-
Court Ruling: Meyer v. Nebraska
This decision struck down the Nebraska law saying all instruction had to be in English. It argued that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. In other words, students may be taught in their home language. -
Court Ruling: Farrington v. Tokushige
This court ruling stemming from a case in Hawaii said that parents may hold heritage language courses outside of regular school hours. This decision was based on the fifth amendment and limited the powers of the federal government to limit teaching of home languages other than English. -
Court Ruling: Brown v. Board of Education
The same decision that led to desegregation of schools throughout the country also said that ELLs could not be segregated from their English-speaking peers (for the length of their education). -
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The ESEA of 1965 was passed by the federal government to provide funding for schools and help meet the needs of low-income students. It was renewed several times before it was replaced in 2001 by NCLB. It did not directly address the needs for ELLs but set the stage for coming legislation that would. -
Title VII Bilingual Education Act
In effect until it was replaced by NCLB in 2002, the Bilingual Education Act was added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Six reauthorizations included a final one in 1994 that defined goals. The act allowed schools with bilingual programs to receive grant funds. -
Court Ruling: Lau v. Nichols
This case established that schools cannot ignore the needs of ELLs, placing them in regular classrooms with no services. The "Lau Remedies" that followed this resulted in the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which did not require bilingual education in schools but its implementation resulted in more bilingual programs. -
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974
Resulting from the court ruling in Lau v. Nichols, the EEOA requires "educational opportunities" be provided for ELLs so all may have "equal participation" in schools. This resulted in more bilingual education programs for ELLs. -
Court Ruling: Castaneda v. Pickard
This court ruling stated that schools are not required to provide bilingual education for ELLs, but their ELL programs must fulfill three requirements: sound educational theory, adequate resources/ personnel, and evaluations to determine effectiveness for these students. -
Court Ruling: Plyler v. Doe
This case determined that undocumented children may attend school where they live in the US. They may not be excluded based on their immigrant status. -
Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education
This case used the Castaneda test from the court ruling of the same name six years before. It ruled that schools must provide some kind of supports and services to ELLs, but did not define more specifically what those programs might look like. -
English for the Children Initiatives
Laws in California (1998), Arizona (2000), and Massachusetts (2002) moved away from bilingual education in favor of English-only schooling. These were not successful. Waivers within this states effectively meant that bilingual education continued, essentially nullifying these laws. -
Flores v. Arizona
This was another case ruling where the Castaneda test was applied, showing the weakness in its vague three-prong approach to evaluating programs for ELLs. The court ordered that states provide more money for programs, but in practice this has not led to improved services. -
No Child Left Behind
Title I of NCLB addressed the needs of economically disadvantaged students, including those who are ELLs. While it says students may be tested in their home languages, this is not often done. Title III required schools to teach both English and content to ELLs. Home language instruction was left up to states. Annual tests were required to measure and track progress in English acquisition. Like LA and math for all students, schools had to achieve adequate yearly progress for ELLs. -
Race to the Top
Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, RTTT does not directly address ELL issues. It did, however, create requirements for adopting new, international standards and recruiting and retaining "highly qualified" teachers for its grant recipients. It also led to ESEA Flexiblity 2 years later. -
Common Core State Standards
States began adopting CCSS in 2010. This state-led initiative has been controversial and questioned due to the benefit for businesses. ELLs are not directly addressed in CCSS, and language of instruction is not specified. (This means it is compatible with bilingual education programs.) It does promote language development for every student. In addition, several entities in California have developed the Common Core en Espanol. -
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility
ESEA Flexibility meant schools did not have to meet the strict requirements set in Title I of NCLB. It required that states use best practices for ELLs, but only because ELLs were grouped in with other at-risk students rather than being considered with their own, unique needs in mind. States have been asked to create reforms for ELLs. -
Every Student Succeeds Act
This act is a renewal of the ESEA. It brings the mandates of NCLB to an end, while still holding schools accountable for their students' progress. It gives states more control over how to measure progress and evaluate its teachers. While testing is still used for accountability, the focus is on growth rather than grade-level skills. It also allows schools to not test ELLs (in language arts and/ or math) for their first year enrolled in school.
