Historical Background of Bilingual Education Flashcards
In the first US Supreme Court case to address foreign language teaching in American education, justices struck down a Nebraska law that banned public and private schools from offering instruction in any language but English.
An evangelical lutheran private school had been charged with reading a bible story in German to a student. The decision established the principle that parents have the constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children.
Meyer v. Nebraska 1923
The U.S. court of appeals for the 9th circuit upheld a federal district court that had struck down the segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students in 4 Orange County California School districts as a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. constitution’s 14th amendment.
First fed court decision to strike down segregation in K-12 education and help lay the groundwork for the legal attack on racial segregation that led to the supreme courts ruling in Brown v. Board of Ed Topeka.
Mendez vs Westminster 1947
ESEA passed by Lyndon B. Johnson; emphasizes equal access to education, sets high standards for academic performance; Title 1 provided funds for education of low income children
Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965
Congress amended the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 by adding a major section, Title VII to help children with limited English ability by providing federal aid for educational programs, teacher training, the development of instructional materials, and promotion of parent involvement. The law has been revised over the years, usually under the reauthorization of the ESEA and its current version, the No Child Left Behind Act- which replaced the title VII competitive grant program with title III, a formula grant program to the states promoting English Acquisition and helping ELL meet challenging content standards.
Bilingual Education Act 1968
To clarify a school district’s responsibilities with respect to national-origin-minority children, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, on May 25, 1970, issued a policy statement stating, in part, that “where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national-origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open the instructional program to the students.”
The May 25th Memorandum
Despite the fed bilingual education law, many school districts were slow to offer effective bilingual education programs. A series of lawsuits across the country addressed the response. This was the first bilingual education class action filed by Mexican Americans. A fed district judge ordered school officials to hire more Spanish speaking teachers and to develop a more aggressive bilingual education plan. A federal appeals court upheld the ruling and granted broad remedial powers to district judges to fashion effective bilingual plans.
Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools 1972
Regarding equal access to education. Includes bilingual learners and their right to appropriate education. A United States Supreme Court case in which the court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the civil rights act of 1964. Parents of students of Chinese ancestry in San Francisco sued over the fact that the city’s school system required mastery of English for high school graduation but did not provide special instruction.
Lau vs Nichols 1974
On June 23, 1981, the Fifth Circuit Court issued a decision that is the seminal post-Lau decision concerning education of language minority students. The case established a three-part test to evaluate the adequacy of a district’s program for ELL students:
(1) is the program based on an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field or is considered by experts as a legitimate experimental strategy;
(2) are the programs and practices, including resources and personnel, reasonably calculated to implement this theory effectively; and
(3) does the school district evaluate its programs and make adjustments where needed to ensure language barriers are actually being overcome?
Castaneda v. Pickard (1981)
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that withheld funding from school districts for the education of any children who were not legally admitted into the U.S. Although ed is not a fundamental right under the U.S. constitution, the undocumented immigrant children had a 14th amendment equal protection right not to be deprived of the same educational benefits as other residents.
Plyer v Doe 1982
Part A of Title III is officially known as the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Title III is a part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 proposed and signed into law by the George W. Bush Administration. It is specifically targeted to benefit Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. The Act states that LEP students must not only attain English proficiency but simultaneously meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas.
[1] Federal funding is provided to assist State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in meeting these requirements.
- Each LEA must take a student count on # of immigrant children
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
In a long running case, the 9th circuit appeals court ruled in February 2008, that Arizona must comply with a fed district court decision requiring it to do more to adequately fund instruction for ELLs. The court rejected arguments that provisions in the No Child Left Behind Law on ELL students significantly altered the law in this area and that the state had satisfied its obligations under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. The state has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Flores v. Arizona 2008
Signed in 2015. Reauthorized the ESEA,. States must establish standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for EL identification and services. Schools must report on progress of English language proficiency as part of the state’s accountability system. influences timing of when they take state assessments.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
After Lau-Congress passed this law. Mandated that no state could deny equal educational opportunity to any individual by among other things the failure of an ed agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by students in an instructional program
Equal Educational Opportunities Act
Holds all school districts accountable for identifying and serving ELLs. Districts are required to adopt a policy on education of ELLs, plan and provide appropriate services for them, and evaluate and report their academic achievement.
CR 154
Instructional programs for ELLs are funded primarily through local funds but are supplemented by State LEP Aid.
State Bilingual Categorical Funds
