The Education Reform Act: How SB 370 Sought to Require Bilingual Teaching Methods

In the early 2000s, the California English language learner student who was in a public school classroom was, in most cases, a student who, in the words of the education advocates, was the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the school districts to use the bilingual and the multicultural teaching methods. The student was, in most cases, a student who could not learn effectively in the English-only classroom. The student was, in most cases, a student who did not have the time to wait for the bilingual teaching methods. The student was, in plain language, being underserved by the public education framework. The underservice was, in the early 2000s, a documented barrier. The barrier was, in the words of the education advocates, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the school districts to use the bilingual teaching methods. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his last term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the education framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 370, the Education Reform Act, and it was, by any measure, the most ambitious California English language learner framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the English language learner community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

The Law

Senate Bill 370, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 2001 to 2002 Regular Session, sought to reform the California public education framework for the English language learner students. The bill would have been codified in the Education Code, in the chapter governing English language learner programs. The operative provisions would have required the school districts to use the bilingual and the multicultural teaching methods for the English language learner students, and would have required the school districts to publish the English language learner program data annually. The bill was VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the English language learner community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California English Language Learner framework that came in the 2000s.

The California English language learner student in a public school classroom was, in 2002, in most cases, a student being underserved by the public education framework. The student was, in the words of the education advocates, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the school districts to use the bilingual teaching methods. SB 370 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the most ambitious California English language learner framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Davis in September 2002.

The Problem

By 2001, the underservice of the English language learner students in the California public schools was, by any measure, a problem. The California Department of Education, in its 2000 report, had documented that the English language learner students were, in the aggregate, more than 1.4 million students, and that the students were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the school districts to use the bilingual teaching methods. The 1.4 million figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of students. The report recommended that the state reform the education framework, and that the reform include the bilingual teaching methods. The reform had not, by 2001, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 370, an Education Reform Act. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the school districts to implement. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the school districts to use the bilingual and the multicultural teaching methods. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the school districts to publish the English language learner program data. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the English language learner students required a statutory education reform. The statutory education reform was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the students to be able to learn effectively. The second idea was that the reform required the bilingual teaching methods. The bilingual teaching methods were, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the students to be able to access the curriculum. The third idea was that the methods required the publication. The publication was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the education framework to be transparent.

The Fight

The fight over SB 370 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 2001 to 2002, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the school districts. The districts argued that the bill would impose new bilingual teaching requirements. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new bilingual teaching requirements were, in fact, the kind of requirements that the districts should have been implementing all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for the requirements to be phased in over a three-year period. The second layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would impose new costs on the school districts. The veto was the outcome of the disagreement. The Senate passed the bill in May 2002. The Assembly passed the bill in August 2002. Governor Davis VETOED the bill in September 2002. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the English language learner community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 2001 to 2002, in his last term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the school districts. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the bill as part of the larger English language learner advocacy that he had led. The advocacy was, in his view, the foundation of the California English Language Learner framework that came in the 2000s. The framework was, in the 2000s, the foundation of the state English language learner framework.

What Changed

SB 370 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The English language learner students did not, in 2002, receive the bilingual teaching methods that the bill would have required. The school districts did not, in 2002, implement the bilingual teaching methods. The English language learner community did, however, continue to advocate for the reform. The advocacy has, since 2002, been the foundation of the state-level English language learner framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California English Language Learner framework that came in the 2000s. The framework has, since 2000, provided the bilingual teaching methods to more than 1.4 million English language learner students in California.

The Legacy

SB 370 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The Education Reform Act was not enacted. The English language learner students did not, in 2002, receive the bilingual teaching methods that the bill would have required. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the policy disagreement with the bill. The disagreement was, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of an education framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California English Language Learner framework that came in the 2000s. The legacy of SB 370 is the long-term advocacy for the reform, which has continued since 2002. The Education Reform Act is the cleanest record of the early 2000s California English language learner framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the reform that culminated in the California English Language Learner framework.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 370, 2001 to 2002 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 370, May 2002.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 370, August 2002.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 370, September 2002.
5. California Department of Education, English Language Learner Statistics, 2000.
6. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.