# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.body
Effective, individualized instructional practices and assessments were not used for the students placed in this learning environment. Bilingual programs were reassessed in relation to heritage language proficiency of students to promote English language learning and academic success.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado state law and federal law, history and socio-political context related to CLD student populations, education, multicultural education and bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado state law and federal law, history and socio-political context related to CLD student populations, education, multicultural education and bilingual education. 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.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado state law and federal law, history and socio-political context related to CLD student populations, education, multicultural education and bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado state law and federal law, history and socio-political context related to CLD student populations, education, multicultural education and bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
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. (Wright, 2010)

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado state law and federal law, history and socio-political context related to CLD student populations, education, multicultural education and bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado state law and federal law, history and socio-political context related to CLD student populations, education, multicultural education and bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the operation of all federally assisted programs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c) 

# data[].attributes.body
The personal characteristics of ELL students, especially the role of cultural identity and language, contributed to the development of effective instructional practices and provided funds for bilingual programs.

# data[].attributes.body
A U.S. District Court found that a Denver public school district had failed to adequately implement a plan for language minority students, which is the second element of the "Castañeda Test." (Colorin Colorado)

# data[].attributes.headline
The "Castañeda test" includes the following criteria:

# data[].attributes.subject
The "Castañeda test" includes the following criteria:

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In responding to the plaintiffs' claim that Raymondville, Texas Independent School District's language remediation programs violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals formulated a set of basic standards to determine school district compliance with EEOA. (Colorin Colorado)

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.body
Parents of MLL's became involved and communicated that the bilingual program did not address the unique language and educational needs of its students. The bilingual programs were reassessed in relation to effective, individualized instructional and assessment practices.

# data[].attributes.body
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the state does not have the right to deny a free public education to undocumented immigrant children. (Colorin Colorado)

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

Federal Policy: Timeline

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

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

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

The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII

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

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

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

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

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

No Child Left Behind

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

Court Rulings

Supreme Court

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

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

Federal Court

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

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

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

1978 - Cintron v. Brentwood

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

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

1981 - Castañeda v. Pickard

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

The "Castañeda test" includes the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1983 - Keyes v. School District #1

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Emphasize the strictly transitional nature of native language instruction, expand eligibility to students who are limited English proficient (LEP), and permit enrollment of English-speaking students in bilingual programs. (Colorin Colorado)

# data[].attributes.headline
1968 - The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII

# data[].attributes.subject
1968 - The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII

# data[].attributes.body
Establishes federal policy for bilingual education for economically disadvantaged language minority students, allocates funds for innovative programs, and recognizes the unique educational disadvantages faced by non-English speaking students.(Colorin Colorado)

# data[].attributes.headline
CDE Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
CDE Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education Standards

# data[].attributes.headline
Wright, W. (2010) Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice. Caslon

# data[].attributes.subject
Wright, W. (2010) Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice. Caslon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of Wright_2010_Landmark Court Rulings Regarding English Language Learners.docx

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.body
Parents of MLL's became involved and communicated what their student needed from the school, district and state. This supreme court case provided students with bilingual programs and procedures for determining placement of students.

# data[].attributes.body
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. The program was lacking educators knowledgeable of how dynamic academic, personal, familial, cultural, and social contexts affect MLL's academic success. There was an 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. (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(d)

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c)(d)

# data[].attributes.body
Bilingual programs were reassessed in relation to heritage language proficiency of students to promote English language learning and academic success.

# data[].attributes.body
Legal action taken by Puerto Rican parents and children in New York resulted in the Aspira Consent Decree, which mandates transitional bilingual programs for Spanish-surnamed students found to be more proficient in Spanish than English. (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aspira vs New York (1975) References Aspira (n.d) Retrieved September26, 2014 from http://www.aspira.org Tania Lara & Jennifer Marroquin Aspira 50th anniversary"make the future". (2011, May 23). Retrieved September 26. 2014, from Miranda, E (2013, May 17) ASPIRA of new york 20th

# data[].attributes.body
This was the first case to raise the issue of bilingual education outside of the context of desegregation. A white majority school in New Mexico failed to meet the needs of its Spanish students. The court found the school's program for these students to be inadequate. (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(b)(d)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(b)(d)(e) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.body
Through the testimony of José Cardenas the court identified the role of culture in language development and academic success and the value of community involvement in the schools. This case created a more equitable learning environment for Mexican American students and allowed families to become more involved in their child's education.

# data[].attributes.body
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. (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In November 1970, William Wayne Justice, chief judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordered the Texas Education Agency to assume responsibility for desegregating Texas public schools. The decision in United States v. Texas, frequently named by its docket number, Civil Order 5281, applied to the entire Texas public school system and is one of the most extensive desegregation orders in legal history. The decision was the first of a string of highly controversial reform rulings Judge Justice handed down in the 1970s and 1980s that dramatically changed Texas public institutions, including state reform schools, facilities for the intellectually disabled, and state prisons. Justice, a liberal Democrat from Athens, Texas, was appointed to the federal bench in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. United States v. Texas originated with investigations in the late 1960s by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into alleged discriminatory practices in a number of small Texas public school districts, most in East Texas. Lacking effective enforcement power, HEW referred the matter to the Department of Justice, which was then at the height of its efforts to desegregate the nation's schools. The Justice Department sought to place the state as a whole under federal court order by naming both TEA and the state itself as parties to the lawsuit. Justice Department officials believed that Judge Justice would be highly supportive of their case and filed the lawsuit in his court in Marshall, Texas. Although the trial generated almost no press coverage, Justice's decision detailing how integration was to occur quickly captured the attention of both public school officials and top state policymakers. Denunciations began pouring into the court and continued thereafter for many years.

Justice first ordered the consolidation of the all-Black school districts originally involved in the litigation with adjoining White districts. He then ordered TEA to prohibit all public school districts in the state from assigning students to schools on the basis of race, from discriminating in extracurricular activities and personnel practices, and from operating segregated bus routes. TEA was to conduct annual reviews of school districts with one or more campuses having a 66 percent or greater minority enrollment to determine compliance with federal desegregation law. If violations were found, TEA was to impose sanctions, including denial of accreditation. A year after Justice handed down his decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed it, but removed from his jurisdiction schools districts that were then or would later be under desegregation orders issued by other federal courts in Texas. Even with this modification, the order applied to more than 1,000 school districts and two million students. In 1982 a panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit rebuffed Justice's effort to extend United States v. Texas to alleged discrimination against Mexican Americans in the Gregory-Portland Independent School District. Noting the absence of any statewide policy of discrimination against Hispanics and expressing strong belief in neighborhood schools, the appeals judges downplayed most of the evidence Justice had relied on in ordering busing to integrate schools in the district. After that decision and a second in 1986 restricting use of Civil Order 5281 to challenge a state competency test for admission to college teaching programs, only sporadic efforts were made to enforce the order in Justice's court. By the early 1990s it seemed only a matter of time before the state would succeed in bringing about an end to United States v. Texas. Research conducted by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin shows that United States v. Texas had some limited success in forcing school districts across the state to readjust their campus student assignments to promote integration. In addition, segregation in transportation, school-district boundary changes, transfer of school property, and extracurricular activities was halted or significantly reduced, though problems remained. See also CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In November 1970, William Wayne Justice, chief judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordered the Texas Education Agency to assume responsibility for desegregating Texas public schools. The decision in United States v.

# data[].attributes.headline
1974 - Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1974 - Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

# data[].attributes.body
"No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs." (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection to CDE standard 4.22(4)(a)(b)(c) and TESOL standards 2a & b

# data[].attributes.body
Effective, individualized instructional practices and assessments were not used for the students placed in this learning environment. It makes clear that schools cannot ignore the unique language and educational needs of ELL students. Bilingual programs were reassessed and enlarged at the school and it created bilingual programs at other schools where they were needed.

# data[].attributes.body
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." (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.body
This allowed students of color access to an educational community but this community was segregated from the the white community. Students of color received "less than equal" facilities, resources, and curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
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. (Wright,2010)

# data[].attributes.headline
1868 - 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.subject
1868 - 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
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." (Wright,2010)