Proposition 227 | Argument in Favor | Proposition 227 | Argument Against |
English Language in Public Schools.
Initiative Statute.
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of 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

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.

President, California School Boards Association
President, California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
President, Association of California School Administrators
Proposition 227 | Argument in Favor | Proposition 227 | Argument Against |