This EIA flash comes to you from the Westin Hotel in Los Angeles, where I have just attended the California Teachers Association's Equity and Human Rights Conference. Along with the usual topics of ethnic and racial minority rights, women's rights, and gay and lesbian rights, the conference also addressed two initiatives that will appear on California's June 2 ballot: Proposition 226 (the Campaign Reform Initiative) and Proposition 227 (the English for the Children initiative). Prop 226 would require unions to annually obtain their members' permission to use any portion of their dues for political purposes.  Prop 227 would place students currently in bilingual education programs into English immersion classes for one year, then place them in mainstream classes. 

At two workshop sessions  officials from CTA, the National Education Association and other organizations described the current status of their campaigns and their strategies for defeating the two initiatives. 

Prop 226 — NEA's Kevin DeLeon discussed the results of recent internal polling and focus group surveys of CTA members. He revealed that 70 percent of CTA members currently support Prop 226. The news brought gasps of surprise from the assembled teacher union representatives and activists. "Yes, we've nudged that down from 76 percent," interjected a chagrined CTA board member standing at the back of the room. 

Because of the huge rift in their base of support, NEA and CTA have decided on a dual approach to defeat Prop 226. Lee Berg, of NEA's Center for the Revitalization of Urban Education, discussed the internal campaign to swing teacher union members away from support of 226. After a detailed report on J. Patrick Rooney, Grover Norquist, John Walton, Gov. Pete Wilson, and other financial supporters of 226, Berg instructed the audience to ask teachers "Why would your enemies want to help you?" He asserted that the passage of 226 "would bankrupt CTA's political action committee" and warned the audience that once it happened, school vouchers and tuition tax credits would soon follow. 

Berg claimed "these things are orchestrated — and democracy's at stake." He proceeded to alert everyone to the dangers of vouchers. "When education is not public," he said, "we no longer have the ability to control what is taught and what is not taught." 

Berg talked about Exodus 2000, a project of evangelical Christian groups to encourage parents to remove their kids from public schools. "What kind of nation would we have," he asked, "if half the children were taught the universe was created in six days, 10,000 years ago, and are taught that as science? If you think our science scores are bad now compared to other nations, just imagine..." 

DeLeon discussed the external campaign, designed to swing voters who are not members of teachers' unions. Because most people do not belong to unions, NEA/CTA focus group research determined that discussing 226's negative effect on union influence was counterproductive. "Therefore," DeLeon said, "we are not going to use the word ‘union'." He added that campaign ads, literature and other documentation targeted at external audiences would not refer to "unions." 

CTA is preparing a video on both propositions and will be unveiling it shortly. In the case of 226 it is expected to emphasize the use of out-of-state money, the vast advantage corporations would have in future campaigns, and the threat of vouchers. Though NEA and CTA revealed no source who donated more than $50,000 to support 226, Berg claimed that "They have bottomless pits of money and we have limited resources." Between NEA, CTA and  AFL-CIO, the anti-226 campaign is already committed to spending as much as $11 million. 

Prop 227 — DeLeon would say only that "more than 50 percent" of CTA members currently support the Unz initiative. Their polls of the general public show 227 winning by a 2 to 1 margin. Panelists and audience members were vocally distressed by their lack of progress on the issue despite the fact that 227 is "screwy." In an audience of activists and union reps, confusion was rife about what the initiative would do. Nevertheless, all but one of the 50 or so people in the room were vehemently opposed to it. One lone State Council member, an elderly Hispanic woman, spoke up. She informed the audience that she had participated in a CTA focus group, and that everyone had been against 227 — except for her and the only other recent immigrant in the group. "I have no problem with the Unz initiative," she said. "Children should be getting their native culture and language at home, not in the public school." 

The temperature in the room dropped 30 degrees as she spoke. Other audience members then verbally attacked her views. The woman seemed more resigned than angry and soon left the room. Her absence did not end the barrage of criticism of her simple statement. 

Stewart Kwoh, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and various audience members discussed approaches to take when attempting to "educate" those who "are not aware of the initiative's implications." 

Kwoh noted that waivers from the proposed immersion program were "onerous" and "complicated" because they required positive action, paperwork and annual renewal. Interestingly, these are the same arguments supporters of Prop 226 use when they speak of the current procedures established for the reimbursement of the political portion of their dues. 

Others in the audience saw a relationship between 227 and the new Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) Program. They suggested teacher sentiment could swing on this basis: Newly mainstreamed bilingual students will lower the test scores of your class. The STAR program will see to it that you receive poor personal evaluations for this. Your career, and eventually your pay, will suffer. 

Still others suggested emphasizing the loss of parental choice should 227 pass. "One size doesn't fit all" will apparently be a much-used slogan on the anti-227 side. 

David Sanchez, a member of the CTA Board of Directors, interrupted to say that CTA focus group research had already discovered the way to defeat the Unz initiative. "The issue is money!" he said. Sanchez claimed that the $50 million annual cost — taken from Prop 98 funds — is what "turns the tide" on the initiative. He suggested a strategy similar to what was proposed to defeat 226. "Don't even try to defend bilingual education," he said. NEA and CTA are fairly convinced that older, white women are the key to the campaign. That demographic will be specifically targeted in the coming weeks. 

Despite assurances that the battle could be won, the audience was told that lawyers from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) were already crafting a legal challenge. "If Unz passes," said one CTA State Council member, "it will be in court the next day." 

Victor Nauro (spelling may be incorrect), a member of the speakers' bureau in opposition to 227, said the field campaign will kickoff on March 21. He supplied the audience with the address and phone number of "One Nation, One California" — the Prop 227 campaign headquarters in the LA area — "in case," he said, "you really want to target an office." He did not elaborate.