# data[].attributes.headline
1919: Americanization Department of the United States Bureau of Education recommends that all private and public education should be in English

# data[].attributes.subject
1919: Americanization Department of the United States Bureau of Education recommends that all private and public education should be in English

# data[].attributes.body
As immigration drastically increased at the turn of the 20th century, so did calls for the assimilation and "Americanization" of new immigrants. As a result of this resolution recommending English-only instruction, by 1923, 34 states only allowed English as the language of instruction in all elementary schools. During this era, the association between English and American loyalty hindered the development of Bilingual Education, though it did not prevent it entirely.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1974, the Supreme Court heard a case in which Chinese-speaking students claimed that their civil rights were not being met by the San Francisco School District, because they were not being given equal educational opportunities if they were being instructed in a language they did not understand. The Supreme Court ruled in the students' favor, claiming that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibited 'English Mainstreaming'. Following this verdict, the Office of Civil Rights offered guidelines called Lau remedies that offered help to the specific needs of English Language Learners.

# data[].attributes.body
After failing to be elected to public office, business man Ron Unz began the English for the Children initiative, which alleged that bilingual education was educationally ineffective and promoted the assimilation of immigrants. The English for the Children initiative lead to bilingual education for ELLs being outlawed in California via Proposition 227 in 1998, in Arizona via Proposition 203 in 2000, and in Massachusetts via Question 2 in 2002. This lead to negative outcomes for ELLs, and as public opinion eventually swayed towards seeing more value in bilingual education programs, these initiatives were reversed in California and Massachusetts.

# data[].attributes.body
NCLB lead to schools being evaluated via testing, with the threat of sanctions for schools that did not make adequate progress. NCLB did not prohibit bilingual education, but it did eliminate funding for bilingual education programs (with the exception of some programs that supported some Indigenous languages), and encouraged English-language instruction. NCLB used the term 'limited English proficient' (LEP) for students, and made no mention of the term bilingual, signaling a shift in valuing English rather than multilingual ability. Rather than accounting for systemic factors including wether or not bilingual education was available to a student, NCLB held schools and often teachers accountable when 'LEP' students did not meet testing standards.

# data[].attributes.body
ESSA was enacted to replace NCLB. It kept heavy testing as a way to evaluate schools, however it gave states more flexibility for what schools' goals would be, and how to respond to schools that did not reach their goals. This meant that the specific needs of ELLs could be taken into consideration when testing. Under ESSA, ELLs would be monitored as a distinct group, which allowed for more attention to be given to their specific needs. ESSA was not fully implemented under the first Trump administration, and then further implementation was disrupted by the COVID-19 Pandemic. ESSA allows for greater flexibility in accommodating the needs of ELLs, however some worry it does not offer adequate planning on how to actually meet these needs.