on the grounds that a student cannot receive an equal education, if she does not understand the language of instruction.

In addition to limiting educational access, Proposition 227 also represents an attack on students’ language rights. The Model B program teaches my students that Spanish only has value insofar as it serves to help them learn English. My students are encouraged to "transition" out of Spanish and into the language that is valued by the dominant culture in society. Whereas, before 227, Spanish was recognized as a meaningful, valuable and legitimate means of expression, it has since been relegated- both implicitly and explicitly- to a substandard and subordinate status on our campus.

While the passage of Proposition 227 has resulted in an unequal education for English Language Learners, the use of the Stanford 9 to measure student achievement has served to perpetuate these inequalities. In an attempt to appear "serious" about educational reform, Governor Gray Davis has focused his efforts on holding students accountable. The cornerstone of his accountability program is the Academic Performance Index (API), which ranks schools based on their Stanford 9 scores. Unfortunately, the content of the Stanford 9 has been shown to be culturally biased, as it draws from the experiences of predominantly white, middle-class students. Moreover, the exam is administered in an unequal educational context, since schools in wealthier areas often have more resources and better-qualified teachers than do schools in low-income areas. In addition, the Stanford 9 is a norm-referenced exam, which means that half of all students tested will always score at or below the 50th percentile. It should come as no surprise, then, that the students who score below the 50th percentile are students, such as mine, who speak little or no English.

Having been stripped of their home language, my students are now expected to take a norm-referenced, standardized exam, which, in addition to being inherently biased, is administered in a language that they do not understand. Obviously, the Stanford 9 does not provide me with an accurate indication of my students’ progress in the various subject areas. The only thing that it does show me is that which I already know – that my students are Limited English Proficient. Under the API scheme, the results of this unfair and inaccurate assessment are used to determine the allocation of funds to schools, thereby punishing those students who are already at a disadvantage. English Language Learners and other students of color who attend schools in low-income communities will undoubtedly suffer, as their schools fail, in disproportionate numbers, to improve their test scores.

Because the Stanford 9 is being used as the sole measure of student achievement, teachers have consequently been under a great deal of pressure to "teach to the test." Indeed, this emphasis on test-readiness has been driving curriculum within Los Angeles Unified. The most recent example of this is the District’s implementation of the Open Court reading program. In a nutshell, Open Court is a scripted reading program that ignores the instructional needs of English Language Learners and teaches reading skills in isolation, detached from meaningful texts and students’ lived experiences. Some elements of the program are effective and could conceivably be incorporated into a balanced literacy program for English Language Learners. Unfortunately, most teachers in Los Angeles Unified (myself included) are not being given the discretion to decide how best to teach their students. Rather than being able to pick and choose components that work for their students, "low-performing" schools are being forced to rigidly implement the entire Open Court program, while schools with high test scores are allowed to continue providing their students with rich, varied and meaningful learning experiences. Needless to say, this policy is serving to perpetuate existing educational inequalities.

Proposition 227, the Stanford 9 and Open Court represent three strikes against English Language Learners. With each successive strike, the educational inequalities between English Language Learners and their English-speaking counterparts have increased. Proposition 227 condemned my students to an unequal education, while the Stanford 9 and Open Court have worked together to perpetuate that inequality. It is clear that policymakers at the state and district levels are more concerned with implementing accountability programs than they are with working to ensure educational justice. Critical educators must, therefore, step up and take a stand. In defense of educational justice and sound pedagogy, we must begin to engage in forms of individual and collective resistance. If we truly seek to empower our students, we must begin to challenge the educational policies that serve only to harm them.

Ramon Martinez is a member of the Coalition for Educational Justice (CEJ), a group of parents,students and teachers working to transform public schools in Los Angeles. For more information about CEJ, Ramon can be contacted at (213)389-3418 or czechano@yahoo.com.