# data[].attributes.body
Court case that conveyed the need of language teaching and better access to content in the San Francisco area. This is important because the lack of supplemental language instruction in public schools for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights act of 1964

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LAU ET AL. v. NICHOLS ET AL.
No. 72-6520
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
414 U.S. 563
December 10, 1973, Argued
January 21, 1974, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY:

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

DISPOSITION:

483 F.2d 791, reversed and remanded.

SYLLABUS:

The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and the implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 565-569.

Douglas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Marshall, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 569. White, J., concurred in the result. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 571.

Opinions

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The San Francisco, California, school system was integrated in 1971 as a result of a federal court decree, 339 F.Supp. 1315. See Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215. The District Court found that there are 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the school system who do not speak English. Of those who have that language deficiency, about 1,000 are given supplemental courses in the English language. n1 About 1,800, however, do not receive that instruction.

note1 A report adopted by the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco and submitted to the Court by respondents after oral argument shows that, as of April 1973, there were 3,457 Chinese students in the school system who spoke little or no English. The document further showed 2,136 students enrolled in Chinese special instruction classes, but at least 429 of the enrollees were not Chinese but were included for ethnic balance. Thus, as of April 1973, no more than 1,707 of the 3,457 Chinese students needing special English instruction were receiving it.

This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District seeks relief against the unequal educational opportunities, which are alleged to violate, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment. No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation. The District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, which excludes from participation in federal financial assistance, recipients of aid which discriminate against racial groups, 483 F.2d 791. One judge dissented. A hearing en banc was denied, two judges dissenting. Id., at 805. We granted the petition for certiorari because of the public importance of the question presented, 412 U.S. 938.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that "every student brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background, created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system," 483 F.2d, at 797. Yet in our view the case may not be so easily decided. This is a public school system of California and ï¿½ 71 of the California Education Code states that "English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools." That section permits a school district to determine "when and under what circumstances instruction may be given bilingually." That section also states as "the policy of the state" to insure "the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools." And bilingual instruction is authorized "to the extent that it does not interfere with the systematic, sequential, and regular instruction of all pupils in the English language."

Moreover, ï¿½ 8573 of the Education Code provides that no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from grade 12 who has not met the standards of proficiency in "English," as well as other prescribed subjects. Moreover, by ï¿½ 12101 of the Education Code (Supp. 1973) children between the ages of six and 16 years are (with exceptions not material here) "subject to compulsory full-time education."

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.

Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. We do not reach the Equal Protection Clause argument which has been advanced but rely solely on ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.

That section bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The school district involved in this litigation receives large amounts of federal financial assistance. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which has authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination in federally assisted school systems, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1, in 1968 issued one guideline that "school systems are responsible for assuring that students of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the opportunity to obtain the education generally obtained by other students in the system." 33 Fed. Reg. 4956. In 1970 HEW made the guidelines more specific, requiring school districts that were federally funded "to rectify the language deficiency in order to open" the instruction to students who had "linguistic deficiencies," 35 Fed. Reg. 11595.

By ï¿½ 602 of the Act HEW is authorized to issue rules, regulations, and orders n2 to make sure that recipients of federal aid under its jurisdiction conduct any federally financed projects consistently with ï¿½ 601. HEW's regulations, 45 CFR ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(1), specify that the recipients may not

"(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
. . . .
"(iv) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program."

note2 Section 602 provides:
"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . ." 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1.

Discrimination among students on account of race or national origin that is prohibited includes "discrimination . . . in the availability or use of any academic . . . or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient." Id., ï¿½ 80.5 (b).

Discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present: a recipient "may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination" or have "the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin." Id., ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(2).

It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program -- all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the regulations. n3 In 1970 HEW issued clarifying guidelines, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, which include the following:

note3 And see Report of the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco, Bilingual Education in the San Francisco Public Schools, Aug. 9, 1973.

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

"Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin-minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational deadend or permanent track." Respondent school district contractually agreed to "comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation" of HEW (45 CFR pt. 80) which are "issued pursuant to that title . . ." and also immediately to "take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement." The Federal Government has power to fix the terms on which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed. Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U.S. 127, 142-143. Whatever may be the limits of that power, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 et seq., they have not been reached here. Senator Humphrey, during the floor debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, said: n4

note4 110 Cong. Rec. 6543 (Sen. Humphrey, quoting from President Kennedy's message to Congress, June 19, 1963).

"Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination." We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE concurs in the result.

Concurring Opinions

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in the result.

It is uncontested that more than 2,800 schoolchildren of Chinese ancestry attend school in the San Francisco Unified School District system even though they do not speak, understand, read, or write the English language, and that as to some 1,800 of these pupils the respondent school authorities have taken no significant steps to deal with this language deficiency. The petitioners do not contend, however, that the respondents have affirmatively or intentionally contributed to this inadequacy, but only that they have failed to act in the face of changing social and linguistic patterns. Because of this laissez-faire attitude on the part of the school administrators, it is not entirely clear that ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, standing alone, would render illegal the expenditure of federal funds on these schools. For that section provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

On the other hand, the interpretive guidelines published by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, clearly indicate that affirmative efforts to give special training for non-English-speaking pupils are required by Tit. VI as a condition to receipt of federal aid to public schools:

"Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students." n1

note1 These guidelines were issued in further clarification of the Department's position as stated in its regulations issued to implement Tit. VI, 45 CFR pt. 80. The regulations provide in part that no recipient of federal financial assistance administered by HEW may "Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program; [or] "Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program." 45 CFR ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(1)(ii), (iv).

The critical question is, therefore, whether the regulations and guidelines promulgated by HEW go beyond the authority of ï¿½ 601. n2 Last Term, in Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369, we held that the validity of a regulation promulgated under a general authorization provision such as ï¿½ 602 of Tit. VI n3 "will be sustained so long as it is 'reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.' Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 280-281 (1969)." I think the guidelines here fairly meet that test. Moreover, in assessing the purposes of remedial legislation we have found that departmental regulations and "consistent administrative construction" are "entitled to great weight." Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205, 210; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 433-434; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1. The Department has reasonably and consistently interpreted ï¿½ 601 to require affirmative remedial efforts to give special attention to linguistically deprived children.

note2 The respondents do not contest the standing of the petitioners to sue as beneficiaries of the federal funding contract between the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare and the San Francisco Unified School District.

note3 Section 602, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1, provides in pertinent part:
"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . ."

The United States as amicus curiae asserts in its brief, and the respondents appear to concede, that the guidelines were issued pursuant to ï¿½ 602.

For these reasons I concur in the result reached by the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the result.

I join MR. JUSTICE STEWART'S opinion and thus I, too, concur in the result. Against the possibility that the Court's judgment may be interpreted too broadly, I stress the fact that the children with whom we are concerned here number about 1,800. This is a very substantial group that is being deprived of any meaningful schooling because the children cannot understand the language of the classroom. We may only guess as to why they have had no exposure to English in their preschool years. Earlier generations of American ethnic groups have overcome the language barrier by earnest parental endeavor or by the hard fact of being pushed out of the family or community nest and into the realities of broader experience.

I merely wish to make plain that when, in another case, we are concerned with a very few youngsters, or with just a single child who speaks only German or Polish or Spanish or any language other than English, I would not regard today's decision, or the separate concurrence, as conclusive upon the issue whether the statute and the guidelines require the funded school district to provide special instruction. For me, numbers are at the heart of this case and my concurrence is to be understood accordingly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview of Lau v. Nichols decision of the United States Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
Was an important case because it stated that all children regardless of immigration status have the constitutional right to free public education from K-12. I chose this because it was interesting to learn as a future Texas educator that the state of Texas violated the equal protection clause by denying education to undocumented immigrants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plyler v. Doe

Brown v. Board of Education

Plyler v. Doe

Summary of a Fourteenth Amendment Landmark case:
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Facts

In 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to deny enrollment in their public schools to and withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the country.

A class action was filed on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Texas who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The class filed a motion for permanent injunctive relief, asking the district court to prevent defendants from denying a free public education to members of the class.

In deciding the motion, the district court found that neither the revised law nor its implementation had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." The district court also found that the increase in enrollment in Texas public schools was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Finally, the district court found that while barring undocumented children would save money, it would not necessarily improve the quality of the education. The court then concluded that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Texas legislation violated it.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Issue

Whether denying undocumented children of illegal immigrants the right to attend public school constitutes discrimination based on alienage that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Ruling

Yes.

Reasoning

(Brennan, J.) By a 5-4 vote, the Court concluded that the Texas legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court explained that "education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society" and "provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all." Further, while persuasive arguments support the view that a state may withhold benefits from people whose presence within the country is a result of unlawful conduct, the children of such illegal entrants "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status," and "legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."

While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from an influx of illegal immigrants, there was no evidence to suggest that any immigrants came to the country to avail themselves of a free education. Similarly, while the state has an interest in removing burdens on the state's ability to provide high-quality public education, there was no evidence that the exclusion of undocumented children was likely to improve the overall quality of education in Texas.

Accordingly, the majority affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Concurrence

(Marshall, J.) Justice Marshall emphasized that he believed an individual's interest in education is fundamental and that this belief "is amply supported by the unique status accorded public education by our society, and by the close relationship between education and some of our most basic constitutional values."

(Blackmun, J.) Justice Blackmun noted that "when a state provides an education to some and denies it to others, it immediately and inevitably creates class distinctions of a type fundamentally inconsistent with" the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause because "an uneducated child is denied even the opportunity to achieve." When those children are members of an identifiable class, the state has created a separable and identifiable underclass.

(Powell, J.) Justice Powell emphasized the unique character of the case. He noted that under the Texas law, a group of children is deprived of the opportunity for education because of a violation of law by their parents. "A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Dissent

(Burger, C.J.) The dissent asserted that any issues concerning whether or not to admit children of undocumented immigrants into public schools should be dealt with by the legislature as opposed to the judiciary. The dissenting Justices agreed that "it would be folly-and wrong-to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons." However, they concluded that such a decision should be made by the political branches because it is a policy issue inappropriate for the Court to undertake.

Brown v. Board of Education

Summary of a Fourteenth Amendment Landmark case:
Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Facts

In cases brought in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, African American children sought admission to the public schools in their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each state, they were denied admissions to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation on the basis of race. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, federal courts denied relief to plaintiffs on the "separate but equal" doctrine set forth by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. Under that doctrine, treatment is equal when races are provided substantially equal facilities, even if they are separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the other schools. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that segregated schools are not equal and cannot be made equal.

Issue

Whether requiring or permitting racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Ruling

Yes.

Reasoning

(Warren, J.) The Court concluded that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. The Court noted that education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments and the foundation of good citizenship. Education includes intangible considerations, such as the ability to study, to engage in discussions with other students, and in general, to learn a profession. To separate students on the basis of race creates "a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Therefore, the Court concluded that the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place in public education.

Cooper v. Aaron

Summary of a Fourteenth Amendment Landmark case:
Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1978)

Facts

Following its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court formulated a decree to affect the decision. Specifically, the Court required that the defendants "make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance" with the Court's order and to end segregation in the public schools "with all deliberate speed."

Three days after the Court's opinion in Brown, the Little Rock District School Board in Little Rock, Arkansas, began preparing a comprehensive plan for the complete desegregation of the school system.

At the same time, however, various state authorities, including the state legislature and governor, were actively pursuing means to perpetuate racial segregation in the Arkansas public school system. For example, in 1957, the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools continued with preparations to carry out the first stage of the desegregation program with the admission of nine African American students to Central High School. The day before the students were to enter the school, the Governor of Arkansas dispatched units of the Arkansas National Guard to the school and placed it "off limits" to African American students. When the nine African American students attempted to enter the high school two days later, the Arkansas National Guard forcibly prevented them from entering the building. The Arkansas National Guard continued to do so every day for the next three weeks.

The federal government, through the United States Attorney and the Attorney General, filed a motion in federal court to stop the governor and the Arkansas National Guard from interfering with the nine students' attendance. A federal district court granted the motion, and the Arkansas National Guard was withdrawn from the school. Subsequently, the President of the United States dispatched federal troops to Central High School to ensure that the nine students would be admitted safely to school.

Because of the hostility, caused in large part by the acts of state authorities, the School Board and Superintendent sought postponement of the desegregation plan for two-and-a-half years. The district court granted their motion. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue

Whether the Court should uphold a suspension of a desegregation plan until state laws and efforts to challenge Brown v. Board of Education have been challenged and tested in the courts?

Ruling

No

Reasoning

(Chief Justice Warren) The Court unanimously held that law and order cannot be preserved by depriving African American children of their constitutional rights. "The constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, not nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Because the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority in determining what the Constitution means and because it concluded that segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, no state authority or state law may require or allow for racial segregation in public education. Accordingly, the desegregation plan could not be suspended.

Concurrence

(Frankfurter, J.) Justice Frankfurter noted that while the State of Arkansas was not a formal party in the proceedings, it was legally and morally a party before the Court as a result of its use of armed force to thwart the law. Violent resistance to law, even if used by a state, cannot be used as a legal reason for the law's suspension. As such, Justice Frankfurter found that Arkansas' actions were "subversive not only of our constitutional system but of the presuppositions of democracy." He also noted that it is the responsibility of those who exercise power in a democratic government to help form the public's understanding and support the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

What is Your Opinion?

1. Why might it be important for courts to decide cases that tend to have an adverse impact on children?

2. Why should the government have a role in education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plyler v. Doe Brown v. Board of Education Summary of a Fourteenth Amendment Landmark case: Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982) In 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to deny enrollment in their public schools to and withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the country.

# data[].attributes.body
A full-time program that is based on the student's language proficiency and academic potential in both languages. I believe that this program is imperative because future educators will encounter individuals that are apart of it and will have to be able to teach and support those students.

# data[].attributes.body
Used to support students from the same language group to become bilingual, bicultural and biliterate. Goal is to develop student's English proficiency while maintaining their native language proficiency. Important as an educator because students in my class may be apart of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dual Language Programs Explained

Submitted by Deborah C. Trejo, Bilingual Parent/Lawyer/Former Bilingual Educator
What are Dual Language Programs?
Dual language is a form of education in which students are taught literacy and content in two languages. They are considered "additive" bilingual programs because they "add" a second academic language for students, instead of trying to extinguish a minority language and move a student to exclusively use English.

The majority of dual language programs in the United States teach in English and Spanish, although increasing numbers of programs use a "partner" or "minority" language other than Spanish, such as Arabic, Chinese, French, Hawaiian, Japanese, or Korean. Dual language programs generally use the partner language for at least half of the instructional day in the elementary years. Dual language programs generally start in kindergarten or first grade and extend for at least five years, although many continue into middle school and high school. These programs aim for bilingualism (the ability to speak fluently in two languages), biliteracy (the ability to read and write in two languages), academic achievement equal to or greater than that of students in non-dual language programs, and cross-cultural competence. Most dual language programs are located in neighborhood public schools, although many are charter, magnet, or private schools.
One-Way and Two-Way Dual Language Program Models
One-Way Dual Language refers to the group of students participating in the program as being all from only one of the two languages used in the program model. One-way programs support one language group of students to become bilingual, bi-cultural, and bi-literate. For example, students whose primary language is Spanish would learn in English and Spanish in a one-way dual language program model. Another example would be for students whose primary language is English to learn together in Mandarin and English.

Two-Way Dual Language refers to the group of students participating in the program as being from both of the languages used in the program model. Two-way programs support two language groups of students to become bilingual, bi-cultural, and bi-literate. For example, a mix of first language Spanish-speaking and English-speaking students would learn in both languages.
Benefits of Dual language program
Dual language is the only model that closes the academic achievement gap for English language learners (ELLs), those students whose first language is not English, through 12th grade (Thomas & Collier). Research shows that in successful, strong DL programs, ELLs begin to outperform those in traditional bilingual ed models beginning in 4th grade and they achieve an average of 50th percentile in tests of reading and writing in English beginning in the 7th grade (in traditional bilingual ed, ELLs never reach 50%) (Thomas & Collier). Research shows that in successful, strong DL programs, ELLs begin to outperform those in traditional bilingual ed models beginning in 4th grade and they achieve an average of 60th percentile in tests of reading and writing in English beginning in the 6th grade (Thomas & Collier). Overall, research demonstrates that SLLs who are enrolled in successful DL programs have better educational long-term educational outcomes than their peers not in DL (Thomas & Collier).

Dual Language Programs:

- provides a means for students to stay connected to their own parents and extended families and thus, leads to less behavioral problems and long-term greater social and academic success.

- lets students be prideful that they are able to be connected to two cultures and languages.

- provides greater opportunities for careers in many fields such as medical, academic, business, communications, technology, law.

Furthermore, research also demonstrates that students who have low-social economic status (low-SES) and even students with learning disabilities in special education will significantly outperform their peers not in DL program. For low-SES African-American students, research shows that it is the most successful academic model at closing the academic achievement gap (Thomas & Collier).

To learn more about the public dual language programs in your area, see the following sites:

Austin AISD: https://www.austinisd.org/academics/ell/duallanguage

Round Rock ISD: https://roundrockisd.org/departments/state-and-federal-programs/bilingual-education/

Leander ISD: http://www.leanderisd.org/default.aspx?name=ELL.DL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dual Language Programs Explained Submitted by Deborah C. Trejo, Bilingual Parent/Lawyer/Former Bilingual Educator What are Dual Language Programs? Dual language is a form of education in which students are taught literacy and content in two languages.

# data[].attributes.body
Investigates what are some things the student has learned vs. acquired. This is important as an educator because language is acquired through natural communication and learning is conscious and requires more deliberate interaction within the language.

# data[].attributes.body
This explains that learners can check their language output and modify when they use language to write and speak. I believe that this is paramount as a future educator since self-reflection will increase the accuracy of their learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Phonology is an imperative aspect to language as it is the study of sounds. I chose this one because it serves as the foundation to any reading/speaking proficiency for any language. As an individual going into the field of education, understanding phonology and how to manipulate phonemes is a crucial part of making students successful.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why I picked pragmatics is that it is the concept in which there are rules that govern the way that people use language socially. It is an important concept to understand as I never gave a second thought about this until I became acquainted with my conversation partner this semester. He did not pick up on some of my more informal social cues and made me more aware of how this plays a role in individuals lives when learning a new language.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this term because even in this day and age, it is still an issue. Xenophobia can be defined as a form of attitudinal, affective, and behavioral prejudice toward immigrants and those perceived as foreign. Because I am going into teaching, being aware and not tolerating this concept is crucial for creating a positive and unbiased environment for students. I have seen this take form with my own two eyes and believe that future educators must work together to ensure that this doesn't bleed into our classrooms.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this topic because it gives insight into the difference between it and individualist cultures. Collectivists foster interdependence, family, and group success. It promotes norms and respect for authority/elders. This is going to be seen in my future classrooms as students come from a variety of cultural backgrounds that shape the way they go about things. Educators must be conscious of the difference so that they can assist students in the most effective way.