# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Featured in this photo is Esther Martinez the activist of whom the act is named after. Esther Martinez was deeply committed to saving Native languages, which are essential for preserving cultural identity and heritage.

# data[].attributes.body
The Esther Martinez Preservation Act authorized federal funding to develop programs focusing on the prevention of loss of tribal heritage and culture (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 422).

Identity and preserving cultural heritage are key when working with EL students. I believe a big reason for the rise of dual language programs is to help preserve students' identities and home languages. Offering special protections for students’ heritage and culture not only helps them maintain their sense of self, but also deepens their understanding of where they come from.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Parents of Asian and Latino students were the ones who raised the suit against the school district in San Fransisco. 

# data[].attributes.body
Lau v. Nichols raised the question as to whether or not students were receiving adequate and equal educational opportunities when instructed in a language they could not understand. (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 389). The Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school district's failure to provide ELLs with the necessary support was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court emphasized that schools must take affirmative steps to ensure that non-English-speaking students receive meaningful access to education.

While the ruling did not directly affect bilingual education across the United States, it raised important questions about the effectiveness of educational curriculum, standards, and the treatment of ELs in various school districts. It became clear that simply providing the same materials to all students does not guarantee equal educational opportunities. Schools must equip students with the necessary tools and resources to overcome language barriers and succeed academically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
President Lyndon B. Johnson was the one who signed the Civil Rights Act into law. 

# data[].attributes.body
The Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of color, race, or national origin (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 386). This legislation had a significant impact on programs that receive federal funding such as schools.

This act is important because it was one of the first major steps toward the acceptance of diverse populations, including students. It meant that students from varied backgrounds could access better educational opportunities than they had previously received, fostering a more inclusive environment in schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This image highlights the negative propaganda targeting speakers of languages other than English.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1923, the US Supreme Court ruled that a Nebraska state law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to children, including in private language classes outside of school hours, was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 385)

Nebraska enforced this law during a period of intense "America First" and anti-immigrant sentiment, aiming to prioritize English over other languages. The Court’s ruling was significant because it upheld the rights of students to learn languages other than English, and also protected teachers’ rights to teach them. It’s important today because it continues to defend the rights of both students and teachers to learn and teach in languages other than English, whether that’s their mother language or a foreign language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This photo captures the protests of parents who were opposed to the 'English for the Children Act'.

# data[].attributes.headline
2002  - Rejection of Amendment 31 in Colorado

# data[].attributes.subject
2002  - Rejection of Amendment 31 in Colorado

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado voters rejected the 'English for the Children Act,' which focused on English immersion and had already caused significant damage to existing bilingual programs in states like California, Arizona, and Massachusetts (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 420). This also marked the first time that Ron Unz faced such fierce opposition.

The amendment would have forced all students to learn English within just nine months before being placed in all-English classes. This approach would have caused significant delays, as every student learns at their own pace, and it would have put them in a standardized education system. Students who weren’t already in bilingual programs would have been thrown into English-only classes to fully immerse them in the language. Rejecting the act was a big win for English Language Learners (ELLs) and bilingual/multilingual students everywhere. By turning it down in Colorado, voters helped prevent similar attempts in other states.