# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska law banning the teaching of foreign languages to schoolchildren, finding that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska law banning the teaching of foreign languages to schoolchildren, finding that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The Meyer law sprang from the nativist sentiment fostered by World War I. The Court recognized a liberty interest in parents providing an education for their children, and found that the law infringed on that interest without a proper "police power" rationale. (Image of a sticker sold in a store in Colorado espousing the English-only movement, via www.cgpgrey.com)

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska law banning the teaching of foreign languages to schoolchildren, finding that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The Meyer law sprang from the nativist sentiment fostered by World War I. The Court recognized a liberty interest in parents providing an education for their children, and found that the law infringed on that interest without a proper "police power" rationale.

Teacher violated a law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages

In this case, Robert Meyer, a teacher at Zion Parochial School, was charged with violating the state law by teaching German to a student. Nebraska had claimed that the law was a proper means to "promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals." The Court, while acknowledging the importance of ensuring that children attain proficiency in English, concluded in a majority opinion by Justice James C. McReynolds that "the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the state." He added that "mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful." Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and George Sutherland dissented without writing an opinion.

The Court's reliance on the due process clause in Meyer to invalidate state legislation was an extension of its reasoning in cases involving economic regulation such as Lochner v. New York (1905). The ruling in Meyer relied on the Lochner line of cases, but extended their logic well beyond the economic sphere. According to the Court, the liberty protected by the due process clause includes the right "to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The Court also soon recognized that the due process clause protected against arbitrary state regulation the right to send one's children to private schools (Pierce v. Society of Sisters [1925]) and the right to freedom of speech (Gitlow v. New York [1925]).

Meyer is good precedent for due process cases

The Court retreated from the Lochner line of cases in the late 1930s, but Meyer remained good precedent. In its famous Footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products (1938), the New Deal Court cited Meyer as implicitly protecting ethnic minorities. Meyer later became an important basis for the Warren and Burger Courts' substantive due process jurisprudence in the landmark cases of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973). In Griswold, the Court suggested that Meyer protected the "spirit of the First Amendment." More recently, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David H. Souter have praised Meyer as engaging in appropriately aggressive due process review of state regulations to protect unenumerated, noneconomic constitutional rights.
This article was originally published in 2009. David E. Bernstein is a university professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, where he teaches constitutional law, among other things. He is the author of You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties From Antidiscrimination Laws (Cato Institute 2003).
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska law banning the teaching of foreign languages to schoolchildren, finding that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The Meyer law sprang from the nativist sentiment fostered by World War I.

# data[].attributes.headline
Delgado et al. v. Bastrop Independent School District of Bastrop County et al. (1948)

# data[].attributes.subject
Delgado et al. v. Bastrop Independent School District of Bastrop County et al. (1948)

# data[].attributes.body
Segregation of Mexican American students was not authorized by Texas law and violated the equal protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Until the late 1940s the public education system in Texas for Mexican Americans offered segregated campuses with often minimal facilities and a curriculum frequently limited to vocational training. The 1950 United States census showed that the median educational attainment for persons over twenty-five was 3.5 years for those with Spanish surnames and, by comparison, 10.3 years for other white Americans; about 27 percent of persons over twenty-five with Spanish surnames had received no schooling at all. No substantive legal suit had been initiated since Del Rio ISD vs. Salvatierra (1930), in which Mexican Americans claimed they had been denied use of facilities used by "other white races" in the same school. In 1948 the League of United Latin American Citizens, joined by the American G.I. Forum of Texas, successfully challenged these inequities of the Texas public school system in Delgado vs. Bastrop ISD.

In 1947 the Ninth Circuit Court in California found that separation "within one of the great races" without a specific state law requiring the separation was not permitted; therefore, segregation of Mexican-American children, who were considered Caucasian, was illegal. In Texas, following this ruling, the attorney general, in response to an inquiry by Gustavo C. (Gus) Garcia, a Mexican-American attorney, agreed that segregation of Mexican-American children in the public school system by national origin was unlawful and pedagogically justified only by scientific language tests applied to all students. On June 15, 1948, LULAC (with Garcia as attorney) filed suit against the Bastrop Independent School District and three other districts. Representing Minerva Delgado and twenty other Mexican-American parents, the suit charged segregation of Mexican children from other white races without specific state law and in violation of the attorney general's opinion. In addition the suit accused these districts of depriving such children of equal facilities, services, and education instruction. Judge Ben H. Rice of the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, agreed and ordered the cessation of this separation by September 1949. However, the court did allow separate classes on the same campus, in the first grade only, for language-deficient or non-English-speaking students as identified by scientific and standardized tests applied to all.

The Delgado decision undermined the rigid segregation of Mexican Americans and began a ten-year struggle led by the American G.I. Forum and LULAC, which culminated in 1957 with the decision in Herminca Hernandez et al. v. Driscoll Consolidated ISD, which ended pedagogical and de jure segregation in the Texas public school system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Until the late 1940s the public education system in Texas for Mexican Americans offered segregated campuses with often minimal facilities and a curriculum frequently limited to vocational training.

# data[].attributes.headline
Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930, 1931) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930, 1931) 

# data[].attributes.body
The first case in which Texas courts reviewed the actions of local school districts regarding the education of children of Mexican descent was tried in Del Rio in 1930.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first case in which Texas courts reviewed the actions of local school districts regarding the education of children of Mexican descent was tried in Del Rio in 1930. Like many other communities in the state, Del Rio had for the first six decades of the twentieth century a tripartite segregation of students in its public school system. Article VII, Section 7, of the Constitution of 1876 provided for separate schools for white and black students. From 1902 to 1940, especially after 1920, Texas school districts opened segregated schools for Hispanic children. By 1942-43 these schools were operated in 122 districts in fifty-nine counties throughout the state. On January 7, 1930, the Del Rio School Board ordered an election to be held on February 1 to vote on a proposed expansion of school facilities, including elementary schools, one of which, a brick and tile building of two rooms, was already designated the "Mexican" or "West End" school. Five rooms were to be added. Jesús Salvatierra and several other parents hired lawyer John L. Dodson on March 21 to file a suit charging that students of Mexican descent were being deprived of the benefits afforded "other white races" in the previous year. In April El Popular, the Spanish-language newspaper of the League of United Latin American Citizens, published an essay by Vito Aguirre condemning segregationists, whom he called "enemies of Mexican children," and criticizing the Mexican consulate's complacency on the issue. Also that month, lawyer and LULAC member M. C. Gonzales consulted with Dodson and joined the case free of charge. By May Salvatierra had a support group, La Comité de Defensa, later known as Comité Pro-Defensa Escolar. On May 15 District Judge Joseph Jones heard the case, ruled in Salvatierra's favor, and granted an injunction.

On June 10 the Court of Appeals of San Antonio heard the case. By June lawyers Alonso S. Perales and J. T. Canales were also assisting Salvatierra; Dodson, Gonzales, and Canales served as the appeal attorneys. The case, under the title Del Rio ISD v. Salvatierra, appeared before the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in San Antonio on October 29, and the injunction was voided. On December 24 a rehearing was denied.

LULAC provided the organizational and financial base for the movement against segregated schools, and Salvatierra's case spurred the growth of LULAC. According to George I. Sánchez in 1964, the Salvatierra ruling legalized the segregation of children of Mexican descent in schools through the third grade. During the case the first chapters of LULAC were organized in West Texas at San Angelo, Ozona, Sonora, and Marfa. The case also highlighted the need for regular communication. In late 1930 LULAC sponsored bulletins in the columns of Spanish-language newspapers; El Ciudadano, El Popular, and El Paladín came to serve as LULAC's official organs; in 1931 the weekly LULAC NOTES was issued; and in August 1931 LULAC News, the official monthly magazine, began publication. Spanish-language newspapers such as the Del Rio El Popular, Las Noticias, and La Semana followed the developments, and of San Antonio reached many other Tejano communities. LULAC passed a resolution at its 1930 annual convention to assist the Del Rio chapter in its work on the case. In January 1931 Salvatierra asked LULAC chapters for contributions, and by April nine chapters had responded. In May LULAC elected Gonzales its president general, and in June he invited chapters to donate at least $5 each toward taking the case to the Supreme Court. Gonzales called a special convention in Kingsville on August 30, and by that date $493 had been raised. The convention's purpose was to convert the organization's monument fund for World War I veterans to the School Defense Fund, and at that convention each council was required to raise $45 for Salvatierra. In spite of the Great Depression, LULAC managed to raise more than $1,000. Councils in Corpus Christi, Brownsville, McAllen, Mission, La Grulla, Encino, Robstown, Edinburg, Falfurrias, San Diego, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Rio Grande City, Roma, Hebbronville, Kingsville, Sarita, San Angelo, Ozona, and Sonora collected funds. San Antonio, the largest chapter, raised $230; even the small council of Sarita raised its $45 quota. Sociedades mutualistas, Catholic groups, women's clubs, labor organizations, and Spanish-speaking PTAs sponsored dances, baseball games, meetings, interviews, and benefits to raise money for the cause. Important individual and collective fund-raising was conducted by Paul C. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Antonio Castañon in San Antonio, Adela Sloss and Zacarias Gonzalez in San Juan, and Mrs. Jose Stillman, Mrs. Ben Garza, Mrs. Louis Wilmot, and Ernesto Meza in Corpus Christi. On October 26 the Supreme Court refused to hear the Salvatierra case and another case in which Mexicans in Menard County were prevented from jury duty for lack of jurisdiction. LULAC called a special convention in San Antonio on November 29 to discuss strategy for bringing about school desegregation. The Del Rio Comité Pro-Defensa Escolar continued to exist at least until October 1932. In 1948 in Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School District, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, ruled that maintaining separate schools for Mexican descent children violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, failure to enforce this ruling resulted in continued legal challenges through the 1950s and 1960s; arguments first presented in the Salvatierra case were heard as late as 1971 in Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first case in which Texas courts reviewed the actions of local school districts regarding the education of children of Mexican descent was tried in Del Rio in 1930. Like many other communities in the state, Del Rio had for the first six decades of the twentieth century a tripartite segregation of students in its public school system.

# data[].attributes.body
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Separate But Equal Doctrine

In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that racially segregated public facilities were legal, so long as the facilities for Black people and whites were equal.

The ruling constitutionally sanctioned laws barring African Americans from sharing the same buses, schools and other public facilities as whites-known as "Jim Crow" laws -and established the "separate but equal" doctrine that would stand for the next six decades.

But by the early 1950s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP) was working hard to challenge segregation laws in public schools, and had filed lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in states such as South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware.

In the case that would become most famous, a plaintiff named Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1951, after his daughter, Linda Brown, was denied entrance to Topeka's all-white elementary schools.

In his lawsuit, Brown claimed that schools for Black children were not equal to the white schools, and that segregation violated the so-called "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment, which holds that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The case went before the U.S. District Court in Kansas, which agreed that public school segregation had a "detrimental effect upon the colored children" and contributed to "a sense of inferiority," but still upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Brown v. Board of Education Verdict

When Brown's case and four other cases related to school segregation first came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court combined them into a single case under the name Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Thurgood Marshall, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, served as chief attorney for the plaintiffs. (Thirteen years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson would appoint Marshall as the first Black Supreme Court justice.)

At first, the justices were divided on how to rule on school segregation, with Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson holding the opinion that the Plessy verdict should stand. But in September 1953, before Brown v. Board of Education was to be heard, Vinson died, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced him with Earl Warren, then governor of California.

Displaying considerable political skill and determination, the new chief justice succeeded in engineering a unanimous verdict against school segregation the following year.

In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that "in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place," as segregated schools are "inherently unequal." As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were being "deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

Little Rock Nine

In its verdict, the Supreme Court did not specify how exactly schools should be integrated, but asked for further arguments about it.

In May 1955, the Court issued a second opinion in the case (known as Brown v. Board of Education II), which remanded future desegregation cases to lower federal courts and directed district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation "with all deliberate speed."

Though well intentioned, the Court's actions effectively opened the door to local judicial and political evasion of desegregation. While Kansas and some other states acted in accordance with the verdict, many school and local officials in the South defied it.

In one major example, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the state National Guard to prevent Black students from attending high school in Little Rock in 1957. After a tense standoff, President Eisenhower deployed federal troops, and nine students-known as the " Little Rock Nine"- were able to enter Central High School under armed guard.

Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Though the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board didn't achieve school desegregation on its own, the ruling (and the steadfast resistance to it across the South) fueled the nascent civil rights movement in the United States.

In 1955, a year after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Her arrest sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and would lead to other boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations (many of them led by Martin Luther King Jr.), in a movement that would eventually lead to the toppling of Jim Crow laws across the South.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, backed by enforcement by the Justice Department, began the process of desegregation in earnest. This landmark piece of civil rights legislation was followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

In 1976, the Supreme Court issued another landmark decision in Runyon v. McCrary, ruling that even private, nonsectarian schools that denied admission to students on the basis of race violated federal civil rights laws.

By overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine, the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education had set the legal precedent that would be used to overturn laws enforcing segregation in other public facilities. But despite its undoubted impact, the historic verdict fell short of achieving its primary mission of integrating the nation's public schools.

Today, more than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the debate continues over how to combat racial inequalities in the nation's school system, largely based on residential patterns and differences in resources between schools in wealthier and economically disadvantaged districts across the country.

HISTORY Vault: Black History

Sources

History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment, United States Courts.
Brown v. Board of Education, The Civil Rights Movement: Volume I (Salem Press).
Cass Sunstein, "Did Brown Matter?" The New Yorker, May 3, 2004.
Brown v. Board of Education, PBS.org.
Richard Rothstein, Brown v. Board at 60, Economic Policy Institute, April 17, 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brown v. Board of Education: Summary, Ruling & Impact | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
The first federal legislation to promote foreign language learning. The law provided federal funding to “insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration

Description

The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed in 1958 in response to Soviet acceleration of the space race with the launch of the satellite Sputnik. The law provided federal funding to "insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States." In addition to fellowships and loans to students, the legislation bolstered education in the areas of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages. The House report recommending passage of the bill stated: "It is no exaggeration to say that America's progress in many fields of endeavor in the years ahead-in fact, the very survival of our free country-may depend in large part upon the education we provide for our young people now." The NDEA authorized the appropriation of more than $1 billion over the next seven years to achieve its goals, making it the first example of comprehensive federal education legislation, and signaling the expansion of the role of the federal government in the education of citizens. Graham Arthur Barden, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, submitted the conference report in the House. This version shows the conference report with typesetting marks, indicating how the printed version of the report should appear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Defense Education Act | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed in 1958 in response to Soviet acceleration of the space race with the launch of the satellite Sputnik. The law provided federal funding to "insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States."

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration and Naturalization Act (1965)

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration and Naturalization Act (1965)

# data[].attributes.body
This act illiminated racial criteria for being admited into the country. This brought many immigrants from across the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965

2. Immediate Impact

3. Continuing Source of Debate

4. Immigration in the 21st Century

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965

By the early 1960s, calls to reform U.S. immigration policy had mounted, thanks in no small part to the growing strength of the civil rights movement. At the time, immigration was based on the national-origins quota system in place since the 1920s, under which each nationality was assigned a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. The civil rights movement's focus on equal treatment regardless of race or nationality led many to view the quota system as backward and discriminatory. In particular, Greeks, Poles, Portuguese and Italians-of whom increasing numbers were seeking to enter the U.S.-claimed that the quota system discriminated against them in favor of Northern Europeans. President John F. Kennedy even took up the immigration reform cause, giving a speech in June 1963 calling the quota system "intolerable."

Did you know? A report in early 2009 by the DHS's Office of Immigration Statistics estimated the number of "unauthorized immigrants" in the United States at 10.7 million, down from 11.6 million in 2008. The recent decline in immigration coincided with the economic downturn in the U.S., but figures were still up from 2000, when illegal immigrants numbered some 8.5 million.

After Kennedy's assassination that November, Congress began debating and would eventually pass the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, co-sponsored by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York and Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by the late president's brother, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. During Congressional debates, a number of experts testified that little would effectively change under the reformed legislation, and it was seen more as a matter of principle to have a more open policy. Indeed, on signing the act into law in October 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the act "is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions....It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power."

Immediate Impact

In reality (and with the benefit of hindsight), the bill signed in 1965 marked a dramatic break with past immigration policy, and would have an immediate and lasting impact. In place of the national-origins quota system, the act provided for preferences to be made according to categories, such as relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, those with skills deemed useful to the United States or refugees of violence or unrest. Though it abolished quotas per se, the system did place caps on per-country and total immigration, as well as caps on each category. As in the past, family reunification was a major goal, and the new immigration policy would increasingly allow entire families to uproot themselves from other countries and reestablish their lives in the U.S.

In the first five years after the bill's passage, immigration to the U.S. from Asian countries-especially those fleeing war-torn Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia)-would more than quadruple. (Under past immigration policies, Asian immigrants had been effectively barred from entry.) Other Cold War-era conflicts during the 1960s and 1970s saw millions of people fleeing poverty or the hardships of communist regimes in Cuba, Eastern Europe and elsewhere to seek their fortune on American shores. All told, in the three decades following passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, more than 18 million legal immigrants entered the United States, more than three times the number admitted over the preceding 30 years.

By the end of the 20th century, the policies put into effect by the Immigration Act of 1965 had greatly changed the face of the American population. Whereas in the 1950s, more than half of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians, by the 1990s only 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were of Asian descent, while the percentages of Latino and African immigrants had also jumped significantly. Between 1965 and 2000, the highest number of immigrants (4.3 million) to the U.S. came from Mexico, in addition to some 1.4 million from the Philippines. Korea, the Dominican Republic, India, Cuba and Vietnam were also leading sources of immigrants, each sending between 700,000 and 800,000 over this period.

Continuing Source of Debate

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, illegal immigration was a constant source of political debate, as immigrants continue to pour into the United States, mostly by land routes through Canada and Mexico. The Immigration Reform Act in 1986 attempted to address the issue by providing better enforcement of immigration policies and creating more possibilities to seek legal immigration. The act included two amnesty programs for unauthorized aliens, and collectively granted amnesty to more than 3 million illegal aliens. Another piece of immigration legislation, the 1990 Immigration Act, modified and expanded the 1965 act, increasing the total level of immigration to 700,000. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from "underrepresented" countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.

The economic recession that hit the country in the early 1990s was accompanied by a resurgence of anti-immigrant feeling, including among lower-income Americans competing for jobs with immigrants willing to work for lower wages. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which addressed border enforcement and the use of social programs by immigrants.

Immigration in the 21st Century

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over many immigration service and enforcement functions formerly performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). With some modifications, the policies put into place by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 are the same ones governing U.S. immigration in the early 21st century. Non-citizens currently enter the United States lawfully in one of two ways, either by receiving either temporary (non-immigrant) admission or permanent (immigrant) admission. A member of the latter category is classified as a lawful permanent resident, and receives a green card granting them eligibility to work in the United States and to eventually apply for citizenship.

There could be perhaps no greater reflection of the impact of immigration than the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan father and an American mother (from Kansas), as the nation's first African-American president. Eighty-five percent white in 1965, the nation's population was one-third minority in 2009 and is on track for a nonwhite majority by 2042.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Immigration Since 1965 - Impact, Results & Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), enacted in 1965, is the nation's national education law and shows a longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.

ESEA authorizes state-run programs for eligible schools and districts eager to raise the academic achievement of struggling learners and address the complex challenges that arise for students who live with disability, mobility problems, learning difficulties, poverty, or transience, or who need to learn English.

# data[].attributes.headline
San Antonio Independent School District v.  Rodriguez (1973)

# data[].attributes.subject
San Antonio Independent School District v.  Rodriguez (1973)

# data[].attributes.body
Rodríguez et al. v. San Antonio ISD, a class-action suit, was a 1971 landmark case in which a federal district court declared the Texas school-finance system unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rodríguez et al. v. San Antonio ISD, a class-action suit, was a 1971 landmark case in which a federal district court declared the Texas school-finance system unconstitutional. The case followed the work of the School Improvement League, a San Antonio organization that battled racial and class inequities in the San Antonio schools although not through legal action. The state of Texas had not addressed school-finance reform since 1949, when the Gilmer-Aikin Laws were passed. On May 16, 1968, 400 students at Edgewood High School in San Antonio held a walkout and demonstration, and marched to the district administration office. Ninety percent of the students in the Edgewood district were of Mexican origin. Among the students' grievances were insufficient supplies and the lack of qualified teachers. The walkout induced parents to form the Edgewood District Concerned Parents Association, which sought to address problems in the schools. The group consisted of Alberta Snid, Demetrio Rodríguez, and other parents, mostly mothers. Rodríguez, a veteran and sheet-metal worker at Kelly Air Force Base, had worked with the American G.I. Forum, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the Mexican-American Betterment Organization in San Antonio. William Velásquez, an activist in San Antonio, connected the parents' group with lawyer Arthur Gochman, who appealed unsuccessfully to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund for assistance. On July 10, 1968, Rodríguez and seven other Edgewood parents filed on behalf of Texas schoolchildren who were poor or resided in school districts with low property-tax bases. They claimed their school district had one of the highest tax rates in the county but raised only $37 per pupil, while Alamo Heights, Bexar County's wealthiest district, raised $413 per student. Studies revealed that in Bexar County the tax rate per $100 property value needed to equalize education funding was $0.68 for Alamo Heights but $5.76 for Edgewood.

Defendants included the State Board of Education, the commissioner of education, the state attorney general, and the Bexar County Board of Trustees. In January 1969 a three-judge federal district court was impaneled because Rodríguez challenged a state law on federal grounds. Gochman's argument rested upon two major claims that no federal court had accepted. The first was that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution made education a "fundamental right," and the second was that poor and Mexican-American families were treated as a "suspect class." The state countered that the Texas legislature had authorized a study of school finance, and Judge Adrian Spears delayed hearing the case so that the Texas legislature might solve the issue. But the legislature closed its session in 1971 without acting. The three-judge court ruled on Rodríguez in December 23, 1971. The panel held the Texas school-finance system unconstitutional under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state appealed, and the case went to the United States Supreme Court as San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodríguez. The attorneys general of twenty-five states filed amicus briefs on Rodríguez's side.

On March 21, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled five to four against Rodríguez, stating that the system of school finance did not violate the federal constitution and that the issue should be resolved by the state of Texas. It also held that the state would not be required to subsidize poorer school districts. This ruling in effect produced additional legal barriers to equalization. The court denied a rehearing on April 23, 1973. Justice Thurgood Marshall, however, called the decision "a retreat from our historic commitment to equality of educational opportunity." Rodríguez responded to the decision, "The poor people have lost again." Later in the same year 1973 José A. Cárdenas, superintendent of the Edgewood Independent School District, organized Texans for Educational Excellence (later called the Intercultural Development Research Association, which devoted attention to school-finance reform. The battle for educational equity continued with Edgewood ISD v. Kirby in 1984.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rodríguez et al. v. San Antonio ISD, a class-action suit, was a 1971 landmark case in which a federal district court declared the Texas school-finance system unconstitutional. The case followed the work of the School Improvement League, a San Antonio organization that battled racial and class inequities in the San Antonio schools although not through legal action.

# data[].attributes.body
Originated by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into alleged discriminatory practices in a number of small Texas public school districts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
United States v. State of Texas - MALDEF

# data[].attributes.body
Established that language programs for language minorities not proficient in English were necessary to provide equal educational opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

Lau v. Nichols, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 1974, ruled (9-0) that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a California school district receiving federal funds must provide non-English-speaking students with instruction in the English language to ensure that they receive an equal education.

The case centred on the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), which had nearly 2,900 non-English-speaking students of Chinese ancestry. While approximately 1,000 of those students were provided supplemental classes in English language, the others were not. In the early 1970s the students without access to such instruction, including Kinney Kimmon Lau, filed suit, claiming that the SFUSD violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause and Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Alan H. Nichols, president of the school board, was named as a respondent.

The case came some 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court relied on the equal protection clause in reasoning that "separate but equal" educational facilities were unconstitutional. In Lau a federal district court in 1973 ruled in favour of the SFUSD. Interpreting Brown as mandating the provision of education on equal terms, the district court concluded that the board did not violate the equal protection clause, because the non-English-speaking students received the same education that was available to all other students in the SFUSD. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Insofar as the SFUSD had not directly or indirectly caused the language deficiencies, the Ninth Circuit found that the requisite discriminatory state action was absent. The court further explained that there were neither constitutional nor statutory mandates requiring the SFUSD to provide special remedial programs to students who were disadvantaged.

The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 10, 1973. The court began its review by noting that, according to the California Education Code, "the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools" is a key state goal. In addition, the code states that students who fail to meet standard proficiency levels of English will not receive a high-school diploma. According to the court, providing all students with the same facilities and curriculum does not mean equal treatment, because non-English-speaking students "are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education."

The court then focused on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act. It noted that on several occasions the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare had clarified the section, notably in 1970, when it issued a guideline that specifically imposed upon federally funded school systems the responsibility of rectifying students' linguistic deficiencies to make instruction accessible for such students. The court thus held that the SFUSD was in violation of Section 601. Having made that ruling, it did not address the equal protection complaint. The decision of the Ninth Circuit was reversed.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lau v. Nichols, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 1974, ruled (9-0) that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a California school district receiving federal funds must provide non-English-speaking students with instruction in the English language to ensure that they receive an equal education.

# data[].attributes.headline
No Child Left Behind (NCLD) Act - Reauthorization  of the ESEA; the Title VII Bilingual Education Act is repealed and replaced by Tittle III (2001)

# data[].attributes.subject
No Child Left Behind (NCLD) Act - Reauthorization  of the ESEA; the Title VII Bilingual Education Act is repealed and replaced by Tittle III (2001)

# data[].attributes.body
This Act was approved by Congress on December 8, 2001 and signed into law by President George W . Bush in January 2002. The Bilingual Education Act is eliminated and replaced by Tittle III.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No Child Left Behind Act: Facts
Signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8th of 2002, the No Child Left behind Act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was regarded as the central federal law for pre-collegiate education schools and courses. First enacted in 1965 and reauthorized in 1994, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided resources and programs to aid disadvantaged students in the United States.

The NCLB Act is an act of Congress and concerns the education of children in American public schools. The NCLB Act of 2001 supports standards-based education reform that is based on the belief that setting high standards and goals can improve an individual student's educational outcome. The No Child Left Behind Act requires all states to develop evaluations in basic skills for students in all grades; these assessments are then used to determine which schools are eligible and in need of federal funding. The No Child Left Behind Act does not assert national achievement standards; these qualifications are set by the individual states.

Since the enactment of the NCLB Act of 2001, the United States Congress has increased federal funding for education by $12.2 billion dollars. ($42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007.)

The NCLB Act of 2001 was proposed by George W. Bush on January 23rd of 2001. The act was co-authored by Representatives George Miller and John Boehner as well as Senators Judd Gregg and Edward Kennedy. The United States House of Representatives passed the No Child Left Behind Bill on May 23, 2001 and the United States Senate passed it on June 14th of 2001. President Bush later signed it into law on January 8th of 2002.
The Adequate Yearly Progress Calculation:
The Adequate Yearly Progress Scale of the NLCB Act is a measurement explicitly defined by the United States Federal Government that enables the Department of Education to determine how each public school and school district in the United States is performing according to the results on standardized tests. The NCLB of 2001 requires each state to establish a timeline for yearly progress. The timeline ensures that all students will meet or exceed a state's specific standards no later than 12 years after the 2001-2012 school year. These timeframes are instituted and developed by state education agencies who work under guidance from the United States federal government.

Adequate Yearly Progress tests require all kindergarten through 12th grade schools to demonstrate improvement in mathematics, reading/language arts and graduation rates (for high schools) or attendance rates (middle and elementary schools). Adequate Yearly Progress requires all public schools to satisfy three annual tests. That being said, the specific requirements of the evaluation process are determined on a state-by-state basis. For example, in Illinois, the requirements are as follows:

* At least 95 percent of students are tested for mathematics and reading

* At least 95 percent of students satisfy the minimum annual target for reading and mathematics standards

* At least 95 percent of students meet the minimum target for graduation rates or attendance.

According to the United States Department of Education, the Adequate Yearly Progress Calculation is a tool to determine how schools need to improve and where financial resources or government aid needs to be allocated. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 enforces provisions for schools that do not exhibit adequate yearly progress. Those academic institutions or districts that do not meet the Adequate Yearly Progress standard for two years in a row are labeled as "schools in need of improvement" and are subsequently subject to intervention by the appropriate State Education Agency in their jurisdiction.
Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act:
The No Child Left Behind Act requires all government-run schools receiving federal funds to administer state-wide standardized tests to all students. These annual tests are given to all students under the same conditions and the scores are used to determine whether the school is efficient in the way they spend their funds and their overall teaching platform. All schools who receive funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education of 1965 are required to make Adequate Yearly Progress in these test scores. For example, within each year, fourth graders must be better on these tests than the previous year's fourth grade class.

If a public school yields poor results on a consistent basis, the NCLB Act will engage in the following steps to improve the facility's scores:

* A school that fails according to the Adequate Yearly Progress Calculation for a second consecutive year will be publicly labeled as a facility in "need of improvement." Once labeled, the school, according to the NCLB Act of 2001, is required to develop a two-year improvement plan for the specific subjects that the school is failing to teach well. Students are then given the option to transfer to a better facility within the school district.

* Failing to meet the requirements of the Adequate Yearly Progress measure for three consecutive years will force the school to offer supplemental educational programs-including free tutoring-to struggling students.

* If an academic institution misses its Adequate Yearly Progress score for a 4th consecutive year, the school will be labeled as mandating "corrective action." This label may involve a wholesale replacement of the school's staff, an introduction of new curriculum or an extension of the amount of time students spend in class.

* If a school fails the Adequate Yearly Progress for five consecutive years, the state educational agency will plan to restructure the entire facility. This plan will be affirmed and implemented if the school fails to hit its Adequate Yearly Progress target. Common actions for this occurrence are closing the school, turning the facility into a charter school, hiring a private company to run the school or asking the state to run the school directly.

The NCLB Act requires all states to provide highly effective and qualified teachers to all students. States are required to set their own standards for what is regarded as "highly effective and qualified." Furthermore, the NCLB Act requires each state to set one lofty and challenging standard for its students. This goal is then attached with curriculum standards that are applied to all students.
NLCB Act Summary and Purpose:
Supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 claim that the act increased accountability for schools and teachers. According to the NCLB Act of 2001, schools are required to pass annual tests that will evaluate how a school's students have improved over the fiscal year. These tests are the foundation of research that is used to evaluate schools and their ability to meet the standards they are required to fulfill. If these improvements are not realized, the schools will face decreased financing/funding and other limitations that increase accountability. According to supporters of the effort, these provisions help schools and teachers realize the significance of the educational system and how schooling affects the nation as a whole.

Proponents of the NLCB Act also claim that the legislation links student outcomes with State academic content standards and measures student performance in a more effective manner. Supporters also believe that the NLCB Act of 2001 provides information for parents by requiring schools to deliver detailed report cards on schools and districts with regard to their Adequate Yearly Performance measurable.

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No Child Left Behind Act: Facts Signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8th of 2002, the No Child Left behind Act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was regarded as the central federal law for pre-collegiate education schools and courses.

# data[].attributes.headline
Castañeda v. Pickard (Wright, 2010) (Castañeda Standards)

# data[].attributes.subject
Castañeda v. Pickard (Wright, 2010) (Castañeda Standards)

# data[].attributes.body
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

# 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
This was an initiative by Barack Obama in the classroom to improve college Readiness standards in English language Arts and math. States also had options of standard based tests as well as Smarter Balanced Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: On this page you can find the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and English Language Arts. The standards are temporarily located on this page while we work to address technical challenges with CoreStandards.org. Thank you for your patience and we will share an update on CoreStandards.org when we have one.
English Language Arts Standards English Language Arts Standards (ADA Compliant) Mathematics Standards Mathematics Standards (ADA Compliant)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: On this page you can find the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and English Language Arts. The standards are temporarily located on this page while we work to address technical challenges with CoreStandards.org. Thank you for your patience and we will share an update on CoreStandards.org when we have one.

# data[].attributes.body
Proposition 58 no longer required English-only education for English learners. It allowed schools to utilize multiple programs, including bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act (Senate Bill 1174), also known as Proposition 58, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California ballot as a legislatively referred state statute. It was approved.

A "no" vote opposed repealing most of Proposition 227, which was designed to prohibit non-English languages from being used in public schools.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33) developed Proposition 58 as Senate Bill 1174.

Election results

Proposition 58

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes

9,994,454

73.52%

No

3,598,855

26.48%

Proposition 58 repealed the English-only immersion requirement and waiver provisions required by Proposition 227 of 1998. In English-only programs, students learn subjects from teachers who speak only in English. Proposition 227 required English learners to take one year of intensive English instruction before transitioning to English-only classes.

As a legislative referral, Proposition 58 was voted on in the California Legislature. In the General Assembly, 53 legislators voted to place the measure on the ballot and 26 voted against doing so. In the Senate, 27 senators voted in support of the measure and eight voted against it.

Proposition 58 no longer required English-only education for English learners. It allowed schools to utilize multiple programs, including bilingual education. In bilingual programs, students learn from teachers who speak both their native language and English. Furthermore, it made parental waivers no longer necessary to take non-English-only classes. If requested by enough parents, the measure requires schools to offer specific English learner programs. Under the measure, school districts and county offices of education must ask for annual feedback on English learner programs from parents and community members.

Yes on 58 raised $4.95 million, with $1.7 million from the California Teachers Association/Issues PAC. The opposition did not form a political action committee to receive contributions. Groups including the California Democratic Party, California Chamber of Commerce, and SEIU California supported Proposition 58. The California Republican Party opposed the measure. Prior to the election, polls indicated that around 64 percent of voters supported Proposition 58.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

"

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students become proficient in English.

Requires school districts to solicit parent and community input in developing language acquisition programs to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible.

Requires that school districts provide students with limited English proficiency the option to be taught English nearly all in English.

Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers.

Allows parents/legal guardians of students to select an available language acquisition program that best suits their child.

"

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

"

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.

"

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 58 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement for this initiative was:

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

The full text of the initiative measure is available here.

Yes on 58, also known as Californians for English Proficiency, led the campaign in support of Proposition 58.

Supporters

Proposition 58 was sponsored by the following officials in the legislature:

Other officials who supported the measure included:

Organizations

Advancement Project

Alliance for a Better California

AltaMed Action Fund State PAC

American Anthropological Association

Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Los Angeles

Association of Mexican American Educators

Asian Business Association

Asian Americans for Community Involvement

Asian Law Alliance

Associated Administrators of Los Angeles

Association of California Administrators

Association of Two-Way Dual Immersion Education

California Association for Bilingual Education

California Association of Latino School Administrators

California Association of School Administrators

California Environmental Justice Alliance Action

California Faculty Association

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Language Teachers Association

California Latino Caucus

California Latino School Boards Association

California Linguistic Anthropology Association

California Medical Association

California School Boards Association

California State Parent Teachers Association

Californians Together

Campaign for College Opportunity

Children NOW

Chinese American Council of Sacramento

Chinese for Affirmative Action

Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership

Council on Teacher Education

Early Edge California

Echo Park Neighborhood Council

EdTrust West

Families to Schools

Inner City Struggle

Korean Resource Center

La Raza Roundtable de California

League of California Cities Asian Pacific Islander Caucus

League of Women Voters of California

Lingual Learning

Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles Compact

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Luna Press

Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce

National Association of Social Workers

Parent Institute for Quality Education - PIQE

Public Advocates

Regional Chamber of Commerce-San Gabriel Valley

San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce

Sierra Club, California

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Society for Linguistic Anthropology

Sen. Lara (D-33) unveiling the bill to the media in April 2014.

Individuals

Margaret Grogan, Dean, College of Educational Studies, Chapman University

Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco

Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 58:

The proposition would allow all students to become proficient in English as soon as possible.

The proposition would encourage schools to use instruction programs rather than expand multilingual education, thereby providing English speakers the opportunity to learn a second language.

The proposition would restore local control for California schools.

The proposition's changes would prepare students more effectively for the future.

Multilingual education encourages "intercultural interactions and empathy."

Official arguments

The following argument in support of Proposition 58 was provided in the official voters guide:

PROPOSITION 58 ENSURES ALL STUDENTS CAN ACHIEVE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Too many California students are being left behind and not given the opportunity to learn English with the most effective teaching methods possible. This is because of an outdated nearly 20-year-old law, Proposition 227, which restricts the instructional methods school districts can use to teach English.

Proposition 58 revises Proposition 227 to remove these restrictions so schools are able to use the most up-to-date teaching methods possible to help our students learn.

Proposition 58:

Requires local school districts to identify in their annual K-12 Local Control and Accountability Plans the instructional methods they will offer to help ensure all students become proficient in English as rapidly as possible.

Requires schools to offer a structured English immersion program to English learners. But schools also can adopt other language instruction methods based on research and stakeholder input.

School districts must seek input from educators, parents and the community.

PROPOSITION 58 ALSO EXPANDS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS TO LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE.

Proposition 58 removes barriers hurting students by discouraging schools from expanding multilingual education. Proposition 58 encourages school districts to provide instruction programs so native English speakers can become proficient in a second language:

School districts must include in their annual K-12 Local Control and Accountability Plans programs giving English-speaking students the opportunity to achieve proficiency in a second language.

District choices of non-English languages must reflect input from parents, the community and the linguistic and financial resources of schools.

Research shows that students participating in programs taught in more than one language attain higher levels of academic achievement.

PROPOSITION 58 RESTORES LOCAL CONTROL TO OUR SCHOOLS.

Proposition 58 allows local school districts to choose the most up-to-date language instruction methods to improve student outcomes free from legal restrictions imposed on them by a decades-old law.

PROPOSITION 58 PROVIDES A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR STATE.

The world economy is changing rapidly. Today, technology allows even the smallest businesses to have a global reach. Students proficient in English and a second language will be more employable, start out earning higher wages, and make California's workforce better prepared to compete for jobs in the global economy.

PROPOSITION 58 HAS BROAD-BASED SUPPORT FROM LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, EDUCATORS, PARENTS AND EMPLOYERS.

Giving local schools the tools they need to improve outcomes for students is not a partisan or political issue. Proposition 58 was placed on the ballot by a bipartisan vote of the legislature. Support for Proposition 58's common sense reforms to improve language instruction in our schools is broad-based and includes: Local school boards (the California School Boards Association), Teachers (the California Language Teachers' Association, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers), Parents (California State PTA), and Employers (including the San Jose I Silicon Valley and Los Angeles Chambers of Commerce).

Proposition 58's reforms allow schools to adopt the most up-to-date methods of language instruction to improve student outcomes and make better use of taxpayer dollars.

More information at www.SupportProp58.com.

VOTE YES ON 58.

Opposition

Keep English for the Children led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 58.

Individuals

Ron Unz, advocate for Proposition 227

Mauro E. Mujica, U.S. English Chairperson

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 58:

The proposition would repeal the requirement that California children be taught English in public schools.

The proposition would lift restrictions on the California legislature making future changes, enabling the legislature to reestablish Spanish-Almost-Only instruction in public schools.

The proposition would overturn policies that actually improved language education.

Official arguments

The following argument in opposition to Proposition 58 was provided in the official voters guide:

THIS BALLOT MEASURE IS A DISHONEST TRICK BY THE SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS

The official title of Proposition 58 is "English Language Education," But it actually REPEALS the requirement the children be taught English in California public schools. It's all a trick by the Sacramento politicians to fool the voters, who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 227, the "English for the Children" initiative in 1998.

The worst part of Proposition 58 is hidden away in Section 8, which REPEALS all restrictions on the California Legislature to make future changes. This would allow the Legislature to reestablish SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY instruction in the public schools by a simple majority vote, once again forcing Latino children into those classes against their parents' wishes.

Teaching English in our public schools is overwhelmingly supported by California parents, whether immigrants or non-immigrants, Latinos or Anglos, Asians or Blacks. That's why the politicians are trying to TRICK the voters by using a DECEPTIVE TITLE.

VOTE NO AND KEEP "ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN"---IT WORKS!

For decades, millions of Latino children were FORCED INTO SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY CLASSES dishonestly called "bilingual education." It was an educational disaster and never worked. Many Latinos never learned how to read, write, or even speak English properly.

But in 1998, California voters overwhelmingly passed Prop. 227-the "English for the Children" initiative---providing sheltered English immersion to immigrant students and requiring that they be taught English as soon as they started school.

Jaime Escalante of Stand and Deliver fame, one of America's most successful teachers led the Prop. 227 campaign as Honorary Chairman, rescuing California Latinos from the Spanish-only educational ghetto.

It worked! Within four years the test scores of over a million immigrant students in California increased by 30%, 50%, or even 100%.

All the major newspapers, even the national New York Times, declared the new English immersion system a huge educational success.

The founding president of the California Association of Bilingual Educators announced that he'd been wrong about bilingual education for thirty years and became a leading national advocate for English immersion.

Since "English for the Children" passed, there has been a huge increase in the number of Latinos scoring high enough to gain admission to the prestigious University of California system.

Prop. 227 worked so well in California schools that the whole issue was forgotten by almost everyone except the bilingual education activists. Now they're trying to trick the voters into allowing the RESTORATION OF MANDATORY SPANISH-ALMOST-ONLY CLASSES.

Vote NO, keep "English for the Children," and protect Jaime Escalante's educational legacy for California's immigrant schoolchildren.

For more information, visit our website at www.KeepEnglish.org

Campaign finance

As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign raised $4,950,945.34 for Proposition 58, and the opposition campaign did not register a committee.

As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 58. The total amounts raised and expended were current as of February 1, 2017.

Yes On 58, Californians For English Proficiency Sponsored By Teachers And Service Employees Organizations

$2,574,630.17

$2,529,764.17

A Ricardo Lara Ballot Measure Committee; Californians for a 21st Century Economic - Yes on 58

$295,350.72

$227,835.16

Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and No on 66, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations

$2,110,000.00

$2,110,000.00

As of February 1, 2017, the top six largest donors to Yes on 58 and A Ricardo Lara Ballot Measure Committee were:

California Teachers Association PAC

$1,722,048.00

SEIU Local 2015 Issues PAC

$104,833.18

California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee

$100,000.00

Association of California School Administrators Issues PAC

$100,000.00

SEIU California State Council

$100,000.00

Opposition

As of February 1, 2017, there were no PACs registered to oppose Proposition 58.

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

East Bay Express: "Prop. 58 will be beneficial to all students, English and non-native speakers alike, and will help them compete in the workforce where being bilingualism [sic] is crucial."

San Bernardino County Sun and The Press Enterprise said: "But we also believe it's best to allow local districts the flexibility and autonomy to determine whether, or in what combination, English immersion and bilingual education would best benefit their students. Vote yes on Proposition 58."

Opposition

The Mercury News: "Look at Prop. 227 through the lens of student outcomes, which is the measure that counts: In just five years after its passage, the English proficiency of limited-English students tripled. And, not coincidentally, the math scores of the English-immersion students rose. It demonstrably helped students. ... Truly bilingual education has an important place in California schools. American students today should be multilingual, like their counterparts European [sic] and other advanced nations. But English proficiency has to be paramount for success in this country. Vote no on Prop. 58."

In September 2016, The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 484 registered voters on Proposition 58 using the official ballot title and found support around 69 percent. However, when the interviewers told 459 different voters that Proposition 58 would repeal the "English-only" provision of Proposition 227, support dropped to 31 percent and opposition increased to 51 percent.

In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 58. Support among respondents was 59 percent.

The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 68 percent.

Polls with margins of error

California Proposition 58 (2016)

Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."

Background

Legislation trajectory

Proposition 58 was sponsored in the California State Legislature by State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-33) as Senate Bill 1174, or the Multilingual Education for a 21st Century Economy Act.

The bill passed through the legislature largely along party lines. In the House, all "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators and all but two "nay" votes came from Republican legislators. In the Senate, all "nay" votes came from Republican legislators while all but three "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators.

Proposition 227

Proposition 227 (the English Language in Public Schools Statute), also known as the English for the Children Act, was introduced by Ron Unz, a software entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, and Gloria Mata Tuchman, a teacher in Santa Ana, California. The statute called for changes to the approach used to teach "Limited English Proficient" (LEP) students in California public schools, requiring that special classes be taught predominantly in English and shortening the time that LEP students were in special classes before moving to regular classes.

Under Proposition 227, parents of English learners can opt their children into bilingual programs by signing a waiver. The waiver is approved if one of three conditions are met. First, the student must have "attended an English-only classroom for at least 30 days and whose teachers, principal, and district superintendent all agree would learn better in a bilingual program." Second, the student must be at least 10 years old. Third, the student is already a fluent English speaker.

Ron Unz senate run

Before drafting Proposition 227, Ron Unz ran for governor in California in 1994. In March 2016, Unz entered into the race for Senator Barbara Boxer's vacant seat as a Republican candidate, saying that the main reason for his candidacy was to raise awareness about SB 1174 and efforts to repeal Proposition 227. "After considering various options, I decided that becoming a statewide candidate myself was the probably the best means of effectively focusing public attention on this repeal effort and defeating it," Unz stated on his website.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing legislative alteration in California

Senate Bill 1174 would repeal most of Proposition 227. Since Proposition 227 was approved in 1998, the California State Legislature must submit the change to voters.

The timeline for Senate Bill 1174 was:

February 20, 2014: Introduced into the California Legislature

April 30, 2014: The Senate Education Committee, in an eight-to-zero vote, recommended the bill's approval

May 23, 2014: The Senate Appropriations Committee, in a seven-to-zero vote, recommended the bill's approval

May 27, 2014: Approved by California Senate for the first time

June 26, 2014: The Assembly Education Committee, in a five-to-two vote, recommended the bill's approval

August 14, 2014: The Assembly Appropriations Committee, in a twelve-to-five vote, recommended the bill's approval

August 25, 2014: Approved by California State Assembly

August 26, 2014: Senate concurred with assembly's amendments

September 28, 2014: Gov. Brown (D) signed the legislation, thus placing Proposition 58 on the ballot

Assembly vote

August 25, 2014

California SB 1174 Assembly Vote

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes

53

67.09%

No

26

32.91%

Senate vote

May 27, 2014

California SB 1174 Senate Vote

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes

27

67.50%

No

8

20.00%

State profile

This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.

Both sides of America's political divide have taken the opportunity to emphasize how different California is from the rest of the country. After the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump complained that were it not for Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote. For their part, California's Democratic politicians have taken a leading role in opposing Trump's vision for America; some Californians are even flirting with seceding from the union, though "Calexit" faces constitutional obstacles that make it highly improbable. Despite such antagonism, California and the United States need each other, even if it no longer seems like it.

Americans have long thought of California as the Golden State -- a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America's most populous state remains in many ways a great success story. But in ...( read more)

Demographic data for California

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California.**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 58 language 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Related measures

Additional reading

External links

Basic information

Other resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education (2016) - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act (Senate Bill 1174), also known as Proposition 58, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California ballot as a legislatively referred state statute. It was approved. A "no" vote opposed repealing most of Proposition 227, which was designed to prohibit non-English languages from being used in public schools.