Bilingual/ESL Education Timeline

By leira23
  • Bushwick Parents Organization v. Mills

    The New York State Supreme Court threw out Bushwick Parents Organization v. Mills, a case brought by families in Brooklyn, most of them Hispanic, to free their kids from an ever-expanding bilingual-ed bureaucracy.
  • Quiroz et al. vs. State Board of Education

    The Orange Unified School District is sued in California State Court in Sacramento by plaintiffs claiming that LEP students' rights are violated by the school district waivers for English-only instruction
  • Senate Bill 6 Vetoed

    Governor Pete Wilson vetoes Senate Bill 6. SB 6 contained many of the provisions of the Chacón-Moscone law but granted flexibility to school districts to use bilingual education or English immersion according to local needs and preferences
  • Proposition 227

    passed and basically banned bilingual education except under certain special conditions and established a one-year "sheltered immersion" program for all LEP students
  • Valeria G. v Wilson

    one of the many cases opposing the prop 227, this too stated that only one year of English immersion was not sufficient to provide supports needed for LEP students to succeed academically and therefore violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. Was denied by the judge.
  • Utah State Initiative for English-Only Laws

    following behind prop 226 in california
  • Doe v. Los Angeles USD

    Parents filed against the school district for prop 227 stating it violated the Equal Opportunities Act of 1974 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • California Teachers Association v. Davis

    filed by teachers in california who felt the provisions of prop 227 were facially unconstitutional, was ultimately dismissed by the court
  • Flores v. Arizona

    addressed inadequacies related to educating ELL students and required increased funding for ELL students. However, state legislators and educational leaders used a wide variety of stall tactics and legal manevuers to avoid fully complying with the court orders
  • Proposition 203

    Proposition 203
    Arizona's version of English-Only laws. Arizona Proposition 203, English for the Children, is a ballot initiative that was passed by 63% of Arizona voters on November 7, 2000. This piece of legislation limited the type of instruction available to English Language Learner (ELL) students. Before Proposition 203, schools were free in terms of ELL instruction to use bilingual or immersion methods.
  • NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act

    reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, started by George W. Bush
  • Morales v. Tucson USD

    Oscar and Lizbeth Morales, parents of a 1st grader in the district sued the district stating that their implementation of prop 203 was unconstitutional due to the fact that its’ waiver process does not notify parents as to why their waivers have been denied and does not allow them to challenge the denial of their waivers, thus forcing their children into sheltered english programs.
  • WIDA established

    World-class Instructional Design and Assessment. In 2002 an EAG grant provided initial funding for the organization that would become WIDA. Three states were involved in the grant: Wisconsin (WI), Delaware (D), and Arkansas (A), so the acronym WIDA was chosen for the name. At the last minute, however, Arkansas dropped out, and World-class Instructional Design and Assessment was created to fit the acronym.
  • Question 2

    Approved in Massachusetts in 2002 (funded by Silicone Valley millionaire Ron Unz), replaced Massachusetts education law providing for transitional bilingual education in public schools with a law requiring that all public school children be taught all subjects in English and be placed in English language classrooms, except under special circumstances.
  • English for the Children of Colorado (Initiative 31)

    Rejected by 56% of the voters.
  • Amendment 31

    The defeat of Amendment 31 in Colorado provides
    hope and evidence that Ron Unz, and others of his ilk, can be
    defeated. At the same time, the study ends on a cautionary note,
    for although a battle has been won, the war to protect the rights of
    children and their families rages on.