# data[].attributes.body
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/01/08/17law.h28.html

I found this Education Week commentary piece that successfully summarizes a lot of key Supreme Court Cases that have impacted ESL students and their education. I thought this was a great option for a quick and reliable source for certain issues revolving around ESL students.

# data[].attributes.body
I found a really interesting resource on 6 ways to help ESL students improve their their writing.
https://busyteacher.org/8771-6-ways-help-esl-students-improve-writing.html

# data[].attributes.body
I've learned that asking the wrong question will certainly lead you down the wrong path of understanding. The article attached can help get started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During this entire RTI or RTII process, it is extremely important that specific cultural and linguistic issues be addressed as well as the specific learning and behavior that are part of the teacher's concern. Before school personnel can move to formally evaluate and consider placement in special education services, they must document that the presenting problems are not principally because of language and culture issues. They must document that the primary cause of the presenting problem is not because of the student's English proficiency or level of culture shock.

Language and culture issues will always be part of serving an ELL/CLD student, but under the reauthorized IDEA of 2004, the team must document the extent to which these are part of the presenting problem and that they are not the most significant determining factor. Specific language and culture questions that must be addressed during the problem-solving process include the following.

Asking the Right Questions

These issues frequently appear in school settings as questions asked by concerned school personnel:

"He has been here over two years, so isn't his lack of academic achievement a sign of a possible disability?"

"Is this communication problem a language difference or is it a language disability?"

"She was born here, so can't we rule out culture shock and language development issues?"

Although illustrative of the good intentions and heartfelt concern about these students by education professionals, it is more productive to ask what information do we need and how will we use it.

What information do we need?

The information to be gathered answers specific questions critical to separating difference from disability (SDD) considerations:

a) Education: Has the student been in school before? Are there gaps in the student's education experiences? Sufficient intensity of instruction?

b) Home language: Are languages other than English spoken in the student's home? What languages other than English does the student speak? Is the student maintaining an ability to communicate with his/her family members?

c) Language proficiency: What is the student's language proficiency and literacy? Is the student developing the home language at a normal rate?

d) English: Does the student need assistance with learning English? Is the student acquiring English at a normal rate?

e) Achievement: What is the student's level and rate of academic achievement? Is this normal for the general student population in your district/school? Specific population of the student?

f) Behavior: Is the student's emotional stability developmentally and culturally appropriate? Are there individual or family circumstances that may explain the observed behavior?

g) Adaptation: What is the student's level of acculturation? Is the student at risk for culture shock? Is the student adapting to our school at a normal rate?

How should we use the information?

Information about students is not valuable if it is not instructionally meaningful and does not lead to a course of action for the student's benefit.

Education

Prior experience in school, whether in the US or other country, facilitates transitional instructional models. Thus knowing that the student has received schooling elsewhere tells school personnel they can focus on transition from one academic language foundation to English academic language (Collier & Thomas, 2007). If the student has never had a formal education experience, school personnel must start by building an understanding of school culture, rules, expectations, and basic school interaction language in the student's most proficient language before transitioning into English.

SDD (separating difference from disability) concern: if the student shows little progress with adapting to school expectations and continues to struggle with acquiring school interaction language in their home language, they may have an undiagnosed disability and a full evaluation may be needed.

Home language

Students, who are raised in homes where English is infrequently or only one of other languages used, come to us with unique strengths that can become the foundation of instruction. Research shows that they have cognitive and linguistic capacities that can facilitate learning (Baca & Cervantes, 2003). Additionally, psychological wellbeing is build upon quality family communication and interactions. (Padilla et al, 1980).

SDD concern: If the student has not acquired a developmentally appropriate proficiency in a language other than English, it may be due to family circumstances or the presence of an undiagnosed disability. In either case this can delay their English acquisition. A structured intensive intervention in the primary home language would show whether the student has the ability to develop language and communication. If the student's communication does not improve under intervention then a referral for a full evaluation might be warranted.

Language & literacy

The student's proficiency and background in a language other than English assists in deciding the most effective instructional communicative models. It is critical to assess to the extent possible the student's proficiency in their home language/communication mode. As there are not standardized tests available for every language or communication mode, alternative measures are frequently needed (Baca & Cervantes, 2003). These can be structured sampling and observation, interview, interactive inventories, and other analytic tools (Hoover, Baca, & Klingner 2007).

SDD concern: a student may score low on a standardized test in their home language because they have never received instruction in the language and have only an oral proficiency. Thus low primary language and low English may look like there is some language disability. A structured intensive intervention in the primary language, including basic literacy readiness would serve two purposes, profile the student's proficiency and establish whether the low score is learning based rather than something else. If the student makes little or no progress in the RTI or RTII, a referral for a full evaluation may become necessary.

Communication

The student's language proficiency in English is directly related to eligibility and entry level for English as a second language instruction. There are many tools available for determining whether a student needs assistance with learning English. (Baca & Cervantes, 2003). For initial services in English Language Learning for limited English proficient speakers (ELL/LEP), school personnel should select instruments that are quick, non-biased, and focus on speaking and listening skills. Including literacy screening would be instructionally meaningful only for students who have received prior instruction in English.

SDD concern: Some students speak enough English to not qualify for ELL/LEP services but have such a limited classroom language foundation that they look like students with learning disabilities. Thus English screening for ELL/LEP services must include screening for cognitive academic language proficiency and not just social language. A structured intensive intervention in English, including basic phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and other reading/writing readiness would serve two purposes, profile the ELL/LEP student's proficiency and establish whether the low score is learning based rather than something else. If the student makes little or no progress in the RTI or RTII, a referral for a full evaluation is necessary.

Additionally, if the child has a disability and is receiving special education services, and is an ELL/LEP student, the IEP should list the ELL/LEP accommodations as part of related services. This could be bilingual assistance or specially designed assistance in English (Freeman and Freeman, 2007) within the special education setting or some other appropriate monitored intervention with specific objectives related to acquiring English.

In many cases, the disabling condition is such that it seriously impacts the acquisition of English and thus special education personnel and ELL/LEP personnel must work together on realistic outcomes. These modified language outcomes need to be included in the IEP.

Cognition

All children can learn but they learn at different rates and in different manners. All children can learn but they enter and exit at different points. A challenge of today's standards based education models is that students that do not fit the scope and sequence of a particular school system are frequently placed in alternative instructional settings that may or may not be appropriate to their needs (Baca and Cervantes, 2003).

SDD concern: if a student is not meeting the benchmarks established by a school system even when given learning support, they may be referred to special education as having a learning disability of some sort. Sometimes special education is the only instructional alternative available in the building. It is not appropriate to place students who do not have a disability in special education even when it is the best alternative instructional setting available. Restructuring all programs to include differentiated instructional environments where any student can enter a lesson at his/her entry point and learn to the maximum of his/her abilities. A structured intensive intervention in fundamental learning strategies would establish whether the low score is learning based rather than something else. If the student makes little or no progress in the RTI or RTII, a referral for a full evaluation may be necessary.

Behavior

Family and community events can be a contributing factor and it is critical to effective instruction to explore both school and non-school environments and their relationship to the student's presenting problem. Whether the behavior problem is due to an innate disorder, biochemical dysfunction, or a temporary response to trauma or disruption in the student's home or school environment, the student needs effective and immediate intervention and assistance.

SDD concern: although the student needs assistance with managing or controlling his or her behavior, special education is not the appropriate placement if the etiology of the problem is culture shock, an event or chronic stressors in the student's home or school environment (Collier, Brice and Oades-Sese, 2007). An intensive instructional intervention which facilitates self-monitoring and control within a supportive and safe environment should be always be implemented first. If the problem does not appear to decrease in frequency or intensity, or if the student makes little or no progress, a referral for a full evaluation might become necessary.

Adaptation

The level and rate of acculturation, and accompanying degree of culture shock, must be addressed within the instructional environment. All students must adapt to the school environment whether they speak English or not; students who come into your school from homes or communities very different from the school will experience greater degree of culture shock (Collier, Brice and Oades-Sese, 2007).

SDD concern: the manifestations of culture shock look a lot like learning and behavior disabilities and unaddressed acculturation and adaptation needs can concatenate into serious learning and behavior problems later in the education experience. An intensive instructional intervention which mitigates culture shock and facilitates adaptation and language transition should be always be implemented, particularly for newcomers. Most students will respond within weeks to this intervention. This positive response does not mean that culture shock may not reappear as culture shock is cyclical and a normal part of our adaptation to anything strange to us.

However, a positive response to acculturative assistance lets school personnel know that the presenting problems are due to a normal adaptive process, acculturation, which responds over time to instructional intervention. Students should have their level of acculturation measured at entry into your school system and their rate of acculturation monitored annually to assure the student is making normal progress in your school. If the student's rate of acculturation is not within normal range, it is an indication either that the program is not adequately addressing his transition needs, or that there may be an undiagnosed disability of some sort that is depressing the rate of acculturation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Asking the Right Questions: RTI and ELLs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During this entire RTI or RTII process, it is extremely important that specific cultural and linguistic issues be addressed as well as the specific learning and behavior that are part of the teacher's concern. Before school personnel can move to formally evaluate and consider placement in special education services, they must document that the presenting problems are not principally because of language and culture issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Two really good articles about the benefits of bilingual education and the astounding effectiveness of dual language for all.
https://bilingualkidspot.com/2016/07/21/bilingual-education-benefits/
http://dlti.us/doc/ASTOUND-EFFEC_DLE-COLLIER_&_THOMAS.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
This would be a great ice breaker activity for a class. I would even put the questions in English and any other languages that students in the class know. I would want them to feel comfortable talking and sharing with the class!

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/chronology-federal-law-and-policy-impacting-language-minority-students

This link is  a resource for the Federal Law and Policy in chronological order.  It is the overview of landmark legislation and court cases impacting the education of English language learners.

# data[].attributes.body
I wanted to investigate dual language education more, as I think this information is so crucial to understand. This website does a great job of explaining the intricacies of dual language education. This is something relatively new to me, and this website did a great job of explaining dual language features. This website also includes debates revolving around this concept. This is so important to be up to date on!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dual-language education, formerly called , refers to academic programs that are taught in two languages (*Since the term bilingual education has negative associations, it is now more commonly called dual-language education, among other terms). While dual-language education has existed in the United States for roughly two centuries, and it reached it height of popularity in the 1970s, the use of dual-language education in public schools has declined significantly in recent decades due to legislative actions that have sought to limit its use, conflicting research on its benefits, pedagogical and ideological disagreements, and diminished funding and resources supporting the approach.

Students who come from non-English-speaking backgrounds, who are not proficient in English, and who require specialized or modified language instruction, are known by a variety of names in the education community: English-language learners (ELLs), English learners (or ELs), limited English proficient (LEP) students, non-native English speakers, language-minority students, and either bilingual students or emerging bilingual students.

When used, dual-language education is generally seen as a way to ensure that non-English-speaking students, or students who are not yet proficient in English, are given opportunities to succeed in and complete their education. While schools and teachers may use a wide variety of dual-language strategies, each with its own specific instructional goals, the programs are typically designed to simultaneously develop English fluency, content knowledge, and academic language -the knowledge, skills, and cultural proficiencies needed to succeed in an academic program.

There are few main forms of dual-language education:

Transitional programs provide students with some level of instruction in their primary or native language for a certain period of time-generally one to three years-before students transition into English-only instructional programs. They are known as "one-way" programs because they only serve one group-non-native English speakers.

Maintenance programs provide students with concurrent instruction in English and their primary language throughout their elementary-school years-typically pre-kindergarten through sixth grade-with the goal of developing English fluency and academic literacy in both languages. (Both transitional and maintenance programs include instructional strategies associated with English as a second language).

Two-way enrichment programs teach both native and non-native English speakers in two languages with the goal of developing bilingual fluency. In some cases, monolingual English-speaking students may be immersed in second-language instruction alongside native speakers of the language with limited English ability.

Although dual-language programs take a wide variety of forms from school to school, the programs generally include the following features:

Dual-language curriculum and instruction: Depending on the specific model being used, the curriculum is typically presented bilingually and may be divided into distinct blocks of time-e.g., day one in English, day two in Spanish, day three in English, etc. Instruction typically does not include straight translation from language to language-teachers move through the curriculum as they would in an English-only course. Students in dual-language programs are generally required to meet the same learning standards and graduation requirements as other students.

Bilingual teachers and instructional staff:If schools cannot employ bilingual teachers, they may pair monolingual English teachers with an assistant or educational technician who speaks the native language of the students in a class.

Dual-language evaluation: When possible or required, students entering dual-language programs will be tested in English and their primary language to determine their proficiency levels in English and their first language. Careful attention is given to their knowledge of both conversational language (the language used in social interactions) and academic language (the language used in educational settings).

Culturally and linguistically relevant learning materials:When available, students are given texts, videos, software applications, tests, and other instructional resources that are produced in their primary language, which may also include content and references that reflect the students' specific cultural background.

Dual-language assessments and accommodations: When they are not being tested on their language proficiency, such as in a math course, dual-education students may be in their primary language. They may also be given various testing accommodations , such as bilingual dictionaries or additional time to complete a test.

Bilingual orientation and liaisons:Incoming students and their families may be provided some form of orientation, particularly if the students are recently arrived immigrants or refugees who are unfamiliar with the expectations and of American public schools. Orientation sessions will be conducted in their native language, and bilingual students or staff members-sometimes called parent liaisons or home liaisons-may be assigned to maintain regular contact with the incoming students and their families.

Reform

As noted above, dual-language education has been in decline in the United States in favor of English-only instructional approaches such as English as a second language or sheltered English instruction.

Like multicultural education , dual-language education is predicated on the concept of -or the principal of fairness and equal educational opportunity in education. By providing modified language instruction and specialized academic support to non-English-speaking and limited-English-proficient students, it is believed, schools can accelerate their acquisition of English and academic literacy, as well as the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn in school. If limited-English-proficient students are denied instruction in their native language, the reasoning goes, schools reduce the students' ability to understand what is being taught and meet the same learning standards as English-speaking students (there is strong evidence that the skills and concepts learned in one language can be transferred to another), which can give rise to learning gaps , achievement gaps , opportunity gaps , and other issues.

Bilingual education gained momentum following legislation passed by the United States Congress and a later decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the wake of reports on high dropout rates and low academic-achievement levels among non-English-proficient students, the Bilingual Education Act of 1967 began providing funding for transitional bilingual programs. In 1974, the Supreme Court's Lau vs. Nichols decision-which advocates perceived to be as important to the education of non-English-speaking students as the Brown vs. Board of Education decision was for African Americans-stated that students whose primary language is not English do not have equal educational opportunity without specialized language instruction. While the decision did not recommend a particular remedy, the federal government publicly supported transitional bilingual programs throughout the 1970s.

Debate

Given the culturally sensitive and often ideologically contentious nature of the peripheral issues raised by dual-language education-including politicized debates related to citizenship status, English primacy, immigration reform, and employment and social-services eligibility for non-citizens-it is perhaps unsurprising that dual-language education has been the object of debate and controversy, or that there has been a steady erosion of support for the approach over the past three decades (a cultural shift that contributed to the abandonment of the term bilingual education). For example, a significant number of states have adopted "English as the official language" statutes, and citizen referendums have passed in other states prohibiting dual-language instruction except in special cases. In addition, states have generally favored English-only programs such as English as a second language and sheltered English instruction. While it is not clear how many dual-language programs now exist-or what models they use-the programs serve only a small proportion of English-language learners in the United States.

The issues of citizenship and fairness tend to be at the center of debates over dual-language education. Critics often argue that the use of the non-English languages in public school deemphasizes the role of English as a source of linguistic and cultural unification. While critics generally do not object to bilingualism-the ability to speak two languages-they often contend that dual-language instruction inhibits or delays the acquisition of English fluency. Advocates of the practice argue that when used judiciously and effectively-as in many two-way enrichment programs-dual-language education can improve academic achievement, educational attainment, and educational equity.

Given the wide variety of dual-language models and variations, researchers have found it difficult to conduct large-scale studies on their effectiveness, and the research that does exist has largely been inconclusive. Recent findings, however, clearly favor some form of native-language instruction, in tandem with English instruction, for students who are not yet proficient in English. Many proponents of dual-language education believe that the "non-compensatory" nature of two-way enrichment instruction contributes to the success of such programs, since they tend to inherently value, rather than stigmatize, the student's linguistic and cultural background.

The following are a few representative examples of debates related to dual-language education:

Citizenship status and language policies: One of the central debates about dual-language education, and related language policies, is whether public schools should be focused on the assimilation and acculturation of non-English-speaking students, including students who may not have full citizenship status. (While most English-language learners are United States citizens, the conflation of language ability and citizenship status often motivates and complicates ongoing debates.) Both advocates and critics generally agree that all students should become fluent in English and that a bilingual citizenry is a worthy goal. Nevertheless, some educators, school reformers, elected officials, and policy makers do not see linguistic and cultural diversity as a valuable educational asset in schools. Opponents of dual-language education may argue that programs intended solely for language-minority students should be temporary, transitional, and assimilationist-i.e., that they should be designed to promote the cultural assimilation of students into mainstream American society. These critics may be unconcerned about students maintaining their native language and cultural connections, and they may also cite the growing number of non-English-speaking adults in the United State as evidence of a splintering within American society. Advocates, on the other hand, may argue that acculturation-which favors multicultural education and the maintenance of native language ability alongside the acquisition of English proficiency-would strengthen the country both culturally and economically.

Immigration: While most language-minority students were born in the United States and are full citizens, some critics believe that dual-language programs encourage illegal immigration. Advocates contend that there is no evidence for such claims, and that millions of eligible students would benefit from some degree of instruction in a language that they know and understand. Nonetheless, a handful of states have passed laws that criminalize the enrollment of undocumented immigrant students in public schools.

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: Since limited-English-proficient students have to meet the same state-required learning standards and graduation expectations that apply to English-speaking students, dual-language education has significant implications for how students are taught. For example, textbooks and other instructional materials may be translated from English or produced outside of the United States, and English-language learners may be given accommodations on standardized tests that some might perceive to be unfair to other students. Since dual-language programs typically do not present both English and non-English versions of the same content-i.e., each lesson, unit, or school day is taught in alternating languages-there may be concern that less-proficient students could fall behind academically, lose motivation, or drop out of school. Some critics of dual-language education may cite examples of students remaining in these programs long after they achieve fluency in English, and they may also express concern about the separation of bilingual children from their English-speaking peers, which may delay assimilation. Proponents argue that what students are learning in their native language will transfer to their English instruction, and that teachers who cannot converse with their students will be unable to design meaningful instructional experiences for them.

Staffing and resource allocation: Since dual-language programs must have bilingual teachers or support staff, the practice may raise concerns about funding and hiring. For example, some districts might prioritize the hiring of bilingual educators, which may be perceived as unfair to other candidates and academic departments or to the students who will not benefit from additional teachers in other areas. (This type of staffing debate also intersected with ongoing debates related to affirmative action.)

Teacher preparation: As the number of language-minority students increased in the United States, it became clear that many teachers, particularly those from monolingual English backgrounds, were not well prepared to teach them-either in English or another language. As a result, schools, districts, universities, state departments of education, professional associations, and accrediting agencies began to develop a wide variety of policies and strategies to address the problem. Some states, for example, created specific teaching licenses and preparation requirements for dual-language programs. While some of these actions helped stabilize school staffing or improve instructional quality for some students, their inconsistent application often perpetuated the perception that limited-English-proficient students were being taught by unqualified teachers.

Parent participation: Because of the linguistic, cultural, and economic barriers faced by many language-minority parents and families, they may struggle to actively and meaningfully participate in their children's education. Consequently, they may be unfairly perceived as uncaring or disengaged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dual-language education, formerly called bilingual education, refers to academic programs that are taught in two languages (*Since the term bilingual education has negative associations, it is now more commonly called dual-language education, among other terms). While dual-language education has existed in the United States for roughly two centuries, and it reached it height of popularity [...]

# data[].attributes.body
The information was a great collaboration of issues that EL's have faced within this country. The look into the laws was informative.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.hanoverresearch.com/2012/03/19/5-facts-about-programs-for-english-language-learners-ells/

As I worked through Module 4 there were some questions that occurred to me in regards ESL programs. I know the module was mostly about the history and the law but it also briefly mentioned the bilingual programs that are used throughout the country. I wanted to kow if there is information available or research in regards to the effectiveness of ESL programs. The link above provided me with condemning facts that I thought would be helpful to share.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bilingual vs. ESL and Bilingual vs. Dual Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At ESL Partyland you can have fun while learning English as a second language.

# data[].attributes.body
For those who are teaching English and might have ESLs in their classroom, or just the struggling reader, I found these comprehension bookmarks! There are five types: Summarize, make predictions, draw conclusions, compare/contrast, and identify main ideas and details. This could be something used in either the ESL classroom or elementary classroom. I thought it would keep kids focused on why they're reading. It will allow them to look back and give them confidence. In my opinion, this little bookmark could encourage a struggling reader to keep working at it because they'll think they are "big kid" readers with a bookmark; this is something maybe their peers who are good at reading use.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/538954280393254387/

# data[].attributes.body
I found this resource that lays out the laws related to ESL education. I think this is a great resource because it explains each law in order. It could be a good resource to use with older students to help explain the history of ESL education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following chronology compiled by the Texas Education Agency offers an overview of landmark legislation and court cases impacting the education of English language learners.

Federal Policy: Timeline

1920s-1960s - English immersion or "sink-or-swim" policies are the dominant method of instruction of language minority students. Few or no remedial services are available, and students are generally held at the same grade level until enough English is mastered to advance in subject areas.

1963 - Success of a two-way bilingual program for Cuban refugee children in Dade County, Florida, inspires the implementation of similar programs elsewhere.

1964 - Civil Rights Act: Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the operation of all federally assisted programs.

The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII

1968 - The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968: Establishes federal policy for bilingual education for economically disadvantaged language minority students, allocates funds for innovative programs, and recognizes the unique educational disadvantages faced by non-English speaking students.

1978 - Amendments to Title VII emphasize the strictly transitional nature of native language instruction, expand eligibility to students who are limited English proficient (LEP), and permit enrollment of English-speaking students in bilingual programs.

1982 - Amendments to Title VII allow for some native language maintenance, provide program funding for LEP students with special needs, support family English literacy programs, and emphasize importance of teacher training.

1988 - Amendments to Title VII include increased funding to state education agencies, expanded funding for "special alternative" programs where only English is used, established a three-year limit on participation in most Title VII, and created fellowship programs for professional training.

1994 - Comprehensive educational reforms entail reconfiguration of Title VII programs. New provisions reinforce professional development programs, increase attention to language maintenance and foreign language instruction, improve research and evaluation at state and local level, supply additional funds for immigrant education, and allow participation of some private school students. Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Unit 2011-2012 11

No Child Left Behind

2001 - No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 appropriates funds to states to improve the education of limited English proficient students by assisting children to learn English and meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards. Legislation for limited English proficient students is found under Title III of NCLB.

Court Rulings

Supreme Court

This suit by Chinese parents in San Francisco leads to the ruling that identical education does not constitute equal education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. School districts must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by non-English speakers. This ruling established that the Office for Civil Rights, under the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has the authority to establish regulations for Title VI enforcement.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the state does not have the right to deny a free public education to undocumented immigrant children.

Federal Court

1971 - United States of America v. State of Texas, et al.

This desegregation case centered on the issue of discrimination and whether the San Felipe and Del Rio school districts were providing Mexican American students an equal educational opportunity. On August 6, 1971, Judge William Wayne Justice ordered the consolidation of the two districts. As a result of the lawsuit, the federal court came down with a court order, Civil Action 5281, which eliminates discrimination on grounds of race, color, or national origin in Texas public and charter schools.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Spanish surnamed students' achievement levels were below those of their Anglo counterparts. The court ordered Portales Municipal Schools to implement a bilingual/bicultural curriculum, revise procedures for assessing achievement, and hire bilingual school personnel.

1978 - Cintron v. Brentwood

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the Brentwood School District's proposed bilingual program on the grounds that it would violate "Lau Guidelines" by unnecessarily segregating Spanish-speaking students from their English-speaking peers in music and art. The court also objected to the program's failure to provide for exiting students whose English language proficiency was sufficient for them to understand mainstream English instruction.

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the Pastchogue-Medford School District's transitional bilingual program was basically a course in English and that students were denied an equal educational opportunity by not receiving academic instruction in Spanish. The court wrote: "A denial of educational opportunities to a child in the first years of schooling is not justified by demonstrating that the educational program employed will teach the child English sooner than a program comprised of more extensive Spanish instruction."

1981 - Castañeda v. Pickard

Reputed to be the most significant court decision affecting language minority students after Lau. In responding to the plaintiffs' claim that Raymondville, Texas Independent School District's language remediation programs violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals formulated a set of basic standards to determine school district compliance with EEOA.

The "Castañeda test" includes the following criteria:

1. Theory: The school must pursue a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or, at least, as a legitimate experimental strategy

2. Practice: The school must actually implement the program with instructional practices, resources, and personnel necessary to transfer theory to reality

3. Results: The school must not persist in a program that fails to produce results.

1981 - United States v. State of Texas et al., January 12, 1981
The U.S. District Court for the eastern district of Texas, Tyler division, instructs TEA to phase in mandatory bilingual education in grades K-12. This decision outlined specific requirements including: three year monitoring cycles, identification of LEP students, and a language survey for students entering school. It also established the need for exit criteria.

1982 - United States v. State of Texas et al., July 12, 1982

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reverses the previous judgment of U.S. v. State of Texas et al., January 12, 1981 because of state legislation enacted in 1981.

1983 - Keyes v. School District #1

A U.S. District Court found that a Denver public school district had failed to adequately implement a plan for language minority students, which is the second element of the "Castañeda Test."

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State Education Agencies are also required under EEOA to ensure that language minority student's educational needs are met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Chronology of Federal Law and Policy Impacting Language Minority Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following chronology compiled by the Texas Education Agency offers an overview of landmark legislation and court cases impacting the education of English language learners. 1920s-1960s - English immersion or "sink-or-swim" policies are the dominant method of instruction of language minority students.

# data[].attributes.body
This article offers insight into the controversy of bilingual education.  As teachers, I think it is important to be aware of this debate and to be able to discuss it with those who might disagree with bilingual education. I think this is also an article teachers can recommend to parents who might not see the benefit in bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thirty years after its introduction, bilingual education is still generating controversy.

In recent years, bilingual education has sparked as much controversy as any other education issue. Most educators and parents agree that the main goals in educating students with a native language other than English are mastery of English and of content in academic areas. But a heated academic and political battle rages over how best to reach those goals and how important it is to preserve the students' original language in the process.

Teachers use several methods to instruct students whose English is limited -- including immersion, transitional bilingual education, and developmental, or maintenance, bilingual education.

In immersion, students learn in English. Teachers generally use simple language that is tailored to let students absorb English while learning academic subjects.

Transitional bilingual education offers students some instruction in their native language while simultaneously providing concentrated English-language instruction. At least in theory, students make a transition from transitional bilingual programs to mainstream English programs within a few years.

Developmental bilingual education attempts to build on students' skills in their native language as they learn English as a second language.

THE ROOTS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Special services for limited-English-speaking students were few and limited until the 1970s. At that point, language-minority speakers and their advocates were arguing for bilingual education as a civil right. They argued that students were being deprived of an education if they were taught in a language they didn't understand.

The push for bilingual education blossomed as a fight for students' overall rights. Bilingual programs were seen as fostering respect for the non-native English-speaking students' culture. As one of the organizations backing bilingual education, for example, the New York State Association for Bilingual Education maintains it is important to foster "the awareness and appreciation of biculturalism and bilingualism as an integral part of cultural pluralism in our society."

In 1968 Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act to provide for the growing number of linguistically diverse students who, because of their limited English proficiency, were not getting an education equal to that of their English-proficient peers. The Bilingual Education Act revisions of 1974 recast provisions of the 1968 legislation. The 1974 law created the National Advisory Council on Bilingual Education to articulate a plan for a national policy in bilingual education.

In the language of the federal law: "Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students."

According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, "the role of bilingual education is grounded in two knowledge-based principles:

All children are capable of engaging in complex thinking tasks.

Developing and maintaining the [student's] native language in no way interferes with English language acquisition. On the contrary, research over the last decade in bilingual classrooms with established models of instructional excellence indicates that utilization of and facility in the primary language enhances the acquisition of a second language."

GROWING OPPOSITION

Yet in the past few years, some language-minority speakers -- even some Hispanic parents who have historically been strong advocates for bilingual education -- have expressed doubts about the success of bilingual programs. A focus on students' civil rights and cultural integrity is, in some cases, giving way to concern that some non-native English speakers are acquiring insufficient mastery of the English language.

But critics of bilingual education advocate for the elimination of what they view as costly and ineffective multilingual policies. The politically charged issue of whether to mandate an official U.S. language clouds the academic questions surrounding bilingual programs.

Focusing on academic issues are the less strident but still determined critics who say many non-native English speakers are graduating from school systems with poor reading skills in both English and their native language. They cite low test scores to support their argument.

Backers of bilingual programs defend them by arguing that becoming proficient in any second language takes longer than one or two years. They also point to the shortage of well-qualified, fully bilingual teachers. The problem with bilingual programs, they say, often lies in the teaching, not the curriculum. They acknowledge programs could be improved by the hiring more teachers who are fully qualified. Students should not, they admit, remain in special bilingual programs longer than really necessary.

In the process of debate over bilingual programs, hot-button, politicized issues often push academic concerns into the background. Part II of this article looks at specific movements for and against bilingual programs in school systems and how states and communities have, or have not, managed to resolve them.

Article by Sharon Cromwell
Education World®
Copyright © 1998 Education World

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups by Stephen Ternstrom, Ann Orlar, and Oscar Hanlin (Harvard University Press, 1980). An excellent reference that provides background information on various ethnic groups.

Multicultural Teaching: A Handbook of Activities, Information, and Resources, 3rd edition, by Pamela L. Tiedt and Iris M. Tiedt (Allyn and Bacon, 1990). Includes lesson ideas for all academic areas and nationalities as well as more than 50 references to other books and materials.

Multicultural Gamebook by Louise Orlando (Scholastic Professional Books, 1993). Games from 30 different countries are featured in this book. Educators can use it to enable students to appreciate various cultures.

Experiences with Literature: Thematic Whole Language Model for the (K-3) Bilingual Classroom by Sandra Nevares, Raquel C. Mireles, and Norma Ramirez (Addison-Wesley, 1990). Reading activities for the Hispanic bilingual classroom make this an excellent resource.

Bilingual Education Resources on the Internet This site provides links to bilingual education resources, including government services, journals, schools, and projects online, etc.

English for the Children This site focuses on support for teaching English only in schools and effectively ending bilingual education.

KidPub Bilingual students can have their writing published on the World Wide Web by submitting their works to this site.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thirty years after its introduction, bilingual education is still generating controversy. In recent years, bilingual education has sparked as much controversy as any other education issue. Most educators and parents agree that the main goals in educating students with a native language other than English are mastery of English and of content in academic areas.

# data[].attributes.body
I am also in agreement with Nicole that there is a difference between ESL and Bilingual Education. In ESL classroom all children are speaking different native languages, but in a bilingual classroom the children speak the same native language. In an ESL classroom the teacher will speak English vs in a bilingual classroom the teacher will speak in English and Spanish. I found a cute video that breaks down the differences.

# data[].attributes.body
The link below was very helpful, giving more information about the constitutional laws and historical court case, that have changed education.
http://education.findlaw.com/discrimination-harassment-at-school/bilingual-education-cases-and-laws.html

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to Igone's post, I also found a document that has some FAQs about some frequent asked questions regarding to ELL programs. Please see the attached pdf file for your information.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article from NPR. This comic strip is a great way to show how Dual Language 2way looks like. Bilingual Education is not the same in every district. It is helpful to know what your school or district is using in order to help those that are moving from school to school, or district to district. The laws governing Bilingual Education in our country are not consistent in any way. At the local level, it is helpful to know what is being done to help our EL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I Am Learning Inglés: A Dual-Language Comic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a dual-language classroom, sometimes you're the student and sometimes you're the teacher. Here's what it's like for 6-year-old Merari.

# data[].attributes.body
I like this website because it lists legal issues in a straight forward and understandable way that anyone can understand. It does this by separating what behaviors/practices are clearly unconstitutional or illegal from those which are permissible. Furthermore, it provides suggestions with links to other resources to help implement those suggestions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ms. Johnson, a well-regarded and experienced fifth-grade teacher at Central Elementary School, has two new students with very limited English language skills. Despite Ms. Johnson's experience teaching children with various abilities, this is her first year teaching Spanish children. The school does not have a permanent English as a second language (ESL) teacher, so Ms. Johnson decides to consult with her colleague. "I really want to help these children and they seem so eager to learn, but they don't speak enough English to participate in the class activities. I don't even know if they understand the lessons. How am I supposed to test their knowledge if they can't read? I think they are supposed to get some type of ESL instruction one period a day. I hope this is enough. In the meantime, I have been giving them simple worksheets to complete, but I question my responsibility to them as their teacher. Am I doing enough? Maybe it would be best if I sent them to the fourth-grade class for part of the day or to the special education teacher."
You are the teacher with whom Ms. Johnson has chosen to consult. As a general education teacher, what are Ms. Johnson's legal obligations to the ESL students in her class? Is placing ESL students in a below-grade-level classroom or special education placement appropriate?

Teaching to the Letter of the Law

An English language learner (ELL) is defined by federal provisions as someone who "has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is in English,"(Pub. L. No. 103-382, sec. 7501). State definitions for an ELL vary substantially, but many are modeled after the federal definition (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).

It is projected that by the year 2030, 40% of the school population will speak English as a second language (U.S. DOE & NICHHD, 2003). In schools, Spanish is the most frequent language spoken by English language learners (79%), followed by Vietnamese (1.95%) and Hmong (1.55%; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). The continuous development of legal mandates related to ELLs and the growth of ELL populations in historically homogenous communities warrants a closer look at legal mandates for educators and school administrators serving ELLs.

Few remedial services were available for ELLs in schools prior to 1960. They were often segregated from their peers, overrepresented in special education settings, given inadequate instruction, and inappropriately assessed (Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Unit, 2004). From the 1960s until the 1990s, educational policy focused on what type of program was best suited for ELLs. Policies frequently shifted between favoring bilingual education or English-only instruction. Currently, policy places more emphasis on accountability and establishing appropriate educational standards for ELLs than on specific programs.

Educational policy for ELLs did not take the forefront of administrative agendas until the 1960s, following the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), in which the decision involved the equality of education for minority students and established the principle of equal educational opportunity for all students while reaffirming the equal protection clause mandated by the 14th Amendment, XIV, § 1. Backed with the power of supreme law, federal legislation moved towards establishing a clear mandate to provide a free and appropriate public education to ELL students, regardless of national origin. Local courts also began to interpret the equal protection clause as applicable to ELL students.

The civil rights of minority children were ensured with the passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 stat. 241. Title VI prohibits the discrimination of people on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the operation of federally assisted programs (e.g., Head Start). To help maintain the civil rights of minority children, the Bilingual Education Act was enacted as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 (ESEA), which would be renamed and reauthorized several times throughout the decades and eventually become the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The Bilingual Education Act established policy encouraging the use of bilingual education programs for economically disadvantaged language-minority children and allocated funds for programs.

NCLB and its predecessors require states to develop standards and accountability systems for all students, including ELLs. Specifically, NCLB requires all states to develop English-language proficiency standards and align those standards to assessment measures used for accountability purposes. Funds were appropriated to states to improve education of ELLs by assisting children to learn English and meet state academic content and achievement standards.
When an ELL is evaluated for special education services, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004) requires that assessment be nondiscriminatory and fair. Any child referred for special education services must be shown to be disabled in his/her native language in order to receive services. In other words, it must be clearly established that poor performance is not due to limited English-language proficiency.

Case Law
Case law has shaped how school systems respond to practices dealing with language-minority youth. ELL issues addressed by case law include culturally and linguistically fair assessment and evaluation, instructional practice, and mainstreaming of ELLs.

In terms of assessment practices, the decision in Diana v. Board of Education of California (1970) mandated that children from language-minority backgrounds where English is not the primary language spoken in the home must be assessed using nondiscriminatory procedures. Furthermore, appropriate linguistically and culturally relevant instruments must be used throughout the assessment process.

Over the years, courts have attempted to provide some direction for schools in terms of defining adequate instruction. Additionally, courts have attempted to increase education given to language minority students with mainstream peers to the greatest extent possible. For example, in 1973, the U.S. District Court asserted that a Denver public school district had failed to implement an adequate plan for ELLs and mandated a solution in Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado (1973). This case was brought to the court in order to secure desegregation of Denver School District schools. The court ruled that the segregated schools were educationally inferior to "white" schools elsewhere in the district. As a result, the school district agreed to make major changes to the quality of services for students with limited English proficiency.

Similarly, the decision of Lau v. Nichols (1974) essentially required the federal government to support bilingual education. In the case, a class action suit was filed by parents of Chinese children in San Francisco against the school district, alleging that students were deprived of an equal education because instruction was given in a language in which the students did not have proficiency. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that identical education did not constitute equal education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2003). It was determined that before children can adequately participate in an educational program, they must first acquire basic skills. The court ruling resulted in the establishment of the Lau Remedies (1975) - guidelines given to local education agencies which linked the inclusion of linguistically and culturally appropriate instruction to the delivery of free and appropriate public education for all children. School districts were required to take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by non-English speakers.

In Rios v. Read (1978),the court ruled that the bilingual education program offered denied an equal educational opportunity to ELLs because it was a course in English and did not grant children access to academic instruction in the children's native language. Factors considered in the decision of this case were the school professionals' knowledge of bilingual teaching methods, language assessment and program placement procedures, native-language curriculum materials, and native-language instruction. The court indicated that the district cannot compromise a student's right to meaningful education before proficiency in English is obtained. In other words, programs catering to ELL populations must include language acquisition development and acquisition of content knowledge.

Perhaps one of the most significant cases was Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), in which the plaintiff alleged that Raymondville, Texas Independent School District's language remediation programs violated the Equal Education Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974. The Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals formulated a three-part process to determine if a school district's language program met its obligation under EEOA, which is known as the Castañeda Test. The three criteria of the Castañeda Test are theory, practice, and results. Schools must have a program based on sound educational theory with legitimate experimental strategy conducted by field experts. Likewise, schools must implement the program with appropriate instructional practices. Finally, schools should not continue a program with failed results.

Schools are obligated to provide a free and appropriate public education to ELLs regardless of their native status. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, states and their agents do not have the right to deny a free public education to undocumented immigrant children. Furthermore, school systems could not be agents for enforcing immigration law and were forbidden to make information about the legal status of students public.

A more recent case involving a Texas school district reaffirmed that it is unconstitutional to deliberately segregate cultural and linguistic minorities. In Santamaria et al. v. Dallas Independent School District et al. (2006), the court determined that the school principal deliberately assigned Latino and African American students to ESL classrooms instead of general education classes so that white students could be kept together in the same class. In addition, the court found that the principal kept ESL classes in a different part of the school building than general education classes. Furthermore, the court found that the principal attempted to conceal separation of minority students when an investigator visited the school - these violated students' constitutional rights.

Guidelines

Unconstitutional or Illegal Practices:
* Inquiring about immigration status as part of enrollment process.
* Placing ELL students in lower grades or diluting work in order to "adapt" coursework.
* Denying non-English-speaking parents access to a translator. Federal regulations require districts to provide information about assessment, academic achievement, and related issues to parents in their native language or in their preferred mode of communication.
* Maintaining children who have met the limited English proficient (LEP) exit criteria in ESL-only classes.
* Placing ESL classes in remote quarters of the school building.
* Providing English language instruction only and not content-based instruction to students.

Permissible Practices:
* Schools can require proof of age, local residency, and immunizations.
* Social security numbers may be requested for some purposes, but not as part of the enrollment process, and they generally cannot be required.
* Providing ESL instruction only in English with the use of evidenced-based instructional methods for ELLs.
* Adequate access to ESL services with age-appropriate, comprehensible content lessons.

Suggestions for Improving Instruction
* Assess the needs of students to determine what model of instruction for ELLs would be most beneficial and practical (e.g., ESL vs. bilingual instruction).
* Explicitly state educational theory and provide empirical evidence to support instruction given to ELLs.
* Recommendations for amount of daily ESL instruction vary according to the child's English language level. It is suggested that non-English speaking students receive two to three hours of ESL instruction per day, beginner-level students receive two hours, intermediate-level students receive one to one and a half hours, and advanced level students receive 36 minutes to an hour (NYC DOE, 2011; Pennsylvania Parent Information & Resource Center, 2010).
* Align the core ESL instructional program to the proficiency level of each LEP student and the English Language Proficiency Standards.
* Establish clear criteria for entering and exiting ELL status and services. School districts may use standardized tests of English-language proficiency such as the World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA; The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2011).
* Establish a formalized process for evaluating ELLs when referred for special education and gifted education. When an ELL student is referred, an ESL teacher should be a member of the IEP team. Even if an LEP student is found eligible for special education services, he/she must continue to receive ESL services until exit criteria are met. More information on appropriate use of assessment of ELL students may be found on the National Center for Response to Intervention website: http://www.rti4success.org/pdf/rtiforells.pdf.
* Establish a checklist for general education and ESL teachers to help guide instruction. The Beverly Taylor Sorenson College of Education and Human Development established a checklist highlighting the strategies that should be present in a classroom supportive of ELLs. This checklist may be found by accessing the following link: http://www.suu.edu/ed/resource/strategiesforteachersofellstudents.pdf. Lewis-Moreno (2002) and Rojas (2009) have established similar checklists.
* Conduct fidelity checks throughout the school year to ensure teachers are providing appropriate instruction to ELL students.
* Professional development opportunities are necessary to help build instructional skills and should be available for staff.
* Continuous assessment of content knowledge and English proficiency is helpful to track student progress and determine if program changes need to occur.

Schools working with children with various language needs should examine their current school policies and practices related to LEP students to avoid shortchanging minority students and potentially costly legal battles.
In response the opening question, it is the school district's legal responsibility to provide an adequate instruction to ELL students. It would be illegal to place the ELL students in special education classes without a formal, culturally and linguistically appropriate evaluation. Likewise, it would be illegal to place the children in a lower grade for the entire day based on language ability. Therefore, Ms. Johnson should consult with school administrators to ensure that legal mandates are followed. For example, ELL students are required to receive instruction from a certified ESL teacher for a specific amount of time, which varies by state. Amount of ESL instruction often varies by level of English proficiency. The English-language proficiency of all ELL students should be assessed early with standardized measures such as the World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). Results of assessments should then be used to determine student needs and inform decision making, including the daily time requirements of ESL instruction. Although instruction by the ESL teacher is critical to the development of English proficiency, general education teachers working with ESL students should be trained on how to integrate best practices in the instruction of ELL students. School administrators should allow Ms. Johnson to attend a professional development seminar having to do with instructional practices for ELL students. Another alternative would be for the administration to allow Ms. Johnson to observe and consult with a local ESL teacher for a half-day at another school to learn strategies to work effectively with ESL students in the classroom. Webinars are another viable alternative and are frequently made available by educational organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of English (http://www.ncte.org/ell).

To ensure that ESL instruction is sufficient in quality, the Casteñeda Test may be used, which is based on theory, practice, and results. A school's program must be based on sound educational theory with legitimate experimental strategy conducted by field experts and implemented with appropriate instructional practices. Programs should be terminated if failed results are obtained. Instruction in core content areas should be delivered according to each student's English-language proficiency level, the content standards, and appropriate ESL-related adaptation and modifications.

References
Beverly Taylor Sorenson College of Education and Human Development (n.d.) Strategies for teachers of ELL students.
Retrieved from http://www.suu.edu/ed/resource/strategiesforteachersofellstudents.pdf.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2nd 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
Durguno_lu, A. Y., & Goldenberg, C. (Eds.). (2011). Language and literacy development in bilingual settings. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English language learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446.
Lewis-Moreno, B. (2002). "Instructional strategies for ESL students checklist." Retrieved from http://saisd.net/admin/curric/bilingual/pdffiles/instructstratell.pdf.
National Center on Response to Intervention (2011). "RtI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes." Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/pdf/rtiforells.pdf.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Pub. L. No.107-110.
Passel, J., & Cohen, D. (2008). "U.S. population projections: 2005-2050." Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from pewhispanic.org.
Pennsylvania Parent Information & Resource Center (2010). "Understanding the ESL guidelines and support programs." Retrieved from http://www.center-school.org/pa-pirc/documents/Understanding-ESL-Guidelines-and-Support-Programs.pdf.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Ríos v. Read, 480 F. Supp. 14 (E.D.N.Y. 1978).
Rojas, V. P. (2009). "UbD and differentiated instruction for ELL" [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://attachments.wetpaintserv.us/$UjKV%2ByHHb4V0qRoUK%2Bkcg%3D%3D451992.
Santamaria et al. v. Dallas Independent School District et al. 3:06-CV-692-L (2006).
State College Area School District (2011). State College Area School District response to instruction and intervention (RtII) manual. Retrieved from http://scasd.schoolwires.com/cms/lib5/PA01000006/Centricity/Domain/11/12%20SCASD%20RtII%20manual.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary, "National Symposium on Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners," October 14-15, 2003: Symposium Summary, Washington, D.C., 2004.
New York City Department of Education (2011). Language allocation policy guidelines: The LAP handbook for ELL programs. New York, NY: Office of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/90848C90-801C-4019-814D-DD01682B4DD9/0/LAPGuidelines_7_29_2011.pdf.

Arlene U. Ortiz, MSEd, NCSP, is a school psychology doctorate student at Penn State University. She earned a master's degree in the psychology of bilingual students from Fordham University and a bachelor's degree in early childhood special education from New York University.

Dr. Shirley A. Woika spent over 20 years in K-12 schools as a teacher, school psychologist, special education supervisor, and central office administrator. Currently, she is the director of clinical training in Penn State University's graduate program in school psychology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching to the Letter of the Law - Language Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arlene Ortiz and Shirley Woika examine the legal obligations to educate English language learners in the U.S. Ms. Johnson, a well-regarded and experienced fifth-grade teacher at Central Elementary School, has two new students with very limited English language skills. Despite Ms. Johnson's experience teaching children with various abilities, this is her first year teaching Spanish ...

# data[].attributes.body
I attached an article that covers the bilingual education history that we covered as well as some additional cases and laws. I thought this was useful because it is well organized and can be something good to refer to when needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this excerpt from Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice ( Caslon, 2010), Wayne Wright summarizes the landmark U.S. court cases that have had significant implications for ELLs. In particular, Wright focuses on cases relating to segregation, the right of communities to teach their native languages to children, and the linguistic and education needs of ELLs.

Note: For information about Plyler vs. Doe, which gives all children a right to a free, public education regardless of immigration status, see this related resource section.

Important Court Decisions and Legislation

Historical reluctance by many states throughout the country to provide equitable educational opportunities to ELL and other minority students and controversies over the use of languages other than English in public schools have sparked a large number of lawsuits that address these issues. The court decisions that grew out of these lawsuits have led to legislative changes that have helped to shape the policy climate of today. In this section we briefly review some of these cases and related legislation.

First, however, we must consider the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, declares in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Many of the cases discussed in this section are based on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Addressing Segregation

Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education

In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its now infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" public facilities, including school systems, are constitutional. Although the decision was related to the segregation of African American students, in many parts of the country Native American, Asian, and Hispanic students were also routinely segregated. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed Plessy v. Ferguson 58 years later in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.

Independent School District v. Salvatierra, Alvarez v. Lemon Grove, and Méndez v. Westminster School District

A few lesser known lower-level cases concerning the segregation of Hispanic student predate Brown. In Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930), Mexican American parents in the small border town of Rio, Texas, brought suit against the school district over segregation. The court sided with the school district that argued the segregation was necessary to teach the students English. This argument did not hold, however, for two similar cases in California: Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931) and Méndez v. Westminster School District (1947). The judge in Alvarez noted that segregation was not beneficial for the students' English language development (Trujillo, 2008), and the success of the Méndez case helped set the stage for Brown.

Like Plessy, Brown v. Board of Education focused on the segregation of African American students. But by ruling that states are responsible for providing "equal educational opportunities" for all students, Brown made bilingual education for ELLs more feasible.

Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson and Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District

In some instances, however, desegregation efforts made it more difficult. In San Francisco, for example, Chinese Americans fought a desegregation order that would force students out of neighborhood schools that provided bilingual English-Chinese programs for newcomer Chinese ELL students. The Chinese community took the case to court in 1971 in G uey Heung Lee v. Johnson, and it was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974, the court ruled against the Chinese community, declaring simply Brown applies to races.

Despite significant progress in the half century since Brown, the practice of segregation in public schools remains widespread (Kozol, 2005). School districts that provide bilingual education and ESL programs constantly struggle to balance the need for separate classes where the unique needs of ELL students can be addressed against the need to avoid prolonged segregation of ELLs from other students.

The Right of Communities to Teach Their Native Languages to Their Children

Meyers v. Nebraska

Three important cases have addressed the issue of private language-schooling for language-minority students. In the early 1900s, German communities typically ran their own private schools where students received instruction in both German and English. Then, in 1919, Nebraska passed the Siman Act, which made it illegal for any school, public or private, to provide any foreign language instruction to students below the 8th grade. Roman Catholic and Lutheran German parochial schools joined together to file suit against the act under the 14th Amendment.

The state court ruled that the act could not prevent schools from providing German language instruction outside of the hours of regular school study. In response, the parochial schools taught German during an extended recess period. Language restrictionist policymakers sought to close the loopholes in the law and fined Robert Meyers $25 fine for teaching Bible stories to 10-year-old children in German. The case, Meyers v. Nebraska (1923), went to Supreme Court, which consolidated this case with similar cases from Ohio and Idaho.

In a major victory for language-minority parents and communities, the Supreme Court struck down the states' restrictive legislation, ruling, in essence, that whereas state governments can legislate the language used for instruction in schools, states may not pass laws that attempt to prevent communities from offering private language classes outside of the regular school system.

Meyers is an important case because it makes clear that the 14th Amendment provides protection for language minorities. As the legal expert Sandra Del Valle (2003) points out, however, this decision did not give language minorities additional rights and privileges but simply ensured that "laws not be used as a rationale for denying them the same rights accorded others" (p. 39). Furthermore, because the focus of this case was on parochial schools, the decision was not an endorsement of bilingual education.

Farrington v. Tokushige

In a similar case handed down in Hawaii in 1927, Farrington v. Tokushige, the court offered further protections of after-school community language programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs.

In a similar case handed down in Hawaii in 1927, Farrington v. Tokushige, the court offered further protections of after-school community language programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs.

Despite these victories, as Del Valle observes, these cases were essentially about parents' rights rather than language rights. In addition, within the court's decision there were still signs of negative attitudes toward the "foreign population." Indeed, Hawaii tried yet again to limit private foreign language instruction. When the Chinese communities after World War II sought to restart their private language schools, the state passed the "Act Regulating the Teaching of Foreign Languages to Children." Part of the state's rationale was the need to "protect children from the harm of learning a foreign language" (Del Valle, 2003, p. 44).

Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po

In Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po (1947), the state court struck down the statute, rejecting the state's claim and arguing that, at least for "the brightest" students, study of a foreign language can be beneficial. The case was decided on the basis of Farrington and, once again, had more to do with parents' rights in directing the education of their children than with language rights.

Xenophobia toward German and Japanese Americans during World War I and World War II succeeded where attempts at language restrictive legislation failed. When Germany and later Japan became war enemies of the United States, the number of U.S. schools that provided instruction in these languages dropped dramatically, largely because of fears by members of these communities that such instruction would lead others to question their loyalty to the United States (Tamura, 1993; Wiley, 1998).

Nevertheless, the legacy of these cases, despite agreement in the courts about the need for states to Americanize minorities and their right to control the language used for instruction in public schools, is that minority communities have a clear right to offer private language classes in which their children can learn and maintain their home languages. Thus, the common practice of language-minority communities today in offering heritage language programs after school and on weekends is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Addressing the Linguistic and Educational Needs of ELL Students

Case law concerning the linguistic and educational needs of ELL students has had a major impact on federal and state policy for ELL students, their families, and their communities. Since the early 1970s, conflict and controversy have surrounded the issue of what constitutes an appropriate education for ELLs. Some rulings provide support for bilingual education; others erode that support. Some cases involve suits filed against bilingual education; others involve suits filed against anti-bilingual education voter initiatives.

Equal Educational Opportunities for ELLs

Lau v. Nichols

The 1974 Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols resulted in perhaps the most important court decision regarding the education of language-minority students. This case was brought forward by Chinese American students in the San Francisco Unified School District who were placed in mainstream classrooms despite their lack of proficiency in English, and left to "sink or swim." The district had argued that it had done nothing wrong, and that the Chinese American students received treatment equal to that of other students. Justice William Douglass, in writing the court's opinion, strongly disagreed, arguing:

Under these state-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.... We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.

The influence of Lau on federal policy was substantial. After the court's decision, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights created the Lau Remedies. Whereas Title VII Bilingual Education Act regulations applied only to funded programs, the Lau Remedies applied to all school districts and functioned as de facto compliance standards.

The Office of Civil Rights used the Lau decision to go after districts that, like San Francisco, were essentially ignoring the needs of its LEP students. Even though the court decision does not mandate any particular instructional approach, the Lau Remedies essentially require districts to implement bilingual education programs for LEP students. James Lyons (1995), former president of the National Association for Bilingual Education, explains further:

The Lau Remedies specified proper approaches, methods and procedures for (1) identifying and evaluating national-origin-minority students' English-language skills; (2) determining appropriate instructional treatments; (3) deciding when LEP students were ready for mainstream classes; and (4) determining the professional standards to be met by teachers of language-minority children. Under the Lau Remedies, elementary schools were generally required to provide LEP students special English-as-a-second-language instruction as well as academic subject-matter instruction through the students' strongest language until the student achieved proficiency in English sufficient to learn effectively in a monolingual English classroom. (pp. 4-5)

The essence of Lau was codified into federal law though the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), soon after the case was decided. Section 1703(f) of this act declares: "No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by ... (f) the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs."

At the time of its passage, this section of the EEOA was viewed as a declaration of the legal right for students to receive a bilingual education, under the assumption that this is what Lau essentially mandated (Del Valle, 2003). Although other legal actions have since made it clear that the Supreme Court never did mandate bilingual education, the EEOA remains in effect and several subsequent lawsuits have been based on this important legislation.

Rulings that Support Bilingual Education

United States v. Texas

United States v. Texas (1971, 1981) includes mandates that affect all Texas schools. The court ordered the district to create a plan and implement language programs that would help Mexican American students learn English and adjust to American culture and also help Anglo students learn Spanish. The court relied heavily on the testimony of José Cardenas and his theory of incompatibilities, which blames the educational failure of students on the inadequacies of school programs rather than on students themselves. (For a complete discussion of the theory, see Cardenas & Cardenas, 1977.)

Serna v. Portales

Serna v. Portales (1974) was the first case to raise the issue of bilingual education outside of the context of desegregation (Del Valle, 2003). The case dealt with a White-majority school in New Mexico that failed to meet the unique needs of "Spanish-surnamed students." It was argued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" in any program that receives federal funding. The court found the school's program for these students to be inadequate. The judge declared, "It is incumbent on the school district to reassess and enlarge its program directed to the specialized needs of the Spanish-surnamed students" and to create bilingual programs at other schools where they are needed. This case was first decided in 1972. Later it was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and decided in 1974 just six months after Lau. Like Lau, it makes clear that schools cannot ignore the unique language and educational needs of ELL students.

Aspira v. New York

Legal action taken by Puerto Rican parents and children in New York in Aspira v. New York (1975) resulted in the Aspira Consent Decree, which mandates transitional bilingual programs for Spanish-surnamed students found to be more proficient in Spanish than English. The Aspira Consent Decree is still in effect and has been a model for school districts across the country, though it is frequently under attack by opponents of bilingual education.

Bilingual education in New York received a further boost a few years later in Rios v. Reed (1978). The case was argued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the EEOA. Puerto Rican parents brought suit claiming that many so-called bilingual education programs were not bilingual but based mainly on ESL. The federal court found the district's bilingual programs to be woefully inadequate, pointing to the lack of trained bilingual teachers and the absence of a clearly defined curriculum, clear entrance and exit criteria, and firm guidelines about how much instruction should be in the native language of the students. Although the court issued no specific remedies, the federal Office of Civil Rights came in to ensure that the district made improvements. This case is significant because it made a strong case for offering bilingual education and for doing it right.

Rulings That Erode Support for Bilingual Education

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

Another Texas case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), although not directly related to bilingual education, had some serious implications for it. It dealt with inequalities in school funding, with the plaintiff charging that predominantly minority schools received less funding than schools that served predominantly White students. The case was argued under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to an education guaranteed by the Constitution. Indeed, if there is no constitutional right to an education under the 14th Amendment, as Del Valle (2003) points out, "there is clearly no constitutional right to a bilingual education" (p. 234, emphasis in original).

Flores v. Arizona and Williams v. California

Because of this case, all subsequent cases over inadequacies in school funding have had to be argued under state constitutions. Some of these cases, such as Flores v. Arizona (2000) and Williams v. California (settled in 2004), include or specifically address inadequacies related to the education of ELL students. But despite court orders in Flores to increase funding for ELL students, state legislators and educational leaders have used a wide variety of stall tactics and legal maneuvering to avoid fully complying with the court's order.

In 2009 the Arizona legislature and the state superintendent of public instruction appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court essentially agreed with the state leaders that the situation in Arizona for ELLs had changed substantially since the original lower court ruling, and thus the lower courts must take these changes into consideration. Although the ruling was disappointing to the plaintiffs, it nonetheless keeps the legal battle alive, with the attorney and advocates in the state gathering new evidence of the harm caused by recent state policies and the underfunding of ELLs' education. This case demonstrates that even when courts issue decisions with specific mandates, changes do not happen immediately and are often resisted by political figures who disagree with the decision.

Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District

In the 1980s, in the wake of Lau, support for bilingual education was eroded by the courts. For example, a case in Colorado, Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District (1980), failed in the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain a court order for bilingual education. The plaintiffs wanted a plan for its Mexican American students like the one based on the testimony of Cardenas that was recommended by the court in United States v. Texas (1971) even though they made up a small number of students in the district, and less than 3% could even speak or understand Spanish. As in United States v. Texas, the court's decision made it clear that despite Lau, there is no constitutional right to bilingual or bicultural education (Del Valle, 2003).

Keyes v. School District No. 1

In another Colorado case, Keyes v. School District No. 1 (1983), the court also rejected a Cardenas-like plan on the basis that Lau did not mandate bilingual education and that according to the decision in Rodriguez there is no constitutional right to education. The bilingual education component was just one part of this complicated desegregation case. Del Valle suggests that the court seemed content that the district was simply offering a "number of programs" for ELLs, without examining the adequacy of these programs. This issue of program adequacy, however, was addressed in subsequent lawsuits.

Castañeda v. Pickard

The right to bilingual education suffered a further blow in 1981 in Castañeda v. Pickard. The case originated in Texas, where plaintiffs charged that the Raymondville Independent School District was failing to address the needs of ELL students as mandated by the EEOA. The federal court ignored the old assumption that Lau and the EEOA mandated bilingual education. Nevertheless, it did find that Raymondville fell far short of meeting the requirements of the EEOA. A major outcome of this case is a three-pronged test to determine whether schools are taking "appropriate action" to address the needs of ELLs as required by the EEOA.

The Castañeda standard mandates that programs for language-minority students must be (1) based on a sound educational theory, (2) implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel, and (3) evaluated to determine whether they are effective in helping students overcome language barriers (Del Valle, 2003). Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lau, two other lawsuits have been decided in the high court that, while not related to bilingual education, nonetheless undermine the original legal argument of Lau. [These two cases are Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Alexander v. Sandoval (2001).] Thus, the Castañeda standard, which encapsulates the central feature of Lau - that schools do something to meet the needs of ELL students - has essentially become the law of the land in determining the adequacy of programs for ELLs.

Del Valle (2003), however, points out the shortcomings of the Castañeda test. Referring to prongs 1 and 2, she notes that nearly any program can be justified by an educational theory and that some approaches require very little in the way of staff or funding. Of even greater concern is that, under prong 3, a certain amount of time must pass before a determination can be made about the adequacy of the programs. Thus, many students may be harmed before inadequate programs are identified and rectified.

Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education

Despite these shortcomings, a case 6 years after Castañeda - Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education (1987) - demonstrated the value of the Castañeda test in legal efforts to rectify inadequate programs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit relied heavily on Castañeda in its decision and gave state boards of education the power to enforce compliance with the EEOA. The court declared, in a ruling much like Lau, that school districts have a responsibility to serve ELL students and cannot allow children to just sit in classrooms where they cannot understand instruction. However, as in Lau, the court did not mandate any specific program models.

Recent Lawsuits

Between 1995 and 2001, opponents of bilingual education in a few communities filed lawsuits against their school districts (e.g., Bushwick Parents Organization v. Mills [1995] in New York). Del Valle (2003) suggests that through these cases opponents of bilingual education attempted to turn the original purpose of bilingual education on its head by charging that a program that was developed to ensure that ELL students have the same educational opportunities as all other students was actually preventing equal educational opportunities for ELL students.

These cases also illustrate that attacks on bilingual education are rarely grass-roots efforts by Latino parents but rather are orchestrated by powerful outsiders who mislead parents into joining their cause and in the process often create divisions within Latino communities. Although these legal attacks on bilingual education failed, opponents of bilingual education have scored major victories in the court of public opinion through the English for the Children voter initiatives described earlier.

These voter initiatives, however, have not gone uncontested. Five cases in California were based on challenges to Proposition 227: Quiroz v. State Board of Education (1997); Valerie G. v. Wilson (1998); McLaughlin v. State Board of Education (1999); Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1999); California Teachers Association v. Davis (1999). At least two cases in Arizona were based on challenges to Proposition 203: Sotomayor and Gabaldon v. Burns (2000) and Morales v. Tucson Unified School District (2001). Although some of these resulted in small victories, none has succeeded in overturning the voter initiatives.

Summary

Case law has had a major impact on federal and state policy for ELL students and their families and communities. While the courts have been reluctant to mandate a particular educational model or approach or to give language minorities fundamental rights directly related to the use of their native languages, the courts have nonetheless made it clear that schools may not ignore the unique needs of ELL students.

Any program for ELLs, regardless of the language of instruction or the models used, must do two very important things: teach English and teach academic content. Schools must provide instruction in English for ELLs because they are not yet proficient in English, and because they need fluency in English to succeed in mainstream classrooms and to be successful in life in general in the United States. At the same time, schools cannot focus just on teaching English. Students must also learn the same academic content their English proficient peers are learning, in such subjects as language arts, math, science, social studies, music, art, and physical education. In Chapter 4 we review the different program models for ELL students and how these programs address the legal requirements for teaching English and the content areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landmark Court Rulings Regarding English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this excerpt from Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice ( Caslon, 2010), Wayne Wright summarizes the landmark U.S. court cases that have had significant implications for ELLs. In particular, Wright focuses on cases relating to segregation, the right of communities to teach their native languages to children, and the linguistic and education needs of ELLs.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important for teachers to be familiar with key legislation and court rulings, as they have paved the way for so many students. Also, as students, we must educate ourselves on these laws as we will see them on the ESL state exam. I think quizlet does a great job of offering a variety of instructional tools for helping students familiarize themselves with these rules and laws. I have posted a link below
https://quizlet.com/133253344/bilingual-education-laws-flash-cards/

# data[].attributes.body
I first came across the same article that Chandler posted but figured this was something that ALL teachers could reference who teach ESL students. This website organizes laws and history events that are important for teachers to become aware of. Teachers need to know where there students come from and for ELL students, this is the start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As teachers it is important to know where and what different standards are being expected of us. As the laws change so do the expectations of teaching practices and what content is taught in the classroom. If not kept up to date, a teacher could find themselves losing their job because they did know about or know how to meet the new expectations.

Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (BEA)
(Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 or ESEA)

No Child Left Behind- 2002

The No Child Left Behind Act, was signed by President Bush in January of 2002. In short, the act aimed to pressure schools and holds them accountable for closing achievement gaps among: students of privilege, non-English proficient students, students with low economic status, and students with disabilities. No Child Left Behind mandated all schools annually assess their student's skills in reading and math. The students' scores were used to asses a schools yearly progress. If schools did not meet yearly progress, they had to make a two-year school improvement plan and give parents the option of choosing a different school for their child. If after two years the school did not make adequate improvements, schools were required to offer free after school tutoring. At some schools, a whole school's staff was dismissed in hopes for improving student test scores (Ravitch, 2009). This law affected education both positively and negatively. On the plus side schools were now being held accountable for aligning curriculum with teaching standards and making sure all students had equal access the same curriculum. On the negative side however, the pressure and stressed causes by the high stakes testing caused teachers to "teach to the test," instead of through more unique meaningful practices (Johnson, 2010). Often these tests didn't give the best representation of a student's skills nor give them credit for progress made.

The Number of ESL Students in on the Rise!

"From 1998 to 2008, the number of English language learner students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, and researchers estimate that 1 in 10 public school students in the United States is an English Language Learner" (Chang, 2012).

How do we assess if schools are meeting the needs of all their students?

The Goals of No Child Left Behind (Johnson, 2010):
*To "closes the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind."
*To "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments."

**Congress was also worried because U.S. students were not preforming as high as other countries (Ravitch, 2009).

Components of No Child Left Behind (Johnson, 2010)
*Academic proficiency standards or average year progress (AYP) were set for all schools
*Schools have to state how the plan to reach AYP
*All students in public schools (charter schools included) must take an academic achievement test
*Schools are responsible for students academic achievement scores
*Professional standards for teachers and support staff were raised (all teachers teaching bilingual education programs must be fluent in English and any other language used in the classroom)
*Schools were given greater flexibility in how they wanted to spend their federal funds
*ESL and special education students were to be included in a schools annual progress report
*Students grades 3-8 were tested yearly in math and reading.
*States were allowed to create their standardized tests and definition of "proficiency"
*If a school did not reach the set yearly progress (in all student subgroups), the school had to create a two year intervention plan.
*If after two years a school did not make enough progress, it had to allow parents the option of choosing a different school.
*By year three, if a school continued not to reach the yearly progress bench marks, the students were offered free after school tutoring. If little improvement was made, the whole staff my be dismissed.
*All Schools students must reach 100% proficiency by 2014.
*Mandated that all bilingual teachers be fluent in all languages used in the classroom.
*Parents were able to chose if they wanted their child in a bilingual education program.
*ESL students were given a three year "time-limit" in bilingual education before being enrolled in "English-only" classes. (regardless of the students English proficiency)
Pro's of No Child Left Behind

*"Was the 1st law to hold districts accountable for the achievement of their English Language Learner students"(Chang, 2012).
*Drew attention to ESL/bilingual education (Good, 2014)
*There was an increase in professional development in high-ELL schools (Good, 2014).
*Fostered growth in communication between ESL/ bilingual teachers and general education teachers (Good, 2014).

Con's of No Child Left Behind (Good, 2014)
*Pre-K education was not included
*Students only got to be in bilingual education programs for three years before they were sent to classes spoken all in English
*There was no consistency in how schools ran their bilingual program's
*The increase use of testing caused stress on students and teachers.

Con's of No Child Left Behind (Katz, 2004)
*Indirectly decreased emphases on bilingual education. Only encouraged English-only instruction *Students were expected to assimilate in three years time.
*As a result, many students never reached proficiency in their native language or in English due to lack of continual supports in either languages.

http://www.preceden.com/timelines/59492-history-of-bilingual-education-in-the-united-states

Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues
http://www.cwu.edu/~hughesc/EDBL514Syl_files/Readings/Bilingual%20Ed%20Ovando.pdf

**Note: See full citations/references on the "Reference" page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As teachers it is important to know where and what different standards are being expected of us. As the laws change so do the expectations of teaching practices and what content is taught in the classroom. If not kept up to date, a teacher could find themselves losing their job because they did know about or know how to meet the new expectations.

# data[].attributes.body
This link provides an overview of landmark court cases regarding English language learners (ELLs) at the state and federal level, as well as related discussion topics. I found it useful as supplementary materials for what we are learning in this module.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plyler v. Doe: Implications for ELLs

In November 2011, The New York Times invited five law professors to comment on the implementation of Alabama's new immigration law and its constitutionality regarding Plyler v. Doe.

In the introduction to the discussion, The Times writes, "Opponents say the law, one of the toughest in the nation, violates the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe which found that it was unconstitutional to deny children living in the U.S., whether legally or not, a free public elementary and secondary education. Supporters of the new law say that Alabama is simply abiding by demands from Congress that states help discourage and deter illegal immigration. Is the schools provision unconstitutional?"

H.B. 56 is constitutional:

H.B. 56 is unconstitutional:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In November 2011, The New York Times invited five law professors to comment on the implementation of Alabama's new immigration law and its constitutionality regarding Plyler v. Doe. In the introduction to the discussion, The Times writes, "Opponents say the law, one of the toughest in the nation, violates the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v.

# data[].attributes.body
This link is a useful timeline to use in remembering the Laws for ESL. It gives a list of dates that each event occurred and a quick definition to help understand the take away from the event. It breaks it down into Court Rulings and specific Bilingual Acts. The module had a quick quiz at the beginning, but this link is nice to look at for a quick review of why these laws were made and which case goes with what law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following chronology compiled by the Texas Education Agency offers an overview of landmark legislation and court cases impacting the education of English language learners.

Federal Policy: Timeline

1920s-1960s - English immersion or "sink-or-swim" policies are the dominant method of instruction of language minority students. Few or no remedial services are available, and students are generally held at the same grade level until enough English is mastered to advance in subject areas.

1963 - Success of a two-way bilingual program for Cuban refugee children in Dade County, Florida, inspires the implementation of similar programs elsewhere.

1964 - Civil Rights Act: Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the operation of all federally assisted programs.

The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII

1968 - The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968: Establishes federal policy for bilingual education for economically disadvantaged language minority students, allocates funds for innovative programs, and recognizes the unique educational disadvantages faced by non-English speaking students.

1978 - Amendments to Title VII emphasize the strictly transitional nature of native language instruction, expand eligibility to students who are limited English proficient (LEP), and permit enrollment of English-speaking students in bilingual programs.

1982 - Amendments to Title VII allow for some native language maintenance, provide program funding for LEP students with special needs, support family English literacy programs, and emphasize importance of teacher training.

1988 - Amendments to Title VII include increased funding to state education agencies, expanded funding for "special alternative" programs where only English is used, established a three-year limit on participation in most Title VII, and created fellowship programs for professional training.

1994 - Comprehensive educational reforms entail reconfiguration of Title VII programs. New provisions reinforce professional development programs, increase attention to language maintenance and foreign language instruction, improve research and evaluation at state and local level, supply additional funds for immigrant education, and allow participation of some private school students. Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Unit 2011-2012 11

No Child Left Behind

2001 - No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 appropriates funds to states to improve the education of limited English proficient students by assisting children to learn English and meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards. Legislation for limited English proficient students is found under Title III of NCLB.

Court Rulings

Supreme Court

This suit by Chinese parents in San Francisco leads to the ruling that identical education does not constitute equal education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. School districts must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by non-English speakers. This ruling established that the Office for Civil Rights, under the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has the authority to establish regulations for Title VI enforcement.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the state does not have the right to deny a free public education to undocumented immigrant children.

Federal Court

1971 - United States of America v. State of Texas, et al.

This desegregation case centered on the issue of discrimination and whether the San Felipe and Del Rio school districts were providing Mexican American students an equal educational opportunity. On August 6, 1971, Judge William Wayne Justice ordered the consolidation of the two districts. As a result of the lawsuit, the federal court came down with a court order, Civil Action 5281, which eliminates discrimination on grounds of race, color, or national origin in Texas public and charter schools.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Spanish surnamed students' achievement levels were below those of their Anglo counterparts. The court ordered Portales Municipal Schools to implement a bilingual/bicultural curriculum, revise procedures for assessing achievement, and hire bilingual school personnel.

1978 - Cintron v. Brentwood

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the Brentwood School District's proposed bilingual program on the grounds that it would violate "Lau Guidelines" by unnecessarily segregating Spanish-speaking students from their English-speaking peers in music and art. The court also objected to the program's failure to provide for exiting students whose English language proficiency was sufficient for them to understand mainstream English instruction.

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the Pastchogue-Medford School District's transitional bilingual program was basically a course in English and that students were denied an equal educational opportunity by not receiving academic instruction in Spanish. The court wrote: "A denial of educational opportunities to a child in the first years of schooling is not justified by demonstrating that the educational program employed will teach the child English sooner than a program comprised of more extensive Spanish instruction."

1981 - Castañeda v. Pickard

Reputed to be the most significant court decision affecting language minority students after Lau. In responding to the plaintiffs' claim that Raymondville, Texas Independent School District's language remediation programs violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals formulated a set of basic standards to determine school district compliance with EEOA.

The "Castañeda test" includes the following criteria:

1. Theory: The school must pursue a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or, at least, as a legitimate experimental strategy

2. Practice: The school must actually implement the program with instructional practices, resources, and personnel necessary to transfer theory to reality

3. Results: The school must not persist in a program that fails to produce results.

1981 - United States v. State of Texas et al., January 12, 1981
The U.S. District Court for the eastern district of Texas, Tyler division, instructs TEA to phase in mandatory bilingual education in grades K-12. This decision outlined specific requirements including: three year monitoring cycles, identification of LEP students, and a language survey for students entering school. It also established the need for exit criteria.

1982 - United States v. State of Texas et al., July 12, 1982

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reverses the previous judgment of U.S. v. State of Texas et al., January 12, 1981 because of state legislation enacted in 1981.

1983 - Keyes v. School District #1

A U.S. District Court found that a Denver public school district had failed to adequately implement a plan for language minority students, which is the second element of the "Castañeda Test."

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State Education Agencies are also required under EEOA to ensure that language minority student's educational needs are met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Chronology of Federal Law and Policy Impacting Language Minority Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following chronology compiled by the Texas Education Agency offers an overview of landmark legislation and court cases impacting the education of English language learners. 1920s-1960s - English immersion or "sink-or-swim" policies are the dominant method of instruction of language minority students.

# data[].attributes.body
I attached a pdf file where you can find questions that most of EL students' parents have about Bilingual programs in Texas.

# data[].attributes.body
Given our previous weeks work in student diversity and the topic of this week involving landmark legislation and Supreme Court cases, I found this article that focuses on both issues so considered. In this article, Robert Nagel examines two landmark Supreme Court cases that deal with student diversity and the interests of the American public when it comes to groups selecting for diversity. I found his conclusions and insights to be very apropos to our topics at hand.

# data[].attributes.body
I wanted to clarify the difference between Bilingual and ESL programs. I think this visual does a good job summarizing the differences. In an ESL classroom, students are all taught by a teacher who speaks only in English and is not required to speak in the native language of any students. Non-English speakers are taken out of their regular classroom for a period of time to learn English. In a bilingual classroom, the students in the class speak the same language. The teacher also speaks that language. Usually, the teacher instructs in both English and the native language, eventually switching over to only English. The class is geared more towards having the students eventually speak both languages fluently and hold on to their culture.