"English
for the Children" Ballot Initiatives
"English for the Children" was an organization established in
Arizona and California to pass ballot initiatives to ban bilingual education.
ProEnglish endorsed English for the Children's initiatives, but is in not
affiliated with that organization. When California voted on Proposition
227, the California Secretary of State posted arguments for and against
the proposition, written by principal proponents and opponents of the bill.
Official Summary prepared by the California Atty. General
Argument in favor of Proposition 227
Rebuttal to argument in favor of Proposition 227
Argument against Proposition 227
Rebuttal to argument against Proposition 227
Official Summary from the Calif. Attorney General
 Requires all public school instruction be conducted
in English.
Requirement may be waived if parents or guardian
show that child already knows English, or has special needs, or would
learn English faster through alternate instructional technique.
Provides initial short-term placement, not
normally exceeding one year, in intensive sheltered English immersion
programs for children not fluent in English.
Appropriates $50 million per year for ten years
funding English instruction for individuals pledging to provide personal
English tutoring to children in their community.
Permits enforcement suits by parents and guardians.
The Official Argument in Favor of Proposition
227
Why do we need to change California's Bilingual Education System?
Begun with the best of intentions in the 1970s,
bilingual education has failed in actual practice, but the politicians
and administrators have refused to admit this failure.
For most of California's non-English speaking
students, bilingual education actually means monolingual, ISH-ONLY education
for the first 4 to 7 years of school.
The current system fails to teach children
to read and write English. Last year, only 6.7 percent of limited-English
students in California learned enough English to be moved into mainstream
classes.
Latino immigrant children are the principal
victims of bilingual education. They have the lowest test scores and the
highest dropout rates of any immigrant group.
There are 140 languages spoken by California's
schoolchildren. To teach each group of children in their own native language
before teaching them English is educationally and fiscally impossible.
Yet this impossibility is the goal of bilingual education.
Common Sense about Learning English
Learning a new language is easier the younger
the age of the child.
Learning a language is much easier if the child
is immersed in that language.
Immigrant children already know their native
language; they need the public schools to teach them English.
Children who leave school without knowing how
to speak, read, and write English are injured for life economically and
socially.
What "English for the Children" will do:
Require children to be taught English as soon
as they start school.
Provide "sheltered English immersion"
classes to help non-English speaking students learn English; research
shows this is the most effective method.
Allow parents to request a special waiver for
children with individual educational needs who would benefit from another
method.
What "English for the Children" will not do:
It will NOT throw children who can't speak
English into regular classes where they would have to "sink or swim."
It will NOT cut special funding for children
learning English.
It will NOT violate any federal laws or court
decisions.
Who supports the initiative?
Teachers worried by the undeniable failure
of bilingual education and who have long wanted to implement a successful
alternative--sheltered English immersion.
Most Latino parents, according to public polls.
They know that Spanish-only bilingual education is preventing their children
from learning English by segregating them into an educational dead-end.
Most Californians. They know that bilingual
education has created an educational ghetto by isolating non-English speaking
students and preventing them from becoming successful members of society.
Who opposes the initiative?
Individuals who profit from bilingual education.
Bilingual teachers are paid up to $5,000 extra annually and the program
provides jobs to thousands of bilingual coordinators and administrators.
Schools and school districts which receive
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of extra dollars for schoolchildren classified as
not knowing English and who, therefore, have a financial incentive to
avoid teaching English to children.
Activist groups with special agendas and the
politicians who support them.
ALICE CALLAGHAN, Director, Las Familias del Pueblo
RON UNZ, Chairman, English for the Children
FERNANDO VEGA, Past Redwood City School Board Member
The Official Rebuttal to the argument
for Proposition 227
Several years ago, the 1970's law mandating bilingual education in California
expired. Since then local school districts--principals, parents and teachers--have
been developing and using different programs to teach children English.
Many of the older bilingual education programs continue to have great
success. In other communities some schools are succeeding with English
immersion and others with dual language immersion programs.
Teaching children English is the primary goal, no matter what teaching
method they're using.
Proposition 227 outlaws all of these programs--even the best ones--and
mandates a program that has never been tested anywhere in California!
And if it doesn't work, we're stuck with it anyway.
Proposition 227 proposes
A 180-day English only program with no second
chance after that school year.
Mixed-age classrooms with first through sixth
graders all together, all day, for one year.
Proposition 227 funding comes from three wealthy men . . . one from New
York, one from Florida, and one from California.
The New York man has given Newt Gingrich $310,000!
The Florida man who put up $45,000 for Proposition 227 is part of a fringe
group which believes "government has no role in financing, operating,
or defining schooling, or even compelling attendance."
These are not people who should dictate a single teaching method for California's
schools.
If the law allows different methods, we can use what works. Vote NO on
Proposition 227.
JOHN D'AMELIO, President, California School Boards Association
MARY BERGAN, President, California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
JENNIFER J. LOONEY,President, Association of California School Administrators
The Official Argument Against Proposition
227
Proposition 227 imposes one untested method
for teaching English on every local school district in California.
Proposition 227 puts limited English-speaking
children of all ages and languages into one classroom.
The California PTA opposes Proposition 227
because it takes away parents' right to choose what's best for their children.
The California School Boards Association opposes
Proposition 227 because it outlaws the best local programs for teaching
English.
California's teachers oppose Proposition 227--teachers
can be sued personally for teaching in the children's language to help
them learn English.
Outlawing decisions by parents, teachers, and
school boards on how to teach children English is wrong.
Children in California must learn English. In thousands of classrooms
all over California, they are. Good teachers. Good local school boards.
Good parent involvement.
Those successes are not the result of one instructional method imposed
on every school by state government.
Sadly, there have been failures too. However, these failures can best
be remedied by reasonable program changes that maximize local control.
California should be returning more decisions to parents, teachers, principals,
and local school boards.
A growing number of school districts are working with new English teaching
methods. Proposition 227 stops them.
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial said it best: "School districts
should decide for themselves."
We urge you to join us, the California PTA, the California School Boards
Association, and California's teachers in voting "NO" on Proposition
227.
JOHN D'AMELIO, President, California School Boards Association
MARY BERGAN, President, California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
LOIS TINSON, President, California Teachers Association
Rebuttal to the arguments against
Proposition 227
The arguments against Proposition 227 were signed by leaders of organizations
whose members receive HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually from our
failed system of ISH-ONLY bilingual education.
Because they can't defend bilingual education, they have resorted to
attacks that are FACTUALLY WRONG.
Proposition 227:
Doesn't impose an untested method of teaching
English. Our method has been used successfully in the U.S. and worldwide.
Doesn't eliminate choice or impose a single
approach: Today, California schools are forced to use bilingual education
despite parental opposition. We give choice to parents, not administrators.
Doesn't require schools to mix together children
of different ages: We allow such combined classes where necessary at the
school's discretion, such as in rural areas with few students. This is
no different than current law.
Doesn't prohibit teachers or students from
speaking another language in class: This initiative only requires that
school instruction be primarily in English. Teachers can still use some
of the child's native language. Foreign language programs remain completely
unaffected.
Doesn't allow teachers to be sued for speaking
a foreign language: Parents may only sue those who "willfully and
repeatedly " refuse to obey the law and teach children in English.
Should save huge amounts of money: Although
we maintain per capita spending on English learners, once these children
are quickly taught English and moved into regular classes, this extra
funding ends.
The opposition's only true statement is that children must learn English.
The current system fails to do this. Change is necessary
JAIME ESCALANTE, East LA Calculus teacher portrayed in "Stand and
Deliver"
To view our legislative action
page.
To return to our bilingual education issues
page.
To read about the current status of bilingual
education in America.
|
