The Discursive Space around Proposition 227: A Case of Internal Colonialism?

Jeanne Sinclair July 8, 2013

The Discursive Space around Proposition 227:

A Case of Internal Colonialism?

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, it explores

the term “internal colonialism”, a theory used to explain social

inequality. Second, it analyzes academic research on the

discourse surrounding Proposition 227, the 1998 California

referendum that mandates English-only teaching in public schools.

The aim of this analysis is to determine if internal colonialism

is an appropriate theory to describe the current educational

situation of Spanish-speaking Latino students in California.

Internal Colonialism: Brief history of a term

In essence, the theory of internal colonialism “seeks to

explain the subordinate status of a racial or ethnic group in its

own homeland within the boundaries of a larger state dominated by

a different people” (Chávez, 2011, p. 786). This theory has been

applied to many ethnic groups in various countries over the past

century (Hicks, 2004, p. 3). Scholars first used the term in the

U.S. to analyze 1950s race relations and to describe the struggle


of African-Americans. The theory came to the zenith of its

popularity in the 1970s through the work of sociologist Robert

Blauner. Looking for an alternative to the theories that

explained inequality through only class stratification or race

stratification, Blauner developed the internal colonialism model

that incorporated both, with “[a]n emphasis on power and resource

inequalities across racial lines…” (Feagin & Feagin, p. 8).

Blauner applied his theory not just to African Americans, but to

Native Americans and Mexican-Americans as well.

Blauner’s theory identifies several processes that

characterize the colonial relationship. First, the dominant

society enters the colonized group’s land forcefully (e.g.,

through conquest, land theft, and enslavement). Second, the

colonized group is confined to low status labor. Third, the lives

of the colonized are managed and manipulated by the dominant

group. Fourth, their culture’s values, orientations, and ways of

life are transformed, constrained, or destroyed. Fifth, the

dominant group rationalizes their dominance, and exploits,

controls, and oppresses the colonized group (Blauner, 2001).

2


These processes, which characterize “classic colonialism”,

can be summed up as conquest, confinement, bureaucratic control,

depreciation of culture, and racism. The impacts are many: the

colonized people are forced to live in a society that is not

their own, their social mobility and political involvement are

oppressed, and their culture is depreciated to such an extent

that they experience anomie – the sense that they do not belong

anywhere. These effects together trap the colonized group into a

“caste-like situation” (Cashmore, 2003, p. 209) and brainwash the

group into believing that they are inferior.

Internal colonialism is the same as classic colonialism,

except for two important distinctions: first, the colonization

happens within a state’s borders, as opposed to outside of the

borders (Cashmore, 2003); second, the colonized group is a

minority and the colonizers a majority, as opposed to classic

colonialism in which the colonizers are the minority and the

colonized groups are the majority. Blauner also differentiates

between voluntary immigration (e.g., Europeans leaving their

homeland on their own volition to come to the United States) and

non-voluntary immigration (e.g., forced entry such as the African

3


slaves, and land theft such as that from Native Americans and the

Mexicans); he cautions that the internal colonial model should be

applied only to non-voluntary immigration (Cashmore, 2003).

Through the 1970s, the internal colonialism concept became

widely known and used among Chicano scholars as a “searing

critique of social science theories that rationalized Chicano

marginality as self-generated and rooted in cultural

deficiencies” (Gutierrez, 2004, p. 290). However, its popularity

waned in the late 1980s when Tomas Almaguer, who had been a

graduate student under Blauner, refuted the usefulness of the

concept (Almaguer, 1987), and by the 1990s the concept fell into

disuse. Some scholars assert that this occurred in part because

of the idea’s association with “the Chicano Movement’s implosion”

(Gutierrez, 2004, p. 291). Contemporary scholars have resurrected

the concept of internal colonialism, using it to describe diverse

situations of social stratification.

Proposition 227 through the lens of internal colonialism

Blauner and other scholars mention education as a tool for

social dominance. In 1975, British scholar Jennifer Hurstfield

4


elaborated on the how the colonized group would experience

education:

First, one would expect to find that all areas of education, including administration and teaching, were dominated by Anglos. Second, Blauner's model would suggest that the Anglos would impose strong limitations on any Chicano attempts to preserve linguistic and cultural autonomy, and that the Chicanos' language and culture would be depreciated within the schools to the advantage of the dominant White culture. Finally, to the extent that the schools are critical agencies of selection for the labor market, it is likely that they would employ methods of assessment which pointed Chicanos in the direction of low paid, unskilled jobs.

(Hurstfield, 1975, p. 138, italics added)

The remaining sections of this paper seek to explore the

scholarly discourse around Proposition 227 through the lens of

internal colonialism as described by Blauner and Hurstfield. The

analysis focuses on the three areas outlined above: first, the

depreciation of the Latino culture and Spanish language; second,

the use of assessments that lead to Latino failure; and third,

the prominence of non-Latino teachers and administrators.

Overview of Proposition 227

In 1998, California voters turned out to the polls to vote

on Proposition 227, which would make bilingual education illegal

5


in that state. This anti-bilingual campaign was spearheaded by

California businessman Ron Unz and his group, English for the

Children. The referendum passed by a 61%/39% margin, despite

decades of research on bilingual education that has shown that

English Language Learners (ELLs) in such programs perform as well

or better than those schooled in monolingual programs (e.g.

Baker, 2001). The proposition specifically mandates that ELLs are

instructed in a special (i.e., segregated) class, which is taught

all in English, and which is provided for no longer than one

year, after which the students must transition to mainstream

(English-only) classrooms. The law allows parents some rights,

for example, parents may request a waiver so that their child can

participate in bilingual programs.

This legislation has huge impact on California, which has

1.6 million ELLs (Coachella Valley USD et al. v. State of

California et al., 2009). As of 2008, 25% of all students in the

state are ELLs, and about 80% of public school teachers have ELLs

in their classrooms. However, as Gándara & Baca (2008) found,

most teachers are not adequately prepared to teach ELLs under the

“structured immersion” pedagogy. They earn on average less than

6


two hours of professional development related to teaching ELLs

per year.

Broader Framework of other anti-immigrant policies

There is evidence that Proposition 227 took place in the

broader context of other anti-immigrant policies in California.

In 1978 Californians passed Proposition 13, which changed the

system of property taxes, negatively affecting minorities. There

were other referenda, including “one making English the official

language… and another rejecting affirmative action in

governmental contracting and higher education” (Delgado, 2009, p.

1304). Beyond that, in 1994 California proposed prohibiting

illegal aliens from access to health care, public education, and

other social services. The courts declared those provisions

unconstitutional (California Proposition 187, 1994).

Navarro (2008) proposes that Proposition 227 is a

continuation of these previous referenda, which he calls “racist

propositions” (p. 138). He concludes that this is California’s

nativist reaction to becoming the first state with a majority-

minority population, with Latinos becoming the largest ethnic

7


group in the state (Delgado, 2009). These “legal obstacles” are

designed to hinder their educational and employment

opportunities, and is an expression of a xenophobic “colonial”

mentality (Navarro, 2008, p. 138). Without a quality education,

economic prospects are limited, and the colonized group will

maintain their low status.

Delgado (2009), a legal scholar, writes that California is

becoming a neocolonial state. Delgado’s use of “neocolonialism”

is very close to the meaning of “internal colonialism”, as

evidenced by his observations:

Once you realize this, you see signs of it everywhere….[T]hecolonizers use ideology, literature, and even religion to persuade the natives that they should be grateful to the invaders for bringing them science, knowledge, and enlightened administration. [The] occupying power…paints natives as simple and in need of the superior culture and science of the settling forces.

(Delgado, 2009, p.

1312)

Delgado’s analysis is especially useful in the interpretation of

the Unz’s campaign to pass Proposition 227, which is discussed in

the following section.

8


Depreciation of Language and Culture

To recap, there are three areas of internal colonialism

Hurstfield predicts will occur in the education of the minority

group: a depreciation of their language and culture, use of

assessments that drive them to low-skilled jobs, and a lack of

ethnic minority representation among faculty/administration.

This section focuses on the first: in Hurstfield’s words, “Anglos

would impose strong limitations on any Chicano attempts to

preserve linguistic and cultural autonomy, and that the Chicanos'

language and culture would be depreciated within the schools to

the advantage of the dominant White culture.”

The purpose of Proposition 227 was to eliminate the

instructional use of Spanish in the public schools, and the

campaign to pass it cleanly fits into the colonialism structure

as described by Hurstfield. Mai Yamagami (2012), a communications

scholar, used critical discourse analysis to deconstruct the

social representations used by Unz’s group in the campaign for

Proposition 227. She found that the English-only campaign relied

on legitimization (positive self-representation of English-only

9


instruction) and delegitimization (negative representation of the

“other”, i.e., of bilingual education). Unz and the English-only

campaign used propaganda tools to portray minorities as “needing”

the dominant group’s help to improve themselves; in other words,

that minority-language speakers have “the right to be taught

English” (Yamagami, 2012, p. 154).

The tactic was especially subversive because one of the main

goals of bilingual education is that students learn English; Unz

manipulated the public’s understanding of “bilingual education”

to believe that the learning of English is not a goal. Proponents

of English-only learned an important lesson: “they could

represent assimilationist policies as a non-racist, pro-immigrant

position” (Yamagami, 2012, p. 154). The California law contains

language that not only mispresents what its target group wants,

but also misleads that English-only instruction is the only way

to achieve English proficiency: “[i]mmigrant parents are eager to

have their children acquire a good knowledge of English, thereby

allowing them to fully participate in the American Dream of

economic and social advancement” (English Language Education for

Immigrant Children, Section 300).

10


Using “multiple, manipulative, and misleading redefinitions

of the concept of bilingual education” (Yamagami, 2012, p. 148)

Unz claimed that bilingual education had failed. This language is

actually written into the California education code:

The public schools of California currently do a poor job of educating immigrant children, wasting financial resources oncostly experimental language programs whose failure over thepast two decades is demonstrated by the current high drop-out rates and low English literacy levels of many immigrant children.

(English Language Education for Immigrant Children, Sec. 300)

This anti-bilingual argument is not valid because before

Proposition 227 passed, only 29% of ELLs in California were

enrolled in bilingual programs. Therefore, if ELLs state-wide

were performing poorly, bilingual instruction could not be to

blame, since the majority of ELLs were not even being instructed

in their primary language (Gándara & Baca, 2008, p. 203;

Yamagami, 2012, p. 149). This is also a prime example of data

manipulation, because research shows that bilingual education is

one of the most cost-effective programs for ELLs (Gándara & Baca,

2008, p. 203).

11


Another theme Yamagami found in the English-only campaign

was that “English is the language of power and success” (p. 154).

The campaign publicized the idea that other languages are not as

valuable as English. In other words, if a student does not speak

English, she cannot be a “productive member of society.” These

opinions are codified in the California law, and once again

insinuate that other programs do not hold English proficiency as

a goal:

The English language is … the leading world language for science, technology, and international business, thereby being the language of economic opportunity…Schools have a moral obligation … to provide all of California's children, regardless of their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills necessary to become productive members of our society.

(English Education for Immigrant Children, Section 300)

These themes, and the techniques used to propagate them,

illustrate that “the history of racist and nativist opposition to

bilingual education is concealed by the ‘good will’ rhetoric and

rationale of the campaign…” (Bondy, 2011, p. 395). From the

perspective of internal colonialism, the rationale for the

English-only campaign is multifold – as described above, students

12


and the public are led to believe that languages besides English

are not valuable; Spanish-speaking students are deficient and

need to be “saved” by English; the colonizers maintain their

“assumption of rightness” because they are in power to do so.

Beyond these, there are tragic consequences for families, which

further isolate young minorities and create a sense of anomie.

Delgado writes that they English-only policies degrade Latino

families:

Reducing the ability of … Latino immigrant kids to speak Spanish creates a divide between generations, in which the young cannot communicate with their elders….A sensitive Latino child who does not speak Spanish has no defense against this vast cultural brainwash. Language represents continuity, struggle, and ultimately, self- preservation.

(Delgado, 2007, p. 1736)

Assessments Lead to Failing

Hurstfield’s second hypothesis for colonialism in education

is that testing of the colonized group leads to “low level of

school achievement” (p. 144). Proposition 227, in tandem with No

Child Left Behind (NCLB), the 2001 federal education act, created

a “perfect storm” for minority language speakers in California

(Gándara & Baca, 2008). NCLB required that all students be

tested annually, ostensibly “to provide information about their

13


needs so that schools can address those needs and raise their

achievement to at least adequate levels” (p. 213). However, in

reality, the testing has served to stigmatize minority groups and

the schools they attend because failing test scores can results

in school closure or sanction.

Beyond the new testing mandates, NCLB removed all references

to bilingual education from the federal education code. However,

it did retain language recommending that ELLs test in their

primary language, incorporating to the “extent practicable

assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on

what students know and can do in academic content areas” (NCLB,

2002, italics added). The intent here seems to be clear: assess

in the language that will provide the most reliable and valid

data. However, although Proposition 227 did not mandate language

of assessment be in English, the State Board of Education in

California interpreted the Act to also mandate that all tests be

given in English:

They were at the center of the perfect storm: a State Board of Education that not only supported the letter of the law in Proposition 227, but chose to go well beyond it, and the testing requirements of NCLB that forced the state to assess

14


all students, and provided no relief for students who did not understand the language of the tests.”

(Gándara & Baca, 2008, p. 210)

If the federal policy requires annual testing, and the state

policy requires that it be in English, then ELLs, who by

definition are not proficient in English, are forced to test in a

language that they don’t understand, making it “impossible for

these students to achieve mastery on tests in English only”

(Gándara & Baca, 2008, p. 209). This leaves California school

districts in a Catch-22: if they do test ELLs in English, and the

students fail, then the school can be sanctioned; if they don’t

test the ELLs in English, and instead test them in their primary

language, the school can be sanctioned. This “toxic environment

for ELLs” (p. 202) is evidence that supports the colonial

hypothesis, because the dominant group is manipulating the

colonized group and rationalizing those actions through complex

laws and bureaucracy.

Several California school districts came together to attempt

to find legal remedy to this paradoxical situation. In Coachella

Valley Unified School District et al. v. State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger et al.,

15


the school districts argued that the state policies were actually

impeding their abilities to comply with NCLB’s requirement that

schools assess ELLs in a “valid and reliable manner.” The school

districts asked the courts to intervene with the State Board of

Education to change the English-only testing policy and allow

ELLs equal educational opportunities.

The court upheld the State’s ban on primary language testing

(Coachella Valley USD et al. v. State of California et al.,

2009), arguing that such testing could send “conflicting signals

throughout the education system.” The judge added that because

there are so many primary languages spoken by ELLs in California

that “that it would not be feasible to develop primary language

tests in so many languages.” This decision harkens back to Unz’s

own propaganda technique: the simple message is, don’t

acknowledge cultural differences and treat students “fairly” by

treating them all the same. In contrast, current research on

pedagogy shows that effective teaching for diverse populations

hinges on being culturally aware and celebrating students’ unique

cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

16


Although the judicial system is part of the governmental

system of checks and balances, the opinion cites separation of

powers: it claims that the school districts want a “battle of

experts and the like” which would relegate the court to be the

“official second-guesser” of the State Board of Education (p.

21). Despite this rhetoric, there is precedence for the courts to

“interject” itself into the educational system, as it has in many

cases involving civil rights claims for equal educational

opportunities, especially related to language discrimination

(e.g., see Lau v. Nichols, 1974; Castaneda v. Pickard, 1981;

Plyer v. Doe, 1982). However, in this case the court claimed it

could not intervene because, under NCLB the “quasi-legislative”

State Board had broad discretion in coming up with a plan to

assess ELLs in a way that is valid and reliable, and the Board

had not acted in an “arbitrary and capricious manner”.

The opinion emphasizes that the playing field is level for

ELLs because they can test with accommodations. The accommodation

options for ELLs in California include being tested in a separate

room, taking breaks between sections of a test, to be provided

17


extra time, and the use of glossaries (Gándara & Baca, 2008).

However, research shows only 3% of all students actually use

these accommodations, and schools are not even required to offer

them to ELLs. There is little research to show that this set of

accommodations is even successful in improving student

achievement (Gándara & Baca, 2008, p. 208).

Hurstfield also predicts that the dominant group’s testing

regime will ostracize ELLs so they end up in lower-paying jobs.

This is also a successful prediction: in 2010, 84% of white

students graduated from California high schools, while only 57%

of ELLs did (California Department of Education, 2012). To

graduate high school in California, even if all the coursework is

already complete, students must pass two final tests: English and

math. In 2006, 98.6% of white students passed the “English”

test, while only 81.2% of ELLs did (California Department of

Education, 2006); those who can afford the expense can be tutored

for another two years to pass and graduate (Gándara & Baca, 2008,

p. 207). Without a high school degree, college is not an option,

18


and therefore these minority-language speakers are not eligible

for the better-paying jobs for college graduates.

Schools & Teaches dominated by Anglos

Hurstfield’s hypothesis predicts that the teaching

profession in California will be dominated by non-Hispanic

whites. Statistics from the California Department of Education

show that this is indeed true: 70% of public school teachers are

white, and 16% are Hispanic (Teacher Demographics, 2008). The

numbers are similar for the teachers who work with ELL

populations (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly & Driscoll, 2005, p. 24). The

percentage of white administrators is similarly proportioned,

with 67% white administrators and 18% Hispanic administrators

(Ethnic Distribution of School Administrators in California,

2008-2009). The effect these demographics have on Spanish-

speaking Latinos is that students do not see cultural

representations of themselves in the positions of power; in turn,

they don’t see themselves as powerful. Minority students can also

feel rejected from the school system as a whole.

Huber (2011) performed a critical race theory analysis of

testimonios of Latinas who had been educated in California. She

19


found that the teachers’ perceptions of racial differences

“reinforce white/English hegemony in schools” and exclude

minorities from the “monolithic ‘American’ identity” (p. 382).

Her research found that these women were victims of racial

microagressions: “systemic, everyday forms of racist nativism

that are subtle, layered, and cumulative verbal and non-verbal

assaults directed toward People of Color” (p. 380). Supporting

the internal colonialism theory, Huber argues that these

practices “continue a colonial legacy of social, political, and

economic domination over this group” (p. 385).

Teacher agency: a tool for resistance

It was over a decade ago that English for the Children

successfully led the campaign to stop bilingual education in

California. Research on academic achievement in California since

then does not support the claim that English-only education is

superior pedagogy for ELLs. (August, Goldenberg, & Rueda, 2010 in

Yamagami, 2012, p. 157; Olsen, 2009). Language-minority students

need teachers and other informed advocates to continue educating

the public about the benefits of bilingual education.

20


Indeed, there are still communities fighting for their

language rights; (Farruggio, 2010) writes about California Latino

immigrants who demonstrated “antiassimilationist agency” by

fostering L1 at home and in their community (p. 304). Even within

the framework of NCLB, educators can still “explore the space”

that is still open for bilingual education; teachers can

“appropriate language policy while engaging in their own language

policy creation” (Johnson, 2010, p. 61). In essence, teachers are

the people actually face-to-face working with ELLs on daily

basis, complying with the federal and state requirements, and

navigating what space exists within those policies to educate

ELLs with best teaching practices.

Resisting Proposition 227 is nothing less than resisting

cultural assimilation and upholding human rights (Faruggio,

2010). The stakes are high for ELLs – a student’s entire life is

affected by these language policy decisions; the situation in

California “violates principles of social justice” (Gándara &

Baca, 2008, p. 214). Therefore, Olsen (2009) argues, advocates

must shift the paradigm by which bilingual education is viewed,

from one of remediation to one that promotes “the value of

21


diversity and an affirmative, additive vision” (p. 845), and

bilingual advocates should take note of Unz’s effective

techniques so they can incorporate “communication strategies in

their arsenal of advocacy toolkits” (p. 846).

Conclusion

Bondy (2011) positions Proposition 227 as a tool of social

hierarchy: institutions divide people in groups by comparing,

differentiating, hierarchizing, homogenizing, and excluding (p.

392). She writes,

The whole indefinite domain of non-conforming is punishable…. U.S. public schools have perpetually used English-only curriculum and pedagogy to produce and reify what it means to be an ‘American’….This process, although inname is to homogenize schools, is actually to “accentuate their differences and marginalize them.”

(Bondy, 2011, p. 392)

This hierarchy, a key element of the colonial relationship, seeks

to maintain minorities in a voiceless lower class, which in turn

the colonizing group exploits through the labor market.

Two of the hypotheses Hurstfield sets forth – the

eradication of language and culture, and the use of assessments

that cause minorities to fail – are direct effects of Proposition

22


227. The third hypothesis, that the overwhelming majority of

educators teaching minority students are white, is not

necessarily directly connected to Proposition 227; however, it is

the situation in California currently, and Proposition 227 did

nothing to alter it. The state of ELL education in California is

an example of colonialism, the remedy for which requires new

advocacy efforts on behalf of informed educators.

23


REFERENCES

Almaguer, T. (1987). Ideological Distortions in Recent Chicano Historiography: The Internal Model and Chicano Historical Interpretation. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 18(1), 7-28.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters/Channel View Books.

Bent, Scott J. (2012). If You Want to Speak Spanish, Go Back to Mexico: A First Amendment Analysis of English-Only Rules in Public Schools. Ohio St. LJ, 73, 343.

Blauner, Bob. (2001). Still the big news: Racial oppression in America: TempleUniversity Press.

Bondy, Jennifer M. (2011). Normalizing English language learner students: a Foucauldian analysis of opposition to bilingual education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(3), 387-398. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2010.543392

California Department of Education. (2012). “State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Reports Climb in Graduation Rates for California Students.” Accessed July 8, 2013 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr12/yr12rel65.asp

California Proposition 187 (1994). (2013, June 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:27, July 8, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Proposition_187_(1994)&oldid=561577551

Cashmore, E. (Ed.). (2003). Internal Colonialism. Encyclopedia of race and ethnic studies. Routledge.

English Language Education for Immigrant Children. Chapter 3 of California Education Code. Sections 300-340. Accessed on July 1, 2013 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/edc_table_of_contents.html

Chávez, John R. (2011). Aliens in Their Native Lands: The Persistence of Internal Colonial Theory. Journal of World History, 22(4), 785-809.

Coachella Valley USD et al. v. State of California et al., No. Case No. 505334 (San Francisco Superior Court 2009).

24


Delgado, Richard. (2007). Rodrigo's Corrido: Race, Postcolonial Theory, and US Civil Rights. Vand. L. Rev., 60, 1689.

Delgado, Richard. (2009). Rodrigo's portent: California and the coming neocolonial order. Wash. UL Rev., 87, 1293.

Ethnic Distribution of School Administrators in California, 2008-09. California Department of Education (CDE) (DataQuest), 11/5/09EdSource. Accessed July 7, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/data_resourcecards10_Admin.html

Feagin, Joe R. & Feagin, Clairece Booher. “Racial and Ethnic Relations in Theoretical Perspective”. Accessed July 3, 2013from http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc34/Soc34readings/race%20theories.pdf.

Farruggio, Peter. (2010). Latino Parent Agency Within the Restrictionist Language Policy Environment of California's Proposition 227. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(3), 292-306. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2010.525689

Gándara, Patricia, & Baca, Gabriel. (2008). NCLB and California’sEnglish language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201-216. doi: 10.1007/s10993-008-9097-4

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs.

Gershon, Sarah Allen, & Pantoja, Adrian D. (2011). Patriotism andlanguage loyalties: comparing Latino and Anglo attitudes toward English-Only legislation. Ethnic and Racial ???

Gutiérrez, R. A. (2004). INTERNAL COLONIALISM. Du Bois Review, 1(2),281-295.

Hurstfield, Jennifer. (1975). The Educational Experiences of Mexican Americans:‘Cultural Pluralism’or ‘Internal Colonialism'? Oxford Review of Education, 1(2), 137-149.

Johnson, David Cassels. (2010). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 61-79. doi: 10.1080/13670050902780706

25


Navarro, Armando. (2008). The immigration crisis: Nativism, armed vigilantism, and the rise of a countervailing movement: Rowman Altamira.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).Olsen, Laurie. (2009). The role of advocacy in shaping immigrant

education: A California case study. The Teachers College Record, 111(3), 817-850.

Teacher Demographics. (2009). 2009 Resource Cards on California Schools. EdSource. Data from California Department of Education (CDE), 12/08. Accessed on July 6, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/ResourceCards09_sample.pdf.

Yamagami, Mai. (2012). The Political Discourse of the Campaign Against Bilingual Education: FromProposition 227toHorne v. Flores. International Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 143-159. doi:10.1080/19313152.2011.651524

26

The Discursive Space around Proposition 227: A Case of Internal Colonialism?

Documents

Transcript of The Discursive Space around Proposition 227: A Case of Internal Colonialism?