California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed In Public Education (2016)

California Proposition 58
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Education and English language
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

2016 measures
June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act (Senate Bill 1174), also known as Proposition 58, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California ballot as a legislatively referred state statute.^[1] It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported repealing most of the 1998 Proposition 227, the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, thus effectively allowing non-English languages to be used in public educational instruction.

A "no" vote opposed repealing most of Proposition 227, which was designed to prohibit non-English languages from being used in public schools.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33) developed Proposition 58 as Senate Bill 1174.

Election results[edit]

Proposition 58
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		9,994,454	73.52%
No		3,598,855	26.48%

Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview[edit]

English learning in California schools[edit]

Proposition 58 repealed the English-only immersion requirement and waiver provisions required by Proposition 227 of 1998. In English-only programs, students learn subjects from teachers who speak only in English. Proposition 227 required English learners to take one year of intensive English instruction before transitioning to English-only classes. ^[2]

As a legislative referral, Proposition 58 was voted on in the California Legislature. In the General Assembly, 53 legislators voted to place the measure on the ballot and 26 voted against doing so. In the Senate, 27 senators voted in support of the measure and eight voted against it.

Initiative design[edit]

Proposition 58 no longer required English-only education for English learners. It allowed schools to utilize multiple programs, including bilingual education. In bilingual programs, students learn from teachers who speak both their native language and English. Furthermore, it made parental waivers no longer necessary to take non-English-only classes. If requested by enough parents, the measure requires schools to offer specific English learner programs. Under the measure, school districts and county offices of education must ask for annual feedback on English learner programs from parents and community members.^[2]

State of the ballot measure campaigns[edit]

Yes on 58 raised $4.95 million, with $1.7 million from the California Teachers Association/Issues PAC. The opposition did not form a political action committee to receive contributions. Groups including the California Democratic Party, California Chamber of Commerce, and SEIU California supported Proposition 58. The California Republican Party opposed the measure. Prior to the election, polls indicated that around 64 percent of voters supported Proposition 58.

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was as follows:^[2]

“

SB 1174 (Chapter 753, Statutes of 2014), Lara. English language education.[3]

”

Ballot summary[edit]

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:^[2]

“

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students become proficient in English. Requires school districts to solicit parent and community input in developing language acquisition programs to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Requires that school districts provide students with limited English proficiency the option to be taught English nearly all in English. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Allows parents/legal guardians of students to select an available language acquisition program that best suits their child.[3]

”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:^[2]

“

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.[3]

”

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 58 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact[edit]

The fiscal impact statement for this initiative was:^[2]

“

No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.[3]

”

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

Full text[edit]

The full text of the initiative measure is available here.

Support[edit]

Yes on 58, also known as Californians for English Proficiency, led the campaign in support of Proposition 58.^[4]

Supporters[edit]

Officials[edit]

Proposition 58 was sponsored by the following officials in the legislature:^[5]

Other officials who supported the measure included:

Parties[edit]

• California Democratic Party^[7]
• Green Party of California^[8]
• California Peace and Freedom Party^[9]
• Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club^[10]
• Santa Monica Democratic Club^[11]

Organizations[edit]

Advancement Project[12] Alliance for a Better California[6] AltaMed Action Fund State PAC American Anthropological Association[13] Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Los Angeles Association of Mexican American Educators Asian Business Association Asian Americans for Community Involvement Asian Law Alliance Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Association of California Administrators Association of Two-Way Dual Immersion Education California Association for Bilingual Education California Association of Latino School Administrators California Association of School Administrators California Chamber of Commerce[14] California Environmental Justice Alliance Action[15] California Faculty Association California Immigrant Policy Center California Language Teachers Association California Latino Caucus California Latino School Boards Association California Linguistic Anthropology Association California Medical Association California School Boards Association California State Parent Teachers Association Californians Together Campaign for College Opportunity Children NOW Chinese American Council of Sacramento Chinese for Affirmative Action Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership Council on Teacher Education Early Edge California Echo Park Neighborhood Council EdTrust West Families to Schools Inner City Struggle Korean Resource Center La Raza Roundtable de California League of California Cities Asian Pacific Islander Caucus League of Women Voters of California Lingual Learning Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Compact Los Angeles County Office of Education Luna Press Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce National Association of Social Workers Our Revolution[16] Parent Institute for Quality Education – PIQE Public Advocates Regional Chamber of Commerce-San Gabriel Valley San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Sierra Club, California Silicon Valley Leadership Group Society for Linguistic Anthropology

Unions[edit]

Schools[edit]

Individuals[edit]

• Margaret Grogan, Dean, College of Educational Studies, Chapman University^[6]
• Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco
• Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones^[18]

Arguments[edit]

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 58:^[2]

• The proposition would allow all students to become proficient in English as soon as possible.
• The proposition would encourage schools to use instruction programs rather than expand multilingual education, thereby providing English speakers the opportunity to learn a second language.
• The proposition would restore local control for California schools.
• The proposition's changes would prepare students more effectively for the future.
• Multilingual education encourages "intercultural interactions and empathy."^[13]

Official arguments[edit]

The following argument in support of Proposition 58 was provided in the official voters guide:^[2]

PROPOSITION 58 ENSURES ALL STUDENTS CAN ACHIEVE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Too many California students are being left behind and not given the opportunity to learn English with the most effective teaching methods possible. This is because of an outdated nearly 20-year-old law, Proposition 227, which restricts the instructional methods school districts can use to teach English. Proposition 58 revises Proposition 227 to remove these restrictions so schools are able to use the most up-to-date teaching methods possible to help our students learn. Proposition 58: Requires local school districts to identify in their annual K-12 Local Control and Accountability Plans the instructional methods they will offer to help ensure all students become proficient in English as rapidly as possible. Requires schools to offer a structured English immersion program to English learners. But schools also can adopt other language instruction methods based on research and stakeholder input. School districts must seek input from educators, parents and the community. PROPOSITION 58 ALSO EXPANDS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS TO LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE. Proposition 58 removes barriers hurting students by discouraging schools from expanding multilingual education. Proposition 58 encourages school districts to provide instruction programs so native English speakers can become proficient in a second language: School districts must include in their annual K-12 Local Control and Accountability Plans programs giving English-speaking students the opportunity to achieve proficiency in a second language. District choices of non-English languages must reflect input from parents, the community and the linguistic and financial resources of schools. Research shows that students participating in programs taught in more than one language attain higher levels of academic achievement. PROPOSITION 58 RESTORES LOCAL CONTROL TO OUR SCHOOLS. Proposition 58 allows local school districts to choose the most up-to-date language instruction methods to improve student outcomes free from legal restrictions imposed on them by a decades-old law. PROPOSITION 58 PROVIDES A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR STATE. The world economy is changing rapidly. Today, technology allows even the smallest businesses to have a global reach. Students proficient in English and a second language will be more employable, start out earning higher wages, and make California's workforce better prepared to compete for jobs in the global economy. PROPOSITION 58 HAS BROAD-BASED SUPPORT FROM LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, EDUCATORS, PARENTS AND EMPLOYERS. Giving local schools the tools they need to improve outcomes for students is not a partisan or political issue. Proposition 58 was placed on the ballot by a bipartisan vote of the legislature. Support for Proposition 58's common sense reforms to improve language instruction in our schools is broad-based and includes: Local school boards (the California School Boards Association), Teachers (the California Language Teachers' Association, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers), Parents (California State PTA), and Employers (including the San Jose I Silicon Valley and Los Angeles Chambers of Commerce). Proposition 58's reforms allow schools to adopt the most up-to-date methods of language instruction to improve student outcomes and make better use of taxpayer dollars. More information at www.SupportProp58.com. VOTE YES ON 58.

Opposition[edit]

Keep English for the Children led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 58.^[19]

Opponents[edit]

Officials[edit]

• U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)^[20]

Parties[edit]

• California Republican Party^[21]
• Libertarian Party of California^[22]

Individuals[edit]

• Ron Unz, advocate for Proposition 227
• Mauro E. Mujica, U.S. English Chairperson

Arguments[edit]

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 58:^[2]

• The proposition would repeal the requirement that California children be taught English in public schools.
• The proposition would lift restrictions on the California legislature making future changes, enabling the legislature to reestablish Spanish-Almost-Only instruction in public schools.
• The proposition would overturn policies that actually improved language education.

Official arguments[edit]

The following argument in opposition to Proposition 58 was provided in the official voters guide:^[2]

THIS BALLOT MEASURE IS A DISHONEST TRICK BY THE SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS The official title of Proposition 58 is "English Language Education," But it actually REPEALS the requirement the children be taught English in California public schools. It's all a trick by the Sacramento politicians to fool the voters, who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 227, the "English for the Children" initiative in 1998. The worst part of Proposition 58 is hidden away in Section 8, which REPEALS all restrictions on the California Legislature to make future changes. This would allow the Legislature to reestablish SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY instruction in the public schools by a simple majority vote, once again forcing Latino children into those classes against their parents' wishes. Teaching English in our public schools is overwhelmingly supported by California parents, whether immigrants or non-immigrants, Latinos or Anglos, Asians or Blacks. That's why the politicians are trying to TRICK the voters by using a DECEPTIVE TITLE. VOTE NO AND KEEP "ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN"---IT WORKS! For decades, millions of Latino children were FORCED INTO SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY CLASSES dishonestly called "bilingual education." It was an educational disaster and never worked. Many Latinos never learned how to read, write, or even speak English properly. But in 1998, California voters overwhelmingly passed Prop. 227—the "English for the Children" initiative---providing sheltered English immersion to immigrant students and requiring that they be taught English as soon as they started school. Jaime Escalante of Stand and Deliver fame, one of America's most successful teachers led the Prop. 227 campaign as Honorary Chairman, rescuing California Latinos from the Spanish-only educational ghetto. It worked! Within four years the test scores of over a million immigrant students in California increased by 30%, 50%, or even 100%. All the major newspapers, even the national New York Times, declared the new English immersion system a huge educational success. The founding president of the California Association of Bilingual Educators announced that he'd been wrong about bilingual education for thirty years and became a leading national advocate for English immersion. Since "English for the Children" passed, there has been a huge increase in the number of Latinos scoring high enough to gain admission to the prestigious University of California system. Prop. 227 worked so well in California schools that the whole issue was forgotten by almost everyone except the bilingual education activists. Now they're trying to trick the voters into allowing the RESTORATION OF MANDATORY SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY CLASSES. Vote NO, keep "English for the Children," and protect Jaime Escalante's educational legacy for California's immigrant schoolchildren. For more information, visit our website at www.KeepEnglish.org

Campaign finance[edit]

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$4,950,945.34
Opposition:	$0.00

As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign raised $4,950,945.34 for Proposition 58, and the opposition campaign did not register a committee.^[23]

Support[edit]

As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 58. The total amounts raised and expended were current as of February 1, 2017.^[23]

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Yes On 58, Californians For English Proficiency Sponsored By Teachers And Service Employees Organizations	$2,574,630.17	$2,529,764.17
A Ricardo Lara Ballot Measure Committee; Californians for a 21st Century Economic - Yes on 58	$295,350.72	$227,835.16
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and No on 66, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations	$2,110,000.00	$2,110,000.00
Total	$4,950,945.34	$4,838,563.78

As of February 1, 2017, the top six largest donors to Yes on 58 and A Ricardo Lara Ballot Measure Committee were:^[23]

Donor	Amount
California Teachers Association PAC	$1,722,048.00
SEIU Local 2015 Issues PAC	$104,833.18
California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee	$100,000.00
Association of California School Administrators Issues PAC	$100,000.00
SEIU California State Council	$100,000.00

Opposition[edit]

As of February 1, 2017, there were no PACs registered to oppose Proposition 58.^[23]

Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials[edit]

Support[edit]

• East Bay Express: "Prop. 58 will be beneficial to all students, English and non-native speakers alike, and will help them compete in the workforce where being bilingualism [sic] is crucial."^[24]

• The Fresno Bee: "The world has changed since 1998, and language instruction must keep up so California students can compete in the global economy. Proposition 58 will help."^[25]

• Los Angeles Daily News: "Today’s Americans, no matter what language may still be sometimes spoken around the dinner table, need to have full command of English as well. What was wrongheaded about Prop. 227 was its insistence that the only way to do that was for teachers to predominantly speak English to very young students who may not have a word of the language."^[26]

• Los Angeles Times: "... there's a difference between bilingual education done badly and bilingual education done right. A vast store of research shows that bilingual education, when it is well-designed and implemented, can be at least as good, and often better at helping immigrant and other non-English speaking students gain academic proficiency... And if students aren't achieving academically, Proposition 58 could be amended through a simple majority vote of the Legislature. Immigrant parents and their local school districts should be trusted to work this out together. Vote yes on Proposition 58."^[27]

• The Record: “Vote yes. This would remove barriers that have been in place for years and would allow schools to decide how to best teach English learners.”^[28]

• The Sacramento Bee: "The world has changed since 1998, and language instruction must keep up so California students can compete in the global economy. Proposition 58 will help."^[29]

• San Diego City Beat: "With growing globalization, it only makes sense to facilitate this process and encourage multilingual programs.”^[30]

• San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 58.^[31]

• San Francisco Examiner: "While preserving the priority of English language proficiency for all public school students, the measure improves how public schools work with and support immigrant children and nonnative English speakers."^[32]

• San Bernardino County Sun and The Press Enterprise said: "But we also believe it’s best to allow local districts the flexibility and autonomy to determine whether, or in what combination, English immersion and bilingual education would best benefit their students. Vote yes on Proposition 58."^[33][34]

• San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 58.^[35]

• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Proposition 58 on the Nov. 8 ballot would repeal Proposition 228 and restore the ability of local school districts, in consultation with parents, to offer bilingual education programs. Over the past several years, California has been increasing local control of K-12 education. Proposition 58 is another step in that direction, and The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote."^[36]

Opposition[edit]

• The Bakersfield Californian: "One might assume Prop. 227 was an outgrowth of intolerance. But actually many supporters included Latino parents who were frustrated by their English-learner students languishing for years in bilingual classes and failing to acquire the language proficiency needed to prepare for good-paying, professional jobs. English-learners are students who are unable to communicate fluently or learn effectively in English. ... 'It’s our job to provide the language and the culture of the nation, which is English,' Noonan said. 'Why screw up a good thing? This is working. This is working so well.' We agree. Californians should vote no on Prop. 58."^[37]

• The Mercury News: "Look at Prop. 227 through the lens of student outcomes, which is the measure that counts: In just five years after its passage, the English proficiency of limited-English students tripled. And, not coincidentally, the math scores of the English-immersion students rose. It demonstrably helped students. ... Truly bilingual education has an important place in California schools. American students today should be multilingual, like their counterparts European [sic] and other advanced nations. But English proficiency has to be paramount for success in this country. Vote no on Prop. 58."^[38]

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Now, that dropout rate has plunged, and English-language learners in California are more likely to graduate high school than ever. Some cite other factors, but it is difficult to accept that anything could be as important as the language of instruction. Against this broad backdrop, it is hard to fathom Proposition 58, which would allow schools to teach in languages other than English without having the parental permission that is required now."^[39]

Polls[edit]

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In September 2016, The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 484 registered voters on Proposition 58 using the official ballot title and found support around 69 percent. However, when the interviewers told 459 different voters that Proposition 58 would repeal the "English-only" provision of Proposition 227, support dropped to 31 percent and opposition increased to 51 percent.^[40]
• In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 58. Support among respondents was 59 percent.^[41]
• The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 68 percent.^[42]

Polls with margins of error

California Proposition 58 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016	59.0%	21.0%	21.0%	+/-7.0	622
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."^[40]

California Proposition 58 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Sample size
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016	68.0%	27.0%	5.0%	1,498
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016	69.0%	14.0%	17.0%	484
AVERAGES	68.5%	20.5%	11%	991
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background[edit]

Legislation trajectory[edit]

Proposition 58 was sponsored in the California State Legislature by State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-33) as Senate Bill 1174, or the Multilingual Education for a 21st Century Economy Act.

The bill passed through the legislature largely along party lines. In the House, all "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators and all but two "nay" votes came from Republican legislators. In the Senate, all "nay" votes came from Republican legislators while all but three "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators.^[43]

Proposition 227[edit]

Proposition 227 (the English Language in Public Schools Statute), also known as the English for the Children Act, was introduced by Ron Unz, a software entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, and Gloria Mata Tuchman, a teacher in Santa Ana, California. The statute called for changes to the approach used to teach "Limited English Proficient" (LEP) students in California public schools, requiring that special classes be taught predominantly in English and shortening the time that LEP students were in special classes before moving to regular classes.^[44]

Under Proposition 227, parents of English learners can opt their children into bilingual programs by signing a waiver. The waiver is approved if one of three conditions are met. First, the student must have "attended an English-only classroom for at least 30 days and whose teachers, principal, and district superintendent all agree would learn better in a bilingual program." Second, the student must be at least 10 years old. Third, the student is already a fluent English speaker.

Ron Unz senate run[edit]

Before drafting Proposition 227, Ron Unz ran for governor in California in 1994. In March 2016, Unz entered into the race for Senator Barbara Boxer's vacant seat as a Republican candidate, saying that the main reason for his candidacy was to raise awareness about SB 1174 and efforts to repeal Proposition 227. "After considering various options, I decided that becoming a statewide candidate myself was the probably the best means of effectively focusing public attention on this repeal effort and defeating it," Unz stated on his website.^[45][46][47]

Path to the ballot[edit]

Voting on Education
Policy
Education policy
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local School bonds Local school tax School budgets School redistricting Local education measures

See also: Laws governing legislative alteration in California

Senate Bill 1174 would repeal most of Proposition 227. Since Proposition 227 was approved in 1998, the California State Legislature must submit the change to voters.

The timeline for Senate Bill 1174 was:^[43]

• February 20, 2014: Introduced into the California Legislature
• April 30, 2014: The Senate Education Committee, in an eight-to-zero vote, recommended the bill's approval
• May 23, 2014: The Senate Appropriations Committee, in a seven-to-zero vote, recommended the bill's approval
• May 27, 2014: Approved by California Senate for the first time
• June 26, 2014: The Assembly Education Committee, in a five-to-two vote, recommended the bill's approval
• August 14, 2014: The Assembly Appropriations Committee, in a twelve-to-five vote, recommended the bill's approval
• August 25, 2014: Approved by California State Assembly
• August 26, 2014: Senate concurred with assembly's amendments
• September 28, 2014: Gov. Brown (D) signed the legislation, thus placing Proposition 58 on the ballot

State profile[edit]

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Influencers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 58 language 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Related measures[edit]

Education measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Alabama	Alabama Auburn University Board of Trustees, Amendment 1 a
Alaska	Alaska State Government Debt for Postsecondary Student Loans, Ballot Measure 2 d
California	California Proposition 51, Public School Facility Bonds a
Georgia	Georgia Authorization of the State Government to Intervene in Failing Local Schools, Amendment 1 d
Louisiana	Louisiana Authority of College Boards to Establish Tuition and Fees without Legislative Approval, Amendment 2 d
Maine	Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2 a
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Authorization of Additional Charter Schools and Charter School Expansion, Question 2 d
Oklahoma	Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 d
Oregon	Oregon Outdoor School Lottery Fund, Measure 99 a
Oregon	Oregon State Funding for Dropout Prevention and College Readiness, Measure 98 a
South Dakota	South Dakota Governing Technical Education Institutes Amendment a

See also[edit]

• California 2016 ballot propositions
• 2016 ballot measures
• California Legislature

Additional reading[edit]

• Los Angeles Times, "Lawmakers move to scrap English-only instruction," August 26, 2014
• San Francisco Gate, "S.F. seen as model in bilingual education over English only," February 13, 2014

External links[edit]

Basic information[edit]

• Senate Bill 1174
• California 2016 Voter Guide

Support[edit] Yes on 58 Yes on 58 Facebook Yes on 58 Twitter

Opposition[edit] Keep English for the Children Keep English for the Children Facebook Keep English for the Children Twitter

Other resources[edit]

• Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2016 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin Political topics Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy Communications: Kayla Harris • Megan Brown • Mary Dunne • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch • Sara Horton • Elizabeth Brown Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jace Lington • Jimmy McAllister Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Manager • Ryan Burch • Michael Cella • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Tom Reitz Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Josh Altic, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Ryan Byrne • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Corinne Wolyniec • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy