# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Washington, D.C., July 2, 1964.

# data[].attributes.body
Although this Act did not address bilingual education directly, the Civil Rights Act of 1954 opened an important door for it. Title VI of the Act forbade discrimination on the basis of color, race or national origin. It was preceded by the Civil Rights Movement, in which African-Americans advocated for general equality of opportunity (especially educational opportunity) for all people, regardless of race, color, or faith. This Act led to the establishment of the Office of Civil Rights and symbolized a less negative attitude to ethnic groups and possibilities for increased tolerance of home languages, at least at the federal level (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 387).  What this also meant was it was mandatory for school districts that received federal financial aid to make certain that minority students were getting the same access to educational opportunities as their non-minority peers. Title VI would become very crucial in becoming a catalyst for legislation and lawsuits, such as Law v. Nichols, that shaped bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
Authorized in 1968 as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), this Act required that bilingual education program were to be seen as part of federal educational policy. Due to this, federal funds were allocated towards the education of speakers of languages other than English as well as towards  minority language speakers while they shifted from working through English in the classroom. Furthermore, it did not support the English-only legislation still in place in many states  (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 388-389). The Act was re-authorized multiple times as part of the ESEA in 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988, and 1994. This Act laid the foundation for future legislation for bilingual education through the rest of the 20th century.

# data[].attributes.body
On behalf of Chinese-speaking students who were not given equal access to instruction in the English language, a court case was filed against the San Francisco School District in 1970. The case was brought in regards to the concern of whether or not non-English-speaking students received equal educational opportunities when instructed in a language they could not comprehend. Due to the district's failure to provide a program that addressed the students' linguistic needs and provide them with instruction in the English language to make sure that they received an equal education, the students filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that the San Francisco School District violated both the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 389). Although rejected by the federal district court and court of appeals at first, the case was accepted by the US Supreme Court in 1974. The verdict outlawed English mainstreaming programs for students who had yet to be proficient in English. The US Supreme Court ruled that "There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities,  textbooks, teachers and curriculum; for some students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education" (Brown & Wright, 2021, p. 389). In a follow-up to the ruling, the Office of Civil Rights issued a set of guidelines for school districts called the Law remedies. These remedies recognized that students not proficient in English needed help. Included remedies were classes in English as a Second Language, English tutoring, and some form of bilingual education (Brown & Wright, 2021, p. 389). Although the Law remedies were symbolic of the struggle to establish language rights in the United States, the kind of bilingual education needed to achieve equality of educational opportunity for language minority children had yet to be defined. Regardless, these remedies were a monumental step on the path of growth in bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Bill Clinton signs the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) in 1994.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994 - Improving America's Schools Act (IASA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1994 - Improving America's Schools Act (IASA)

# data[].attributes.body
As a re-authorization of the ESEA, the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) was important because it recognized that students for whom English was a second language should be expected to achieve high academic standards (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 392). This legislation intended to provide students with an enriched educational program, improving instructional strategies and making the curriculum more challenging. The re-authorization also continued limited federal support for bilingual education programs and brought into question the quality and standards of education for language minority students (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 393).

# data[].attributes.headline
1998 - 2002 - The Attempted Outlawing of Bilingual Education in California (Proposition 227), Arizona (Proposition 203), and Massachusetts (Question 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
1998 - 2002 - The Attempted Outlawing of Bilingual Education in California (Proposition 227), Arizona (Proposition 203), and Massachusetts (Question 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Between 1998 and 2002, there were three attempts in three different states to outlaw education. The first attempt was California's Proposition 227, which was brought about in 1998 as an effort to improve English language instruction for children who needed to learn English for economic and employment opportunities. In order to make this happen, the solution was to outlaw bilingual education in the state so that "all children shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible and such children shall be taught English by being taught in English" (Proposition 227, 1998). As a result, bilingual education programs were greatly restricted and sheltered English-immersion programs were put in their place (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 395). This movement to eliminate bilingual education was pioneered by Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley businessman who wanted to get elected to political office and had adopted a personal philosophy of assimilation. Ergo, he criticized bilingual education and made false/misleading claims that bilingual schools in California were supposedly ineffective (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 395). Unz went on to impose his philosophy on bilingual education with "English for the Children" initiatives in Arizona (Proposition 203) and Massachusetts (Question 2). In these two states, restrictions were even tighter, even more severely limiting parental choices in their children' education and threats of lawsuits if schools did not comply with the initiative. Although the initiative was short-lived when it Unz was defeated by businesswoman, Pat Stryker, whose daughter was in a dual language program, the decline of bilingual programs within these three states was an urgent matter to attend to as their numbers were rapidly dropping in response to the former initiative. Research, however, showed that there was little to no evidence that this initiative led to higher academic achievement or increases in English proficiency among ELL students in any of the states and, in fact, only decreased the rate of ELL students graduating from high school. Nonetheless, due to loopholes, waiver provisions, and various degrees of interpretations and implementation of the law by different state superintendents of public instruction, a multitude of bilingual programs were able to continuously survive, expand, or contribute to the establishment of new dual language programs (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 396). The survival of these programs as well as the establishment of newer ones symbolizes the approval among parents and their desire for their children to be bilingual. The perseverance of bilingual/dual language programs, improved education for ELL students, growth of dual immersion  programs, and greater societal recognition of the value of multilingualism in the 21st century in these states despite the restrictions placed upon them marks an important event for bilingual education because they all resulted in efforts to overturn restrictions on bilingual education. Such efforts included Proposition 58 under the title 'English Proficiency. Multilingual Education', which required that public schools ensure students be proficient in English, allowed school districts to establish dual language programs for non-native English speakers, encouraged parental and community input on language acquisition programs, and gave parents the right to 'select an available language acquisition program that best suits their child' (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 397).

# data[].attributes.body
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act signed in 2001, was yet another detrimental legislation that negatively impacted the progression of bilingual education. Under this act, the Title VII Bilingual Education Act was eliminated and issues regarding ELL's were addressed under Title III, "Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students" (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 399). Under Title III, the term 'limited English proficient' (LEP) was used and brought with it a deficit view of students, focusing on what they lack (English) rather than focusing on the fact that they were emergent bilinguals and capable of meeting high standards to learn English and other languages (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 399). Additionally, states were required to make sure that students were instructed by 'highly qualified teachers' even though there was no clear criteria for teachers of ELLs. To make matters more complicated, NCLB imposed high-stakes testing based solely on Mathematics and English and held teachers accountable for the academic performances and English language development of 'LEP' students by pressuring them to meet certain standards yearly. Such expectations pressured teachers to rapidly attempt to teach test-driven content-area and English language skills in order to meet annual test performance targets and avoid being labeled "failing schools", which tended to include major ethnic groups and 'LEP students'. Assessment failure was blamed on schools and teachers instead of on a system that placed more importance on obtaining high test scores than quality teaching. This led to increased drop-out rates, less time for curriculum areas other than math and English, inconsistent and inaccurate test results from ELLs, and the loss of fluent bilingual teachers as well as native-speaker aides (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 400-402).

# data[].attributes.body
Signed into law in 2015 by President Barack Obama, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) brought NCLB to an end. The Act recognized the failures of NCLB, such as its "unrealistic achievement expectations and over-reliance on high-stakes standardized tests as the only measure of student achievement" (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 408). Under the ESSA, states were able to be more flexible in setting goals and planning how they would intervene in low-performing schools (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 409). Students' levels of proficiency were taken into account when setting targets for achievement and interpreting their test scores. Other measurements to track and assess students' growth over time were implemented in addition to testing of content and English language proficiency.

# data[].attributes.headline
2016-2020 - The Repeal of Legislation that Attempted to Outlaw Bilingual Education (Proposition 58 and the LOOK Act)

# data[].attributes.subject
2016-2020 - The Repeal of Legislation that Attempted to Outlaw Bilingual Education (Proposition 58 and the LOOK Act)

# data[].attributes.body
The attempted outlawing of bilingual education in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts led to a movement to repeal such legislation. Such efforts included Proposition 58 under the title 'English Proficiency. Multilingual Education', which required that public schools ensure students be proficient in English, allowed school districts to establish dual language programs for non-native English speakers, encouraged parental and community input on language acquisition programs, and gave parents the right to 'select an available language acquisition program that best suits their child' (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 397). Another effort to repeal legislation outlawing bilingual education was the LOOK Act, which sought to repeal Question 2 in Massachusetts and give school districts the flexibility to provide bilingual education programs (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 397). These efforts demonstrated that bilingual education is political and very vulnerable to media and propaganda. It is essential to not only seek out proper research findings on the benefits of bilingual education, but to use those findings as well as parental/communal involvement to build a positive image in favor of bilingual education. Research findings need to be more accessible so as to steer the public away from a biased and narrow viewpoint on bilingual education.