Bilingual Education

Question 1

Carlisle Indian School

Answer 1

1880’s forced English only. Kill first language.

Question 2

Naturalization Act of 1906

Answer 2

Have to speak English to start naturalization process. Schools had to teach English only.

Question 3

New Mexico becomes a state

Answer 3

1912. This late because there had to be enough English-speakers in a territory for it to become a state.

Question 4

First “Mexican” schools in CA

Answer 4

1913.

Question 5

Department of Education

Answer 5

1918. Established to give federal funds only to states that enforced English-only education, especially not German.

Question 6

First “Mexican” schools in Santa Ana, CA

Answer 6

1919.

Question 7

Meyer v Nebraska

Answer 7

1923. Overturns Nebraska anti-German language teaching law.

Question 8

Theodor Roosevelt

Answer 8

1926. Said that U.S. has room only for English. Wants to frustrate worker solidarity and sedition by the whitewashing effects of English.

Question 9

Farrington v. Tokushige

Answer 9

1927. SCOTUS. Hawaii’s law banning foreign language instruction was overturned.

Question 10

LULAC

Answer 10

1929

Question 11

15 Mexican schools in OC

Answer 11

1933. And 90% of school districts in South West segregated Mexicans.

Question 12

Mendez v Westminister

Answer 12

1946. It is against the 14th to segregate based on nationality (but not on race).

Question 13

Hernandez v Driscoll

Answer 13

1956. After Brown v Board forced them to close the “Mexican School,” Driscoll School District in Texas put all kids with Hispanic surnames into 3 years of 1st grade so that they would learn English (regardless of whether they knew English) without disturbing the English-speaking students. They called it Low, Medium, and High first grade and then would move on to a still segregated 2nd grade. This made a generation of students graduate HS when they were 21-22 years old. Hernandez V. Driscoll was taken up by the GI Forum as their first Federal Court case. They couldn’t segregate based on race, so they segregated based on language.

Question 14

Coral Way

Answer 14

1963. Cubans at Coral Way, FL establish a dual language bilingual program because they think Castro will be overthrown and they’ll be able to go back to Cuba, so they want their kids to maintain Spanish. (L1 is a benefit).

Question 15

Civil Rights Act Title VI

Answer 15

1964. The Civil Rights act outlawed discrimination. At the same time, Title VI, the part of the Civil Rights Act that pertained to education, became the paramount initiative for bilingual education in the United States. Title VI allowed funds to be withheld from school districts that maintained segregation or did not promote integration.

Question 16

ESEA

Answer 16

1965. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, part of Johnson’s war on poverty.

Question 17

TESOL

Answer 17

1966

Question 18

MALDEF

Answer 18

1968. Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. fought to gain recognition for the fundamental language and cultural differences between their communities and the ‘Anglo-White’ mainstream. The lack of any reference to multiculturalism in an all-English curriculum fostered low academic achievement in such communities.

Question 19

ESEA Title VII

Answer 19

1968. Bilingual Education Act. Gave schools money that were trying to help ELL’s in any way, including and especially transitional bilingual programs (L1 as a crutch).

Question 20

Lau v. Nichols 9th Circuit

Answer 20

1973. It is the Chinese students own fault for letting their Chineseness get in the way of their learning English. (L1 as a detriment).

Question 21

Lau v. Nichols SCOTUS

Answer 21

1974. The burden of making sure that ELL’s have full access to the core curriculum falls on the schools not the children. Argued under the discrimination due to national origin clause of Civil Rights Act title VI, not the Constitution. Implied that accessible education for ELL’s is not a constitutional right.

Question 22

EEOA

Answer 22

1974. Equal Education Opportunity Act. Interpreted Lau as applying to all schools whether or not they receive federal funds. Never says “bilingual” but Congress interpreted it to mean that L1 should be used to the extent necessary to acquire L2.

Question 23

1974 Amendment to ESEA Title VII

Answer 23

Defined a bilingual program as one that uses L1 to help students enter L2 (mainstream) classrooms as quickly as possible without losing their culture entirely. Funded capacity building for bilingual programs and research.

Question 24

1978 Amendment to ESEA Title VII

Answer 24

Native English speakers can be included in Bilingual programs.

Question 25

Castanyeda v. Pickard

Answer 25

1981. Programs for ELL’s are effective if 1) theory-based, 2) sufficient amount of qualified teachers, 3), effective in teaching L2 (L1 doesn’t matter).

Question 26

Reagan

Answer 26

1981. Vocal against the idea of teaching the subject areas in L1.

Question 27

1982 Amendment to ESEA Title VII

Answer 27

Some provision made for L1 maintenance.

Question 28

Senator Hayakawa

Answer 28

1983. founded U.S. English, a non-profit organization that promotes English as the official language of the United States and discredits bilingual education.

Question 29

1994 Reauthorization of ESEA Title VII

Answer 29

Sees value in L1 for the first time. Promotes two-way bilingual programs.

Question 30

Prop 187

Answer 30

1994. No more public schooling for undocumented immigrants.

Question 31

Prop 227

Answer 31

1998. Ended CA bilingual education.

Question 32

2002 Reauthorization of entire ESEA

Answer 32

Eliminated Title VII altogether. Added Title III to punish schools with ELL’s whose content area scores were lower than non-ELL’s.

Question 33

Massachusetts Question 2

Answer 33

2002. Transitional bilingual programs replaced with Sheltered English Instruction segregated programs.

Question 34

Williams v. California

Answer 34

2004. CA must fund its schools with adequate facilities and permanent, qualified teachers. Intern teachers cannot be responsible for ELL’s. Teachers need to be qualified in ELL methodologies to work with ELL’s.

Question 35

2015 Reauthorization of entire ESEA

Answer 35

Increases funding for Title III because increases huge demographic increase in ELL’s (60% of lower grade students in CA). Gives funding for Title III regardless of English proficiency scores. Recognizes that language learning takes time but still not that interested in L1 for its own sake, only as a crutch until L2 is learned.

Question 36

Prop 58

Answer 36

2016. Repeals 227 in CA.