Posted on 10/11/2002 2:06:42 PM PDT by John Jorsett
Contact: Sharon Browne
Phone: (916) 362-2833
San Francisco,CA; October 07, 2002: Pacific Legal Foundation today hailed a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the constitutionality of California’s “English for the Children Initiative”-commonly known as Proposition 227-and ending bilingual education in the state as called for by the voters nearly four years ago.
“Californians, impatient with a failed bilingual education system that cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually, spoke loudly in 1998 when they enacted Proposition 227,” said PLF Principal Attorney Sharon Browne.
“We are overjoyed that the court has recognized Proposition 227 as the lawful, nondiscriminatory solution to a broken down system that provided nothing more than a disservice to California’s English learning students,” said Browne.
Approved by 61% of the voters, Proposition 227 replaces the state’s bilingual education system with a program of “sheltered English immersion.” Following today’s ruling, Browne reiterated the court’s affirmation of the measure. “The court has said that Proposition 227 applies equally to all schoolchildren-students who now speak at least 57 different languages,” she said.
“This measure is about equality. Parents want a results-oriented program that provides the best education possible for their children and all of California’s students,” said Browne.
Browne also cited a groundbreaking national study published by New Mexico State University that concluded English immersion was more effective than bilingual education in improving overall student performance. Under Proposition 227, special classes taught in a language other than English cannot last longer than one year after which English learners are moved into mainstream classes. The argument for English immersion under this scenario, made by PLF’s Browne on behalf of the Board of Education, prevailed in District Court, where Proposition 227 was found constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Pacific Legal Foundation has successfully defended a number of contentious voter-approved measures in the courts, including recent victories upholding Proposition 209, a measure that bans race- and sex-based discrimination in public education, public employment, and public contracting.
Oral argument in this case, Angel V. v. Davis, took place on March 14, 2002, in San Francisco. The challenge, which focused on the Equal Protection Clause, was brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy group (META), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other bilingual education supporters.
They have demonstrated complete distain for laws they don't make. Only a 20 year jail term will stop the practice
Holy cow, bilingual man!
LVM
At the least, they can't force kids into bilingual ed against the parent's wishes as they used to be able to do. 227 contains a provision that allows parents to sue. So far, it hasn't proven necessary, but it's an available stick. One tactic they got away with for a while was to request waivers on the kid's behalf (something that only the parents are supposed to be able to do under the law), but that's been blocked. All that's left is for them to convince parents to request the waivers themselves, but fortunately most parents are smart enough to know that English is a necessary skill, and they don't go along. The bilingual ed gravy train is slowly losing its momentum, and it will wither away completely in the not-so-distant future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.