Bilingual Education Flashcards
Explain how the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) each influenced the history of bilingual education in America.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War. The passage of this amendment gave a constitutional foundation to the educational rights of the linguistic minority. It guarantees that no U.S. state can pass or enforce any law that limits the immunities or privileges of its citizens; that no state can deny any person life, liberty, or property without following due law process; and that no state can refuse equal protection by laws to any citizen. The 1954 case of Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 1896 decision in Plessy vs Ferguson that allowed “separate but equal” education for black students. In Brown vs Board of Education, the Court ruled segregated public schools unconstitutional, and ordered their desegregation. The opportunity for a public school education was declared a right “which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
Cite several 1980s U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the examination, monitoring, and evaluation of public schools’ educational programs for LEP students, including two that used the 1981 decision in Castañeda vs Pickard as legal precedent.
The U.S.’s State Departments of Education first were officially assigned the legal responsibility for monitoring public school districts’ implementation of educational programs for LEP (Limited English Proficient) students through the decision in the case of Idaho vs. Migrant Council (1981). The case of Illinois vs. Gomez (1987) further specified this state responsibility to include setting and enforcing the minimum requirements implementing language remediation programs. This decision also established requirements for re-classtying LEP students as PEP, or Fluent English Proficient, when their English language proficiency has progressed to fluency. Two Supreme Court cases that used the earlier decision in Castañeda vs. Pickard (1981) to evaluate school districts’ educational programs for LEP students were Denver vs School District No. 1 (1983) and Teresa P. vs Berkeley Unified (1987).
Summarize the importance of each of a series of U.S legislations passed in the decade between 1964 and 1974.
In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI banned discrimination in federally funded programs. Essentially, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act said all students have the right to effective and meaningful instruction and thereafter was cited frequently in other court cases. Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA of 1968, and of its 1974 reauthorization, also called the Bilingual Education Acts, allocated supplementary funds for school districts to create programs for meeting the recognized “special educational needs” of many students in the United States identified with limited English proficiency (LEP). On May 20, 1970, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) issued a Memorandum interpreting the regulations of this Title VII to outlaw schools’ refusing access to any educational programs based on LEP status. The 1974 Equal Educational opportunity Act defined the denial of equal educational opportunity, including an agency’s failure to “take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by students in an instructional program.”
Briefly describe some legislation enacted in 1999 after Proposition 228 was passed in 1997, and how it affected bilingual education.
The passage of Proposition 227 virtually had eliminated bilingual education programs in California. While a U.S. District Court judge had refused an injunction not to implement Proposition 227, he also had ruled that public schools must make up for any academic losses to linguistic minority students while they were being taught English without content subject instruction. Previously, the re-designation of students from limited English proficiency (LEP) to fluent English proficiency (FEP) had been established and regulated first by Federal law in the Supreme Court case of Illinois vs. Gomez (1987) and then by California state law in the 1974 Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act. However, in 1999, the California State Board of Education removed these reclassification provisions. Instead, it assigned each of the state’s >100 school districts the responsibility to set their own criteria for re-designating LEP students as FEP, making this process locally determined rather than regulated by Federal or State laws.
Describe briefly some highlights in the 20th-century legal history of bilingual education in the state of California.
California has the largest proportion of linguistic minority students in the United States, making the legal history of its bilingual education significant to the entire nation. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed SB 53, overturning an 1872 law mandating English-only instruction and permitting California’s public schools to use other instructional languages. In 1974, transitional programs of bilingual education were established through the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act. These programs adhered to the Federal guidelines for identitying and placing LEP (Limited English Proficient) students and for re designating LEP students as FEP (Fluent English Proficient) when they attained fluency. In 1981, the Bilingual Education Act was strengthened by the explicit, detailed specification of public school districts’ responsibilities to LEP students. However, in 1986 Governor Deukmejian vetoed a bill to legalize bilingual education. In 1987 he vetoed a reauthorization bill, thereby permitting the Bilingual Education Act to expire. Even without the legal mandate, California public school districts continued enforcing the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act for nearly another decade.
Summarize an immediately subsequent legal reaction to Proposition 227 and the judge’s ruling, including precedents; in addition, summarize a part of the ruling more favorable to linguistic minority students.
Proposition 227 was passed in California in June 1998. This legislation basically prohibited bilingual education in that state’s public schools except under defined special circumstances. It required public schools in the state to place all limited English proficient (LEP) students in sheltered English immersion” programs, requiring further that these programs last only one school year, after which students must be mainstreamed into English-speaking classes. In July 1998, in San Francisco U.S. District Court case Valeria G. vs. Wilson, an injunction against implementing Proposition 227 was requested but denied by the judge. The precedents cited for denial were set in the Supreme Court case Castañeda vs. Pickard (1981). These precedents permitted sequential programs that taught English first, subsequently teaching content subjects in English, resembling provisions of Proposition 227 for designing “structured English immersion” programs. A more favorable part of the judge’s ruling involved obligating schools to compensate for any academic deficits incurred by LEP students while learning English within a reasonable time until they met grade/peer levels.
Summarize some historical legal trends leading up to Proposition 227. Identify Proposition 227’s (1998) provision relative to bilingual education.
Proposition 227 was the culmination of a movement against bilingual education in California. In 1967, using languages of instruction other than English was legalized there, transitional bilingual education programs were authorized in 1974, and the Bilingual Education Act was reinforced in 1981 by more detailed definitions of school district responsibilities to linguistic minority students. However, this trend was reversed later in the 1980s by a governor who vetoed bilingual education laws and allowed the Bilingual Education Act to expire. This reversal was exacerbated in the 1990s by various state laws allowing schools to substitute English immersion for bilingual instruction despite a citizens’-rights lawsuit on behalf of LEP students and another governor’s vetoing pro-bilingual law. Proposition 227 virtually outlawed all public-school bilingual education excepting certain special conditions, mandated English immersion for LEP students, and moreover limited English-immersion programs to one year, followed by mainstreaming.
Describe some 1999 educational and legislative measures in California related to bilingual education and to Proposition 227.
In 1999, the California State Board of Education adopted English Language Development (ELD) standards, which are aligned with the Content Standards for Language Arts and Reading. These standards furnish a structure for public school educators in designing instructional programs and in developing and procuring supportive teaching materials. These standards apply equally to all students, reinforcing Proposition 227’s (1998) elimination of bilingual education programs and use of English immersion programs requiring linguistic minority students to develop English proficiency as quickly as possible. However on the heels of Prop 227, a judge who refused an injunction against implementing it also ruled that schools were obligated to remedy any academic deficiencies in ESL students caused by English instruction to the temporary exclusion of content instruction. Therefore schools also can use the state standards to fulfill their obligation to ESL students through program designs and materials that help assure English proficiency. Founded on the 1996 Escutia Bill, the state also sponsored development in 1999 of an ELD test conforming to its ELD standards.
Explain how two 1998 California legislative events regarding bilingual education each contained provisions that tended to cancel out one another.
California’s Board of Education had been sued in 1997 by plaintiffs claiming that Limited English Proficient (LEP) students’ rights were violated by the Board’s granting waivers to school districts allowing English immersion to replace bilingual education. The judge’s 1998 ruling was (1) that the State Board of Education did not have the authority to grant such waivers, but also (2) that California state law did not apply to bilingual education and only Federal laws applied. The first part of this ruling restricted state departure from bilingual education programs; however, the second part conversely restricted enforcement of state laws to provide bilingual education. Also in 1998, California’s governor vetoed State Senate Bill 6. On one hand, SB6 incorporated many provisions of the 1974 Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act, which had initiated transitional bilingual education programs meeting Federal guidelines for identifying, placing, and reclassifying LEP students. On the other hand, SB6 also allowed local school districts flexibility in choosing bilingual or English-immersion programs. As a result, its veto both impeded and protected bilingual education.
Summarize the outcomes of legislation regarding bilingual education in the state of California in 1996- 1998.
California’s bilingual education laws affect the entire USA, both because certain state laws must comply with Federal laws and because, with the nation’s highest percentage of linguistic minorities in California, its laws influence the rest of the country. In 1996, the California State Board of Education granted waivers to four school districts which exempted them from complying with the Bilingual Education Act, permitted them to undo their bilingual education programs, and allowed them to create sheltered English immersion” programs to replace students’ native languages with English as quickly as possible. In Quiroz et al vs. State Board of Education (1997), the plaintiffs asserted that school district waivers allowing English-only instruction violated the rights of LEP Limited English Proficient students when they sued the Orange Unified School District in the California State Court’s Sacramento location. In 1998, the judge ruled that the State Board of Education was not authorized to grant the waivers to school districts; and only federal laws but not California state laws, applied to linguistic minority education.
Summarize the grounds for filing suit and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lau vs. Nichols (1974). Discuss the origin and fate of the Lau Remedies.
In San Francisco, CA, a child of Chinese immigrants was failing in school because he could not understand the lessons, which were taught only in English. An attorney sued on the family’s behalf. While lower courts decided against the plaintiffs, appeals to higher courts led to a class action suit before the Supreme Court on behalf of nearly 1,800 Chinese parents with children struggling in English-only classes due to limited English-language proficiency (LEP). The Court decided that simply having the same schools, teachers, classes, and textbooks did not constitute equal treatment for LEP students because they were prevented meaningful education by not understanding English. Moreover, the justices ruled that making basic English skills a prerequisite for participation in educational programs was “to make a mockery of public education” because “Basic English skills are at the very core of what public schools teach…” In 1975, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) issued guidelines for schools regarding LEP students. These so-called “Lau Remedies” were ended by President Reagan’s administration in the 1980s.
Summarize the requirements of the Civil Rights Language Minority Regulations of 1980, and the U.S Supreme Court case of Castañeda vs. Pickard (1981), relative to bilingual education.
The Civil Rights Language Minority Regulations of 1980 stipulated bilingual instruction be delivered by qualified teachers and that bilingual education consist of four essential ingredients: identification assessment, services, and exit. These regulations established the sequence of procedures still followed today by schools relative to providing educations for linguistic minority students. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Castañeda vs. Pickard (1981) established the standard used by the Courts for the examination of educational programs provided by schools for students with limited English proficiency (LEP). The ruling stipulated that school districts must have (1) a “pedagogically sound” educational plan for LEP students; (2) enough staff qualified to implement this plan, which included both training their currently employed teachers and hiring new, qualified teachers; and (3) a system in place for assessing the program’s effectiveness. The wording of this decision did not require specifically bilingual education” programs, but programs that took ‘appropriate action to overcome language barriers” to LEP students’ educational participation.
