This n' That: Of English and Water

English No Es Bueno

Back in 1998, the voters of the Golden State approved Proposition 227 which requires schools to teach in English. And that’s the way things have been ever since. Now comes Senate Bill 1174 which amends and repeals provisions of the voter enacted Prop. 227… and it’s causing quite a stir in Sacramento.  

SB 1174 deletes the sheltered English immersion requirement and waiver provisions found in Prop. 227, and instead authorizes school districts and county offices of education to determine the best language instruction methods and language acquisition programs to implement by consulting experts in the field, parents, and “engaging local communities” as well as authorizes all parents to choose the language education model that best suits their child.

The State Senate has voted to put a measure on the ballot in November 2016. Some solons agreed and support the measure for giving school districts local control “so innovation can take place.” Others, however, disagree noting the bill would worsen the state’s high drop-out rate, which is helped by a large number of students being unable to read and understand English. (No duh.)

Interestingly, SB 1174 also mandates that a school in which 20 pupils or more of a given grade level request a specific language program to offer such a class; otherwise, they must allow the pupils to transfer to a public school in which such a class is offered -AND- deletes certain findings and declarations relative to English language instruction, and replaces them with “multilingual skills and instruction.” Hmm…

“Children who participate in multilingual programs not only outperform their peers, they also have higher earning potential when they enter the workforce,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, who authored SB 1174. The bill was approved 27 to 8 and next goes to the Assembly for consideration. He called the status quo "linguistic tyranny, where we (politicians) decide what language our kids are going to learn." [For those of you keeping score at home – that would be English.]

Conversely, those who do not favor the willy-nilly approach of SB 1174 say, “you are putting children out (of our schools) who are functionally illiterate in two languages. We can't take the chance that a single child's life will be compromised in any way by a lack of fluency in English."

Water, water everywhere…

Are you a “senior water rights” holder? Then you are sitting (or in this case) “sippin’ pretty.” They are people, corporations and/or cities that have water rights pre-dating 1914… and the state doesn’t have a way to gauge how much water they use.

More than half of the 3,897 entities with these senior water rights are corporations, such as the state's biggest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which generates hydroelectric power, and the Hearst Corp., which has water rights for its remote, Bavarian-style forest compound called Wyntoon. Also among the biggest rights holders are state and local government agencies — including the water departments of San Francisco and Los Angeles, which channel river water to millions of residents. 

For example, San Francisco - whose water rights date to 1902 when its mayor nailed a handwritten notice on a tree - uses free Sierra Nevada water to generate power for its airport, schools and firehouses. California’s 19th-century water laws give these companies, farms and others unmonitored water while the state is mired in a three-year drought that has forced water cutbacks to cities and the nation’s agricultural center.

This year, the state cut water deliveries to farmers and cities by 95 percent, and the federal government also imposed sharp restrictions on its water customers. But companies, farmers and cities with water rights that pre-date 1914 were exempt from the mandatory cuts, even though they collectively are the biggest water consumers in the state.