The Proposition 227 requires that all public school instruction be conducted in English. However, in “The Political Paradox of Bilingual Education”, Crawford argues against Proposition 227 and provides an overview of the political and educational discourse on immigrant children’s language rights. He starts with questions such as “Was the proposition intended primarily to assimilate limited-English-proficient (LEP) children more efficiently? To teach them English as rapidly as possible? To encourage bilingualism and biliteracy? The bill’s legislative history provides no definitive answer (Crawford). According to Crawford, proposition 227 enforce bilingual regulations and the research findings are less encouraging. He explains that the regulations on bilingual provide inequalities to limited-English-proficient student. Hence they are failing to be successful in academic performance and achievement. Crawford supports his argument with examples that in San Francisco, LEP students were only instructed in English and since some students failed to understand the language, they resulted in poor academic performance (Crawford). Thus, Crawford points out how politics give inequalities to LEP students and how it is branded a failure in the public mind (Crawford). Although the purpose of proposition 227 was to “Americanized the immigrants” in linguistic matters (Crawford), bilingual education regain the confidence, understanding, and allegiance for LEP students.
Although Crawford’s arguments are persuasive, Palmer explains the meaning behind Proposition 227. Hence if I was travel back in time to 1988, I would vote for Proposition 227. The bilingual education under examine the issue of race. By having bilingual education in our society, it separate students by class and race. The bilingual education researchers fail to take culture, race, class and other factors into considerations. bilingual education was designed to help students with language improvements, it creates an...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document