Edcme 760x467

History of Multicultural Education

By kdowskk
  • Engel v. Vitale

    Engel v. Vitale
    Argued on April 3, 1962, Engel v Vitale was a court case questioning whether or not mandatory prayer in school violates the First Amendment. Since Americans adhere to a wide variety of beliefs, the court found it inappropriate for the government to push any particular belief system on a student, and therefore outlawed mandatory prayer in school. This is one important step in keeping the church and state secular, and promotes acceptance of other cultures.
  • Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

    Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia
    This court case extends a prior ruling on education to children with disabilities who were not receiving adequate education. The court reasoned that each child had a right to such an education. The court explained that the school board’s failure to meet its mandate could not be excused by its argument that there were insufficient funds available to pay for the services that the children needed
  • Lau v Nichols

    Lau v Nichols
    Chinese American students argued they were not being provided with adequate education because of their limited English proficiency. The case requires school districts to provide equal opportunities for all students, including those who do not speak English (even though it does not provide specific instruction on how to do so).
  • Equal Educational Opportunities Act

    Equal Educational Opportunities Act
    It prohibits discrimination against faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requires school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation. The legislation has been particularly important in protecting the rights of students with limited English proficiency.
  • Plyler v Doe

    Plyler v Doe
    U.S. Supreme Court rules in a 5-4 decision that Texas law denying access to public education for undocumented school-age children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The ruling also found that school districts cannot charge tuition fees for the education of these children. This is a step of progress, as no child should be denied the opportunity for a solid education.
  • The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990
    The act increases annual immigration to 700,000 adding to the diversity of our nation and its schools. Specific aspects of the law provide for family-sponsored visas; employment-based visas for priority workers, skilled workers, and "advanced professionals"; and 55,000 diversity visas "allocated to natives of a country that has sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants to the United States over the previous five years."
  • Prop 227 in California

    Prop 227 in California
    California voters pass Proposition 227, requiring that all public school instruction be in English. It requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English. This provision had the effect of eliminating "bilingual" classes in most cases.
  • No Child Left Behind Act

    No Child Left Behind Act
    The NCLB held school districts responsible for academic progress by all students through high-stakes testing. It put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers. States did not have to comply with the new requirements, but if they didn’t, they risked losing federal Title I money.
  • Race to the Top

    Race to the Top
    The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 includes the Race to the Top initiative. States were awarded points for satisfying certain educational policies, such as performance-based evaluations for teachers and principals based on multiple measures of educator effectiveness, adopting common standards, turning around the lowest-performing schools, and building and using data systems.
  • Gender Bathroom "Law" in Schools

    Gender Bathroom "Law" in Schools
    The federal government tells school districts "to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity." Though the directive is not a law, districts that do not comply could face lawsuits or lose federal aid. This is one way to make transgendered students feel more safe being themselves.