# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
President Lyndon Johnson signed the ESSEA on April 11, 1965. 

# data[].attributes.headline
1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

# data[].attributes.subject
1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

# data[].attributes.body
In 1963, Coral Way Elementary School in Dale County, Florida, pioneered the first widely recognized modern dual language program (Baker & Wright, 2021). This initiative prompted the National Education Association to convene in 1965, during which they presented a report detailing the educational needs of Mexican-American students (Baker & Wright, 2021). They advocated for legislation to promote bilingual education, a movement stemming from the civil rights era (Baker & Wright, 2021). Consequently, federal funds were specifically allocated to aid "educationally deprived children" (Baker & Wright, 2021).

This event was important for Bilingual Education, as it acknowledged innovative school programs by re-establishing bilingual schools. The legislation reinforced the essential advantages of bilingual programs and backed the current and future achievements of schools pursuing this path, particularly in regions where bilingualism is prevalent (Baker & Wright, 2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Janet Anderson, “Schools Plan Bilingual Program,” The Hartford Courant, July 19, 1971, pg. 19. ProQuest Historical Newspapers Database.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Bilingual education programs gained recognition as part of federal educational policy (Baker & Wright, 2021, cited in Moore, 2021, and Wiese & Garcia, 2001). The Bilingual Education Act, which amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), essentially allowed federal funding to educate speakers of languages other than English (Baker & Wright, 2021). Furthermore, it challenged the English-only laws in many states (Baker & Wright, 2021).

This act was crucial in delivering more explicit definitions of bilingual education. It mandated that schools receive grants to ensure instruction in students' home languages, promoting their success (Baker & Wright, 2021, as cited in Wiese & Garcia, 2001). In addition, the act offered competitive grants to establish bilingual programs for students who were economically disadvantaged and did not speak English (Baker & Wright, 2021). Over the years, it underwent several amendments, adapting to better serve learners' needs (Baker & Wright, 2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Students here learned at the Immigrants Development Center in San Francisco before the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lau v. Nichols case. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Lau v Nichols ruling by US Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Lau v Nichols ruling by US Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
The landmark case Lau v. Nichols, which represented Chinese-speaking students against the San Francisco School District in 1970, examined if English-speaking students had equal educational opportunities when instructed in a language they could not understand (Baker & Wright, 2021, as cited in Wiley, 2013a). Although both the federal district court and the court of appeals dismissed the case, the US Supreme Court accepted it in 1974 (Baker & Wright, 2021). The ruling prohibited English mainstreaming, referred to as “submersion” programs, for students who had not yet achieved full English proficiency (Baker & Wright, 2021). Like Title VII and the Bilingual Education Act, this case introduced various “Lau remedies” that gradually evolved to meet the needs of learners.

This case is important for Bilingual Education as it highlights the evolving dynamics of established language rights in the United States, particularly regarding litigation. It illustrated the expansion of developmental maintenance bilingual education. While there was a recognized right to equal opportunity for language minorities, the specific type of bilingual education required to attain educational equality was not clearly defined (Baker & Wright, 2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio, on Jan. 8, 2002.

# data[].attributes.body
The No Child Left Behind Act replaced the Title VII Bilingual Education Act mentioned earlier (Baker & Wright, 2021) and established Title III, titled "Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students" (Baker & Wright, 2021). The act was signed into law by George W. Bush and was seen as radical due to its mandates concerning ELLs (Baker & Wright, 2021). The term "bilingual" was effectively silenced and replaced by "limited English proficient" (LEP) (Baker & Wright, 2021). States were required to ensure that students were instructed by "highly qualified teachers," although no definitive criteria existed for this designation (Baker & Wright, 2021). Funding for bilingual education was cut, even though these programs were still permitted (Baker & Wright, 2021). Ultimately, it was up to each state to decide which program models could access federal funding (Baker & Wright, 2021). States, districts, schools, and teachers were held accountable for "LEP" students' academic outcomes and English language development, with standardized testing playing a significant role. Notably, new ELL students were initially not exempt from these assessments.

This legislation was significant as it established a strong mandate for accountability via high-stakes testing in content areas and English proficiency (Baker & Wright, 2021). While it didn’t ban bilingual education, it failed to promote or support it. Schools, districts, and teachers faced constant sanctions tied to inadequate yearly progress reflected in test scores (Baker & Wright, 2021). This environment fostered a shift towards more "English-only" programs (Baker & Wright, 2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
A political cartoon created by Rob Anderson in 2014 titled "Common Core: Assembly Line Education" 

# data[].attributes.headline
2010: Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative 

# data[].attributes.subject
2010: Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative 

# data[].attributes.body
Following the start of education reform by the Obama administration, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative sought to establish shared college and career readiness standards in English language arts and math across participating states (Baker & Wright, 2021). The Common Core State Standards were finalized in 2010 under the guidance of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (Baker & Wright, 2021). Additionally, high-stakes testing was emphasized as a form of accountability (Baker & Wright, 2021). However, no exams were created in languages other than English, indirectly discouraging bilingual education programs (Baker & Wright, 2021).

This initiative impacts Bilingual Education, similar to the No Child Left Behind Act, due to the ongoing emphasis on high-stakes testing in today’s classrooms. For example, my school mandates that our teaching focuses solely on preparing for the state test after December. This adjustment affects all students, including English Language Learners (ELLs), who, despite not all of them participating in the state test, are nonetheless subject to this limited instruction in the classroom.