# data[].attributes.body
At the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. generally held assimilationist attitudes towards languages other than English and generally viewed English as important to "Americanization" (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 385). This led to schools and education in the U.S. from 1919 to 1923 becoming increasingly monolingual and assimilationist, with English as the LOI (p. 385). Though this was the norm, there were a few cases, like the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska, that ruled against strictly English-only practices (p. 385). This case "declared that a Nebraska state law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to children in private language classes was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment" and therefore showed that the government cannot extend English-only policies to private education (p. 385). Another U.S. Supreme Court case that counters the assimilationist and English as central to being American ideas was Farrington v. Tokushige in 1927 (p. 385).

# data[].attributes.headline
1968: Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of ESEA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1968: Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of ESEA)

# data[].attributes.body
Introduced in 1967 and enacted in 1968, the Bilingual Education Act was an amendment (Title VII) of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that had a goal of helping students with a native-tongue other than English in the education system (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 388). The BEA allowed for funds to be freed up to help develop bilingual education programs and to help end English-only policies in place in many states (p. 388). This act was instrumental in bilingual education in the U.S. In the following decades, the BEA was reauthorized a few times (p. 388).

# data[].attributes.headline
1970s: Lau v. Nichols and the Lau Remedies

# data[].attributes.subject
1970s: Lau v. Nichols and the Lau Remedies

# data[].attributes.body
Another important court case in bilingual education policy was U.S. Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols in 1974 that "concerned whether or not non-English-speaking students received equal educational opportunities when instructed in a language they could not understand" (Baker & Wright, 2021, pp. 388-389). The court ruled that "English mainstreaming" or "submersion" was in violation of "the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" (pp. 388-389). As a result of their ruling, the Lau remedies were created and issued by the Office of Civil Rights to recognize that students who are not proficient in English need help and to outline ways school districts can help and support them (pp. 388-389).

# data[].attributes.headline
1998-2002 until repealed: English-Only Policies (Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
1998-2002 until repealed: English-Only Policies (Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Resulting from efforts by Ron Unz and other supporters of an English-only America, three state-wide English-only education policies passed between 1998 and 2002 (Baker & Wright, 2021, pp. 393-396). The aim of each policy was to outlaw bilingual education to favor learning English as fast a possible (pp. 393-396). In California, this policy, Proposition 227, was passed in 1998, and "greatly restricted" bilingual education programs to instead focus on "sheltered (or structured) English-immersion programs" (pp. 393-396). Arizona and Massachusetts also followed suit in dramatically reducing bilingual education programs with Proposition 203, which passed in 2000, and Question 2, which passed in 2002 (pp. 393-396). With "little evidence that Proposition 227 led to faster English language learning or higher rates of academic achievement," Californians eventually repealed Proposition 227 with Proposition 58 in 2016 (pp. 393-396). In Massachusetts, Question 2 was eventually repealed in 2017 and replaced with LOOK, a language opportunity program reimplementing bilingual education programs in the state (pp. 393-396). As of right now, Arizona has made efforts to repeal Proposition 203, but nothing has come from it yet (pp. 393-396).

# data[].attributes.headline
2009 and 2011: RTTT and ESEA Flexibility (under NCLB)

# data[].attributes.subject
2009 and 2011: RTTT and ESEA Flexibility (under NCLB)

# data[].attributes.body
After the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)and Congress' inaction in fixing concerns with this education policy, the Obama administration introduced Race to the Top (RTTT) in 2009 and ESEA Flexibility in 2011 to help states with education reform (Baker & Wright, 2021, pp. 402-405). RTTT freed up "$4.3 billion in competitive grants for states to pursue education reform" (p. 402). The administration laid our four requirements states needed to meet in order to receive these grants, though the requirements did still focus a lot on "high-stakes testing" present in NCLB (p. 402). 2011 saw the Obama administration issuing "waivers from some of the accountability mandates of NCLB under a program called ESEA Flexibility" (p. 405). In order to qualify for these waivers, states had to create plans for improvement that reflected the administration's RTTT program from years prior (p. 405). Many states either created their own standards or adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) by 2015 (p. 405).