First and foremost, proponents of Proposition 227 argued that bilingual education had failed to teach English to LEP students in California. They believed that there needed to be a change in the system. They argued that bilingual education meant that many students were not exposed to English in the classroom for as long as seven years. Proponents pointed out that in the year 1996, only 6.7% of LEP students in California had learned enough English to move into mainstream classes. They stated that the principal victims were Latino students citing low test scores and high dropout rates.

Proponents of Proposition 227 believed that it would be easier for younger children to learn a new language, especially if the child were to be immersed in that new language. They claimed that immigrant children do not need to learn their native language because they already know it and that their main focus should be English. Learning to speak, read, and write English is the only road to economic and social success.

They argued that structured/sheltered English classes were the most effective ways to teach LEP students and would not put LEP students in a “sink or swim” situation. In addition, this initiative would not cut funding for LEP students and it would not violate any federal laws or court decisions.

Go to LAU California

Return to California: Proposition 227  ->  California - Policy  ->  States Policies  -> Policy  ->  LAU top