ELL Legislation through the years

  • Chinese Exclusion Act

    Chinese Exclusion Act
    Suspension of Chinese Immigration
  • Meyer v. Nebraska

    The Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional that prohibited the teaching of a foreign language to elementary school students
  • Title IV of the Civil Rights Act

    Title IV of the Civil Rights Act
    Prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin for federally funded programs which included the American public education system.
  • Bilingual Education Act of 1968

    The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 emphasized that the underachievement of minority children was a result of environment factors which included their native languages and cultures. Therefore, the primary BEA insisted that these factors must be overcome by providing funding to bilingual programs encouraging cultural assimilation rather cultural preservation while learning the English language.
  • Lau vs. Nichols

    Served as a catalyst to provide exclusive and effective ELL education for students in need.
  • Reauthorization of BEA 1974

    , a more prescriptive approach was taken in defining bilingual education and its parameters as “instruction given in, and study of, English, to the extent necessary to allow a child to progress, effectively through the educational system” (p. 94).
  • Equal Educational Opportunities Act

    No state shall deny equal educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impeded equal participation by its students in its instructional programs (Garcia, p. 93).
  • Castaneda v. Pickard

    Concluded that public schools must provide an appropriate program to accommodate ELLs and that the task of deciding if these programs were appropriate would be left to federal judges (Garcia, p.79). Moreover, the case created the “Castañeda Standards” to determine whether a school district was or was not providing an adequate program for its ELL inhabitants.