# data[].attributes.body
https://www.txel.org/lpac/chronologyfederalstatelaw/

This gives different laws chronologically. It doesn't go into specifics on each one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 English learners by assisting children to learn English and meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards. Legislation for English learners is found under Title III of NCLB.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 on December 10, 215 replaces NLCB. ESSA strengthens and enhances the equitable services provisions and provides more State and district level accountability.

SUPREME COURT

Lau v. Nichols
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.

Plyler v. Doe
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

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.

Serna v. Portales
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.

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.

Rios v. Reed
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."

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.

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 ELLs, and a language survey for students entering school. It also established the need for exit criteria.

United States v. State of Texas et al., January 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.

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."

Gomez v. Illinois
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.

HB 103
The 61st legislature passed the state's first bilingual education bill. This Act acknowledged English as the primary language of instruction in school and allowed but did not require school districts to provide bilingual instruction through Grade 6.

SB 121
The 63rd legislature passed the Texas Bilingual Education and Training Act. This Act directed each school district in which 20 or more LEP students in the same grade shared the same language classification the previous year to institute a program of bilingual instruction beginning with the 1974-75 school year.

In November, the State Board of Education adopted the rules governing the implementation of special language programs for LEP students.

SB 477
This Act strengthened the guidelines necessary to implement the state bilingual plan and established the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPAC).

HB 1
The 79th legislature 3rd called session amended Chapter 29.0561 to specify monitoring criteria during the two (2) years after students exit the special language program.

SB 1871
The 80th legislature enacted the data collection of special language program models for the two state mandated programs; four (4) for bilingual education and two (2) for ESL.

HB 3
The 81st legislature eliminated versions of grade 6 for reading and math Spanish tests.

HB 218
The 84th legislature added language to Section 29.061 that stated that a school district that provides a bilingual education program using a dual language immersion / one-way or two-way program model may assign a teacher certified appropriately for bilingual education for the component of the program provided in a language other than English; and assign a teacher certified appropriately for bilingual education or English as a second language for the component of the program provided in English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supporting Emergent Bilingual Students in Texas

# data[].attributes.body
https://texaslawhelp.org/article/education-language-and-civil-rights
This is more about typical questions about texas laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yes. Schools must communicate information to limited English proficient parents in a language they can understand about any program, service, or activity that is called to the attention of parents who are proficient in English.

This includes, but is not limited to, information related to:

registration and enrollment in school and school programs

grievance procedures and notices of nondiscrimination

language assistance programs

parent handbooks

report cards

gifted and talented programs

student discipline policies and procedures

magnet and charter schools

special education and related services, and meetings to discuss special education

parent-teacher conferences

requests for parent permission for student participation in school activities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yes. Schools must communicate information to limited English proficient parents in a language they can understand about any program, service, or activity that is called to the attention of parents who are proficient in English.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1974 the U.S. Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) requiring public schools to provide equal educational opportunities to children with English lan- guage barriers.

TEA reports that as of 2019, one third of ELLs in the state graduate without being proficient in the English language.

These students along with an additional 33% of ELLs in Texas graduate below grade level in reading and writing as measured by State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exams.

Two thirds of Texas ELL graduates in 2019 (or 14,000 students) had significantly less earning potential than their English-proficient peers.

Texas public charter schools serve more ELLs than traditional districts and deliver stronger outcomes.

ELLs at charter schools meet grade-level standards at higher rates, according to their 2019 STAAR scores.

Six percent more public charter school ELLs were on grade level in English Language Arts (ELA) (23% vs. 17%) and 7% more in Social Studies (17% vs. 10%)

In 2019, 20% of public charter school ELLs receiving no English language services were on grade level in ELA, versus 13% in traditional public schools.

Public charter schools appoint campus and district staff members to serve on Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs).

These committees coordinate administration of the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) for all potential ELLs.

LPAC members receive special TELPAS training from their Regional Education Service Center (ESC).

Many Texas public charter schools have so many ELLs that standalone ESL and Bilingual Education programs are simply not enough to help ELLs achieve full English proficiency.

Texas public charter schools have percentages of ELLs on grade level for all subjects that are up to 7% higher when these students receive specific ELL services.

Texas public charter schools have up to 6% more ESL students on grade level for all subjects when they receive ESL pull out services.

Texas public charter schools have up to 7% higher per- centages of ESL students on grade level for all subjects,

Texas public charter schools have 7% higher rates of ELLs on grade level for ELA even when these students are not enrolled in any specific English language programs.

ELL students in public charter schools translate their English language growth on TELPAS to academic performance improvements on the STAAR far more than those in traditional public schools.

https://txcharterschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Policy-Brief-Issue4_v5.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Texas 20ELs 20Brainstorm 20for 20TCH 20248

# data[].attributes.body
Mark Meyer

# data[].attributes.headline
-  "Each district with an enrollment of 20 or more emergent bilingual students in any language classification in the same grade level shall offer a bilingual education or special language program.(d)  Each district that is required to offer bilingual education and special language programs under this section shall offer the following for emergent bilingual students:(1)bilingual education in kindergarten through the elementary grades;(2)bilingual education, instruction in English as a second language, or other transitional language instruction approved by the agency in post-elementary grades through grade 8; and(3)  instruction in English as a second language in grades 9 through 12."        

# data[].attributes.subject
-  "Each district with an enrollment of 20 or more emergent bilingual students in any language classification in the same grade level shall offer a bilingual education or special language program.(d)  Each district that is required to offer bilingual education and special language programs under this section shall offer the following for emergent bilingual students:(1)bilingual education in kindergarten through the elementary grades;(2)bilingual education, instruction in English as a second language, or other transitional language instruction approved by the agency in post-elementary grades through grade 8; and(3)  instruction in English as a second language in grades 9 through 12."        

# data[].attributes.body
"Therefore, in accordance with the policy of the state to ensure equal educational opportunity to every student, and in recognition of the educational needs of emergent bilingual students, this subchapter provides for the establishment of bilingual education and special language programs in the public schools and provides supplemental financial assistance to help school districts meet the extra costs of the programs."

EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 29. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS (texas.gov)

# data[].attributes.headline
The policy requires that the state provide guidance to Texas school districts in "implementing a bilingual program and financial assistance so that they can meet the educational requirements of ELLs and the extra cost of these programs"

# data[].attributes.subject
The policy requires that the state provide guidance to Texas school districts in "implementing a bilingual program and financial assistance so that they can meet the educational requirements of ELLs and the extra cost of these programs"

# data[].attributes.body
"The Texas Education Code ensures that the goal of these programs is to enable ELLs to become competent in the English Language through the integrated used of second language methods"

English Learners in Texas Public Schools (latinoliteracy.com)