McLaughlin v. State Board of Education

Opinion

RUVOLO, J.

I.

Introduction

In the Primary Election held in June 1998, the voters of California passed Proposition 227, the “English Language in Public Schools” initiative statute, creating a new chapter in California’s Education Code

1

(the Chapter). The enacted statutory scheme requires children in California’s public schools who are of “Limited English Proficiency” (LEP) to be taught only in English, subject to the right of the parents of each affected child to seek a waiver from the requirement of English-only instruction. We are asked to decide solely

2

whether the Chapter is subject to the waiver provision of Education Code

3

section 33050, which generally allows local school districts to apply to the State Board of Education (State Board) for waivers from program requirements of the Education Code not enumerated in that section.

4

The parties and amici curiae

5

agree that Proposition 227 is silent as to section 33050.

We conclude that the plain meaning of Proposition 227 was to guarantee that LEP students would receive educational instruction in the English language, and that English immersion programs would be provided to facilitate their transition into English-only classes. Proposition 227 also vests parents of LEP students with the

sole

right to seek a waiver from the Chapter’s provision requiring English-only instruction for their own children. The Chapter’s language permits no other means by which the program

[202]

requirements may be waived, and in fact, allows for civil action against school districts, educators, and administrators who fail or refuse to provide English-only instruction (§ 320). To the extent there is any ambiguity as to the intent of Proposition 227, the legislative history clarifies that the Chapter was designed to wrest from school boards and administrators decisionmaking authority for selecting between LEP educational options, and repose this power exclusively in parents of LEP students. Thus, the Chapter is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with section 33050. In the face of such a “ ‘ “positive repugnancy” ’ ”