Educational Policies and Court Cases Relevant to Equitable Education for English Language Learners
By RogersLA
-
Period: to
Meyer vs. Nebraska
Eliminated the law in Nebraska that banned schools to teach foreign language. States were given the authority to decide the language of instruction in public schools. Courts supported parental rights to use schools for heritage language events when school is not in session. Public schools may be used for bilingual education opportunities for the community. -
Period: to
Farrington vs. Tokushige
Case in which the federal courts abolished the Territory of Hawaii's law in which schools could not teach a foreign language without a permit. States were given the authority to decide the language of instruction in public schools. Courts supported parental rights to use schools for heritage language events when school is not in session. Public schools may be used for bilingual education opportunities for the community. -
Period: to
Brown vs. Board of Education
A segregation case that supported equal education rights for all students and inclusion, not separation. Courts realized we could not isolate students in education. This pertains to our English Language Learners and supports them being in the least restrictive environment. -
Period: to
ESEA- Elementary and Secondary Education Act
During time of Civil Rights and President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty".
Provided extra resources for students of low income families. Since English Language Learners commonly come from low income families, this had and has an impact on their education. -
Period: to
Title I- Improving the Achievement of the Economically Disadvantaged
Ensures all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach proficiency academically and on state assessments. Title I mandates all students are tested for progress. It also requires that all English Language Learners must be tested using the necessary accommodations and in a reliable trustworthy manner. Led to equitable testing policies for English Language Learners. -
Period: to
Title VII of ESEA- Bilingual Education Act
Research supported the need for a bilingual education in the early grades. Senator Yarborough of Texas passed a bill for federal funding to support bilingual education. This led to TItle VII which provided grants to eligible schools through a competitive grant process. This act included all children of limited English speaking ability and poverty status. Funding is used for extra resources and supports for English Language Learners. -
Period: to
Lau vs. Nichols
Seeded the Lau Remedies which holds school districts accountable for the special needs of its Language Learners. This right protects families who are not proficient in English Language and instruction. However, a bilingual education was not mandated.
This case was the basis for English as a Second Language in public schools. -
Period: to
EEOA- Equal Educational Opportunities Act
Educational opportunities will not be denied to any individual based on race, color, sex, or national origin. Educational institutions must supply the resources necessary to eliminate language barriers that inhibit its students ability to participate in their education. It is a district's responsibility to assure it is giving its English Language Learners instruction in English Linguistics. -
Period: to
Castaneda vs. Pickard
Raymondville School district was found guilty of breaking the EEOA, but not required to provide a bilingual education for the student. Due to this case three areas must be met in programs for English Language Learners. The standard set had some flaws which led to victories for both sides This assessment will lead into future assessments for district and teacher accountability for English Language Learners. -
Period: to
Plyler vs. Doe
Upheld that states cannot deny a student a free public education based on immigration status. This decision was based on the 14th Amendment. Another legal decision supporting equitable education for all students. -
Period: to
Gomez vs. Illinois State Board of Education
The Castaneda standard was used to support this case. The school was found guilty of an inadequate program for its English Language Learners. Even though the test had flaws, it still offered some support for the needs of English Language Learners being met. Another stepping stone in creating a better system for school accountability and assessing student achievement. -
Period: to
CA Proposition 227
Required English Language Learners to have one year of strictly English instructions before joining English-only classrooms. Linked to English for the Children Initiatives: placed severe restrictions on bilingual education. The rationale was not evidence based. The goal to eliminate bilingual education in the schools and submerse English Language Learners in the English Language. Today many schools support bilingual education because it is found to be successful. -
Period: to
Flores vs. Arizona
Due to the subjectivity of the Castaneda test, courts have made decisions on the side of the school districts and the student . In this case, the district was found to have sufficient policies and procedures established for their English Language Learners. This case helped justify the need for a more accurate way of holding schools accountable and creating a valid assessment for students. -
Period: to
Arizona Proposition 203
Law that stated all instruction will be done in English. English Learners will be immersed in sheltered English programs. Linked to English for the Children Initiatives: placed severe restrictions on bilingual education. The rationale was not evidence based. The goal to eliminate bilingual education in the schools and submerse English Language Learners in the English Language. Today many schools support bilingual education because it is found to be successful. -
Period: to
NCLB - No Child Left Behind Act
Provides funding for extra educational assistance for students in low socioeconomic institutions. Uses the language Limited English Proficient to label students. The bilingual term was removed from text. Requires each state create standards and assessments to analyze the progress of Limited English Proficient students. This led to accountability of districts by implementing annual measurable achievements objectives and requiring adequate yearly progress. Contributes to creation of ESSA. -
Period: to
Title III-Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
Replaced Title VII in ESEA. Title III: Programs for English Language Learners must provide English language instruction and academic content. Control was given to states to decide what programs to use as long as it met the criteria. This title does not specify the use of non bilingual or bilingual programs. Assures English Language Learners are not just learning language, but also academic content. -
Period: to
Massachusetts Question 2
Measure for English to be the language of instructions for all educational institutions. Linked to English for the Children Initiatives: placed severe restrictions on bilingual education. The rationale was not evidence based. The goal to eliminate bilingual education in the schools and submerse English Language Learners in the English Language. Today many schools support bilingual education because it is found to be successful. -
Period: to
RITT - Race to the Top
Provided money for competitive grants to aid in education reform. Teacher performance evaluations were tied to test scores. Holds teachers accountable for English Language Learner test scores. -
Period: to
ESSA Act Flexibility
Obama invited states to apply for the ESEA Flexibility. because the majority of states were failing AYP. States were granted flexibility form the Title 1 accountability of NCLB. States needed to apply and document how English Language Learners' needs will be met. The submitted information was subjective and incomplete. Another stepping stone in creating ESSA and establishing adequate criteria to meet the needs of the students. -
Period: to
ESSA- Every Student Succeeds Act
This act gave the power back into state hands for establishing a means for meeting criteria base on the following: state standards, assessments, accountability, public reporting, teacher and administration, and funding. Replaced the NCLB act.