English Language in Public Schools. Initiative Statute.
	Rebuttal to Argument 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 SPANISH-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 A. ESCALANTE
East LA Calculus teacher portrayed in "Stand and Deliver"