# data[].attributes.body
This Padlet was created by the Counseling Team for Teachers K-12.

Our high-priority focus is supporting English Language Learners (ELL).

This topic is important because many schools, including the ones I've work in,  are minority-filled, including many students whose first language is NOT English, which creates a language barriers in an academic setting. It's important that these students are afforded the same opportunity as general education student, given support and accommodations.

# data[].attributes.body
National Education Association. (2020, July). English Language Learners. NEA. https://www.nea.org/resource-library/english-language-learners

This article highlights the important changes in the history of education for ELL students influenced by the National Education Association (NEA).

NEA advocated that non-English speaking students were not deficient, the materials, techniques and schools were.

The NEA held a conference on bilingual education in 1966 which led to the 1968 passage of the Bilingual Education Act.

The created "All In! How Educators Can Advocate for English Language Learners" which is a guide for championing the opportunities ELL students deserve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEA believes all students deserve the tools and support to flourish. We advocate for our students by pushing for programs that address their unique needs, and we want educators to have every resource they need to connect with ELL students. ELL students are the fastest growing group of students in grades K-12. As their numbers increase, this responsibility is more important than ever.

NEA was ahead of the curve in 1966 when we held a conference on bilingual education. We said loud and clear back then that non-English speaking students were not deficient. The deficiency was in the materials, techniques, and the schools. Our advocacy led directly to the 1968 passage of the Bilingual Education Act, the first step in the attempt to address the needs of ELL students in a systematic way.

Today, bilingual education is part of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which focuses more strongly on closing the achievement gap between English learners and other students.

NEA continues to champion ELL students in the community and the classroom and to advocate for the opportunities they deserve. As our 2015 report on English Language Learners declared, "These are America's students, and the nation can't afford to let them down."

Here are some resources to help educators connect with, mentor, and inspire every child.

"All In! How Educators Can Advocate for English Language Learners" (see downloads): A guide for championing the opportunities ELL students deserve. This report also includes summaries of key court cases affecting bilingual education, suggestions for additional reading, and a comprehensive list of English Language Learner-based organizations.

" Meeting the Unique Needs of Long Term English Language Learners": A research-based overview that provides recommendations for teaching and supporting long-term ELL students.

Check out the English Language Learners page on the NEA EdJustice site.

For more information about working with ELL students, contact Luis-Gustavo Martinez at [email protected] , or (202) 822-7396 regarding professional development opportunities, including ELL online modules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 2025, 1 out of 4 children in classrooms across the nation will be an English language learner (ELL) student. Here are some resources to help educators connect with, mentor, and inspire these students.

# data[].attributes.body
Ferlazzo, L. (2021, June 28). Four Educator-Recommended Approaches for Teaching English-Language Learners. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-four-educator-recommended-approaches-for-teaching-english-language-learners/2021/06

This article highlights how using sentence stems and frames, translanguaging, reading groups, and implementing consistency.

- Sentence stems are sentence starters that the teacher provides to students to help get them started in their oral responses or their writing assignments. When asking students to respond to a question, the teacher provides a sentence stem that rephrases the question into an answer statement.

- Translanguaging: Translanguaging is a powerful theoretical and pedagogical stance that centers on students’ linguistic and social resources. Teachers who use translanguaging pedagogy in their classrooms make space for students to use their entire linguistic repertoire to construct meaning. In other words, translanguaging in classrooms supports and builds upon the multilingual language practices of students.

- Reading Groups: Rotating reading groups is a small, differentiated group strategy that a teacher can use in my Newcomer ELL class to target language and content grade-level skills for language learners at their level of language proficiency.

- Practice Consistency: When implementing these practices and other support measures, keep it consistent so that you can consistently monitor academic growth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The new question-of-the-week is:
What is the single most effective instructional strategy you have used to teach English-language learners?
In Part One, Valentina Gonzalez, Denita Harris, Cindy Garcia, and Deedy Camarena offered their responses.

Today, Jenny Vo, Laura Ascenzi-Moreno, Cecilia Espinosa, Blanca Huertas, and Vivian Micolta Simmons finish up the series.

Sentence Stems & Frames
Jenny Vo earned her B.A. in English from Rice University and her M.Ed. in educational leadership from Lamar University. She has worked with English-learners during all of her 24 years in education and is currently an ESL ISST in Katy ISD in Katy, Texas. Jenny is the president-elect of TexTESOL IV and works to advocate for all ELs:
In my 24 years of working with English-language learners, I've used many instructional strategies to facilitate the students' acquisition of the English language and their understanding of content subject matter. Some of my favorite strategies are providing wait time, preteaching vocabulary, activating background knowledge, providing pictures, and using gestures and movement. The single most effective instructional strategy that I have used is providing sentence stems and frames for speaking and writing.

Sentence stems are sentence starters that the teacher provides to students to help get them started in their oral responses or their writing assignments. When asking students to respond to a question, the teacher provides a sentence stem that rephrases the question into an answer statement. Sentence stems are open-ended, allowing students to fill in the blanks. Sentence stems also give the students a model of how to phrase a response so that it is in a complete sentence. I love using this strategy to facilitate conversation and help our emergent English-learners to actively engage with the whole class or in small groups. Having the sentence stems provided lowers the students' affective filter because they only have to think about the second part of the sentence. Some examples of sentence stems are:

The main idea of the story is _______________.

A character trait to describe _____ is __________.

I agree/disagree with you because ____________.

I solved the problem by ____________________.

The data from the experiment shows __________.

Sentence frames are a little different from sentence stems. Whereas sentence stems come at the beginning of the sentence, sentence frames provide most of the words, and the students only add in the words that fit in the blanks. This type of scaffold is great for your students who are at the beginning level of English proficiency. They can also serve as models for academic writing for students of all proficiency levels when you want them to take it from simple sentences to paragraphs and essay papers. Some examples of sentence frames are:

My name is ______. I am in ____ grade.

Three examples of energy are ______, ______, and _______.

An acute angle has _________ than 90 degrees.

Sentence stems and sentence frames are very effective scaffolds to help our English-learners to learn to communicate effectively, developing both their speaking and writing skills.

Translanguaging
Laura Ascenzi-Moreno is an associate professor and the bilingual program coordinator at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Previously, Laura was a bilingual teacher and coach in the New York City public schools, and she now works in higher education with preservice and in-service teachers to develop critical thinking and practice about literacies for emergent bilinguals. Cecilia M. Espinosa is an associate professor at Lehman College, City University of New York. Cecilia was a bilingual multiage teacher and director of a dual-language program in Phoenix. She currently works with bilingual teachers at the early-childhood and childhood levels and teaches courses on biliteracy.
Laura and Cecilia are the co-authors of the professional book Rooted in Strength: Translanguaging and the Power of Multilingualism:

If you were to step into Ms. Mather's class during her read-aloud of New Kid by Jerry Craft (2019), you'll notice all of her students are engaged. If you take a closer look, you will also hear that during one of the "turn and talks," students speak to each other in languages other than English, such as Spanish and Mandarin. Ms. Mather's emergent bilinguals-or students who use two or more languages in their daily lives-are engaging in translanguaging.

Translanguaging is a powerful theoretical and pedagogical stance that centers on students' linguistic and social resources. Teachers who use translanguaging pedagogy in their classrooms make space for students to use their entire linguistic repertoire to construct meaning. In other words, translanguaging in classrooms supports and builds upon the multilingual language practices of students.

We believe that embracing translanguaging pedagogies is the single most important instructional shift that teachers can make when working with emergent bilinguals. A translanguaging stance is reflected in the intentional ways that teachers ensure that the whole child, her family, and community are honored and respected-including her language practices, cultural understandings, and social-emotional ways of being (García, Johnson & Seltzer, 2017).

Translanguaging pedagogy starts with students' strengths. Teachers recognize the language and social resources that students possess; indeed, teachers welcome their students' multilingual abilities. Therefore, while multilingual students are often referred to as English-language learners (ELLs), we prefer the term emergent bilinguals, coined by García, Kleifgen, and Falchi (2008), for students who use two or more languages in their daily lives. We build on our emergent bilingual students' strengths as accomplished language learners rather than focus on their lack of English (a deficit perspective).

Translanguaging pedagogy requires that teachers stop privileging monolingualism as the norm and embrace bilingualism as a resource to capitalize upon and sustain. We intentionally and actively invite students' full linguistic repertoire into all instructional spaces and plan for it in our curriculum. We suggest these starting points:

Assess and understand, from day one, the linguistic repertoires of the students in your classroom and their families.

Create a culture from the start that sends the message that translanguaging in your classroom is the norm. Make this part of the classroom-community conversation.

Plan intentionally for translanguaging. This can include creating spaces for children to express themselves in their home language (writing, reading, and oral), asking for someone to translate a response from a child in their home language, pairing students up intentionally with others who speak the same home language (turn and talk), creating charts using the children's home languages, offering a version of the book you are reading as a class in the students' home languages, and inviting them to read and write in their home language. For example, you might ask them to write for an authentic audience and gather their thinking using the gist strategy, where students write, in English or their home language, a summary of the main point(s) of a passage they read.

Use mentor texts (children's/adolescent literature) that use translanguaging. Create mini lessons to illustrate how these authors use translanguaging as a craft in their writing (i.e., dialogue, names of places and things, sayings, descriptions, etc.).

Decenter teaching by positioning yourself as a learner of the children's linguistic repertoires. Invite the children and their families to share their knowledge of their languages with you.

In summary, translanguaging requires that we embrace a paradigm shift in how we view bilingual students, their bilingualism, and the spaces we create for everyone to fully construct meaning (Ascenzi-Moreno & Espinosa, 2018). Translanguaging ensures that those students, whose voices have been silenced for too long, have new spaces in which to more freely engage.
References
Reading Groups
Blanca Huertas is an ELL teacher in Dickinson, Texas. This is her fifth year working with English-language learners in Texas. She previously worked as an ESL teacher in Puerto Rico for eight years:
Rotating reading groups is a small, differentiated group strategy that I use in my Newcomer ELL class to target language and content grade-level skills for language learners at their level of language proficiency. I use this strategy in a secondary level in my 7th and 8th grade Newcomer classrooms. This has become one of the most successful strategies to use in my Newcomer class because it helps me work in small groups with students as they work at their language-proficiency level.

I started using small, differentiated rotating groups three years ago but fully implemented this strategy when I found myself in a class two years ago, where I had students with a large gap between proficiency levels. One half of the class was at a higher intermediate level in language proficiency and strong academic background, and the other half of my class was SLIFE (Students with limited interrupted formal education) and at a beginner level in their English. It was hard to give whole-class instruction because I was either trying to reach one half of the class or the other.

Even though I used every other language strategy in the book, I felt that one group or the other was lacking in instruction. Because my SLIFE students really needed small-group intervention, I thought this would be a good place to start in the implementation of strategy. I was scared at first since I was going to work in stations and small groups at a secondary level, but it has really worked.

Where I intensely work with the station rotations is with reading. A reading rotating group will look as follows:

Before Instruction:

In the planning stage, it is important that the teacher group students according to their language-proficiency levels. If you have an in-between student, think of where you feel they would benefit more.

What are the skills you are trying to target that students need to strengthen?

Next, decide on how many rotations you want to provide. I recommend 3-4 (all stations should be connected).

Vocabulary

Listening station (Audio book) with computers

Small group with teacher: reading of text together and development of skill

Optional station: Independent reading using target skills or application station of skill work

Find what texts you are assigning to each level. I enjoy using saddleback books because they already have the audiobooks that come with them. For higher-level options and Spanish options, I have used Common lit, and they also have a read-to-me option. For nonfiction, my go to is Newsela.

Develop the work for each station according to the skills you are focusing on.

During Instruction:
Step #1: Provide students with the clear objective of what they will be working on. Each station should have their own objective. Because you will probably be working on this the rest of the week, you might be going back to each objective daily as each group works through it.

Step #2: Explain what will be happening in each station and how students will be working on each task. Let them know how the rotations will work. This is where you will set up your rules and explain the timer and how each person will work in teams.

Step # 3: Students will work on their assigned task. Depending on how long your class is, they might go through two or three stations. On the next day, before you start, review what students were working on. Review objectives of each station.

Step #4: When students finish their task, have them all discuss with the class their story and you can have them develop a story map to present to the class about their text or a book talk.
After Instruction:
I analyze anything that I probably could have adjusted and things that could have gone better. We know our students, and as students work, we should do informal assessments, especially when they are working in our station to interpret how students are understanding the tasks provided for them.

My biggest takeaway from this strategy is that I can have one-on-one time with my students, and this can help me focus on the areas that they truly need the most help on. When I work in small groups with them, I can identify strengths and needs so that I can adjust instruction to support my students better. This strategy has taken my students and my classes into new levels.

Consistency
Vivian Micolta Simmons was born in Colombia and has been in the U.S. for seven years. She has been a teacher for 14 years and is currently working as a ESL/DLI lead teacher for the Iredell-Statesville schools in N.C.:
My single most effective strategy is CONSISTENCY.

As a former EFL teacher in Colombia and a former DLI teacher in N.C., I was always looking for different activities and strategies to incorporate in the classroom. There was a time when I was led to think that "more was best" when the reality is "with consistency, less is more."

Let me explain: I have been in the ESL department since 2018 (hence my Twitter handle ESLteacher2018). I believe this has been the single, most meaningful experience I have had in my teaching career. I have learned a lot more about language learners and their learning process, and their ups and downs in this strenuous but rewarding process.

I have found that consistency is the way to go when teaching language learners. For example, in a lesson plan of mine, you will always find previewing the vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading, and writing activities as the go-to strategies per every unit. And I try to keep it consistent (if time allows) where my students can find this in my classes every day. There is no need to do 10,000 things in a class if you forget about activities that include the four language domains, especially speaking and orality, which will set great foundations for reading and writing. Include four language-skills strategies in your daily lessons (even as short as 3 minutes), and you will keep your learning experiences consistent and your students on track.

Thanks to Jenny, Laura, Cecila, Blanca, and Vivian for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at lferlazzo@epe.org. When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it's selected or if you'd prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo.

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It's titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching.
Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign-new ones are not yet available). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below. I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The new question-of-the-week is: What is the single most effective instructional strategy you have used to teach English-language learners? In Part One, Valentina Gonzalez, Denita Harris, Cindy Garcia, and Deedy Camarena offered their responses. Today, Jenny Vo, Laura Ascenzi-Moreno, Cecilia Espinosa, Blanca Huertas, and Vivian Micolta Simmons finish up the series.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Will Schools Teach English-Language Learners This Fall?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Will Schools Teach English-Language Learners This Fall?

# data[].attributes.body
Mitchell, C. (2020, September 20). How Will Schools Teach English-Language Learners This Fall? EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-will-schools-teach-english-language-learners-this-fall/2020/09

This article questions how ELL students are going to learn returning to school amid COVID-19, after the shut down in spring 2019.

- The deputy director for English-learner education  with the education policy program at New America, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, compiled a national database of state guidance and resources for English-learner education

- Some states offered in-depth guidance on distance learning, including tips  on how to identify ELLs and best support their language development

- Many ELL students struggled during the spring school closures, the schools were still unsure of opening back up

-  And afraid of further regression of the ELL students, several states urged districts to priorities in-person learning for ELLs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Corey Mitchell - September 20, 2020 2 min read

The resource reveals that some states-Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington among them-offered in-depth guidance on distance learning, including tips on how to identify English-learners and best support their language development. A handful of states also spelled out schools' legal obligations to teach English-learners, including the need to provide information to families in their preferred language.

But other states, such as Alaska and Kansas, offered little or no specific guidance for educating English-learners, the review found.

By most accounts, many English-learners struggled during the spring school closures designed to slow the spread of the coronavirus-and many have not yet returned for in-person instruction as districts weigh whether to physically reopen schools. Faced with the likelihood that English-learners' English-language skills could further regress this fall, several states have urged districts to prioritize in-person learning for English-learners and other groups of students with specialized education needs.
Related Reading Photo Credit: Caption: A Los Angeles Unified School District student attends an online class at Boys & Girls Club of Hollywood in Los Angeles. The facility is open for children whose parents must leave home to work.(Jae C. Hong/AP)

Corey Mitchell was an associate editor who covered special education, English-language learners and other special populations.

A version of this news article first appeared in the Learning the Language blog.

Most Popular Stories

Related

Resources

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Get the latest education news delivered to your inbox daily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Will Schools Teach English-Language Learners This Fall?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Corey Mitchell - September 20, 2020 2 min read The resource reveals that some states-Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington among them-offered in-depth guidance on distance learning, including tips on how to identify English-learners and best support their language development.

# data[].attributes.body
STATUTORY LAW
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 replaced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), with the purpose of providing all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps. The subgrants are intended to go toward improving ELL students’ instruction and abilities to meet state academic content and achievement standards. By accepting federal funds, districts are required to provide language accommodations to non-English-speaking families.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

# data[].attributes.body
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
14th Amendment of the Constitution states that no State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

U.S. Constitution amend. XIV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourteenth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.

# data[].attributes.body
JUDICIAL LAW
Lau v. Nichols (1974), the Court determined that the school’s system’s failure to provide supplemental English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry who spoke no English constituted a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act because it deprived those students of an opportunity to participate in the public education program.

414 U.S. 563 (1974)

# 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
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
(a) The parent shall be notified in English and the parent's primary language that their child has been classified as an English learner and recommended for placement in the required bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program.

The parent shall be provided information describing the bilingual education or ESL program recommended, its benefits to the student, and its being an integral part of the school program to ensure that the parent understands the purposes and content of the program.

The entry or placement of a student in the bilingual education or ESL program must be approved in writing by the student's parent in order to have the student included in the bilingual education allotment. The parent's approval shall be considered valid for the student's continued participation in the required bilingual education or ESL program until the student meets the reclassification criteria described in §89.1226(i) of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students), the student graduates from high school, or a change occurs in program placement.

(b) The school district shall give written notification to the student's parent of the student's reclassification as English proficient and his or her exit from the bilingual education or ESL program and acquire written approval as required under the Texas Education Code, §29.056(a). Students meeting reclassification requirements may continue in the bilingual education or ESL program with parental approval.

(c) The parent of a student enrolled in a school district that is required to offer bilingual education or ESL programs may appeal to the commissioner of education if the school district fails to comply with the law or the rules. Appeals shall be filed in accordance with Chapter 157 of this title (relating to Hearings and Appeals).

Parental Authority and Responsibility, 19. Tex. Admin. Code § 89.1240

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) The parent shall be notified in English and the parent's primary language that their child has been classified as an English learner and recommended for placement in the required bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program. The parent shall be provided information describing the bilingual education or ESL program recommended, its benefits to the student, and its being an integral part of the school program to ensure that the parent understands the purposes and content of the program. The entry or placement of a student in the bilingual education or ESL program must be approved in writing by the student's parent in order to have the student included in the bilingual education allotment. The parent's approval shall be considered valid for the student's continued participation in the required bilingual education or ESL program until the student meets the reclassification criteria described in §89.1226(i) of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students), the student graduates from high school, or a change occurs in program placement. (b) The school district shall give written notification to the student's parent of the student's reclassification as English proficient and his or her exit from the bilingual education or ESL program and acquire written approval as required under the Texas Education Code, §29.056(a). Students meeting reclassification requirements may continue in the bilingual education or ESL program with parental approval. (c) The parent of a student enrolled in a school district that is required to offer bilingual education or ESL programs may appeal to the commissioner of education if the school district fails to comply with the law or the rules. Appeals shall be filed in accordance with Chapter 157 of this title (relating to Hearings and Appeals).

Source Note: The provisions of this §89.1240 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3105; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) The parent shall be notified in English and the parent's primary language that their child has been classified as an English learner and recommended for placement in the required bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program.

# data[].attributes.body
HISD SCHOOL POLICY/EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
When EL (English Learner) students are identified based on a valid and reliable ELP test, school districts must provide them with appropriate language assistance services. Language assistance services or programs of EL students must be educationally sound in theory and effective in practice.

Houston ISD. (2015, January 7). Teacher Handbook, Federal Guidance on Educating Els.

Retrieved from https://www.houstonisd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=325303&dataid=319668&FileName=Business-Operations-Employee-Handbook-2020-CS-FS-digital.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
English Language Learners are students who are unable to communicate fluently or learn effectively in English. These students come from non-English-speaking homes and backgrounds. These students typically require specialized or modified instruction in all their academic courses. The percentage of students identified as English learners grew from 16.9 percent in 2009-10 to 20.3 percent in 2019-2021 (TEA, 2021). It is important to have necessary procedures and accommodations in place to best support these ELL students.

Although English learners are increasingly dispersed across the nation, they are not equally distributed across schools. Seventy percent of the nation's ELL students attend just 10% of the nation's schools. These schools tend to be in urban areas with high concentrations of minority and economically disadvantaged students. English learners thus tend to be highly segregated from English-speaking students, attending schools with very high percentages of students like themselves, where the opportunity to hear good models of English and interact with peers who are native speakers are minimal (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010).

Gándara, P. and Hopkins, M. Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies. Excerpt from Chapter 1, "The Changing Linguistic Landscape of the United States." Pgs. 10-17. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 2010. Retrieved from https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/challenges-english-learner-education

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws.

Teachers should follow federal, state and local laws regarding ELL students and the right to a fair and equal education. Many laws have been put in place to ensure that accommodations are made for these student in every academic setting.

Code of Ethics, 19 Tex. Admin. Code §247.2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.body
The ELL Teacher's Toolbox

Ferlazzo, L., & Sypnieski, K. H. (2018). The ELL Teacher’s Toolbox. Wiley.

The ELL Teacher's Toolbox is a valuable resource for teachers of ELLs. The book is divided into two main sections: Reading/Writing and Speaking/Listening. Each section has 40-70 strategies that can be used across all contents. The book also includes ready-to-use lesson plans, reproducible handouts, and offers technology integration ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You can now order our book on Amazon.

The ELL Teacher's Toolbox: Hundreds of Practical Ideas to Support Your Students will be published in April, 2018.

Fifteen ways to adapt your textbook so your students aren't bored to death is the headline of a post appearing in my British Council blog. It's a short excerpt from the book.
Here Are All The Tweets From The First Week Of Sharing Excerpts From Our New Book, #ELLTeachersToolbox Here Are All The Tweets From The SECOND Week Of Sharing Excerpts From Our New Book, #ELLTeachersToolbox
Edutopia has published an excerpt from our new book, The ELL Teacher's Toolbox. Check it out Activating Prior Knowledge With English Language Learners.

Helping English-Learners End the School Year Strong is the title of the excerpt from our new book, The ELL Teacher's Toolbox. It appears in Education Week Teacher.
ALL Student Reproducibles From Our New Book Are Now Available To Everybody!
How to Engage ELLs in Literary Conversations is headline of another excerpt from our new book on teaching English Language Learners.

How to Use Oral Presentations to Help English Language Learners Succeed is the headline of the latest excerpt from our new book on teaching ELLs. It appears at KQED MindShift.
Video: Katie & I Share ELL Instructional Strategies
Carol Salva hosts THE podcast that English Language Learner teachers should be listening to, and she was kind enough to have me on as her guest. You can listen to the show here, as well as accessing a ton of other materials she has. One of the many reasons I like Carol's show so much is that she shares supplemental resources, as well as her reflections on the each show.

Culturally Responsive Teaching in the ELL Classroom is the headline of the book excerpt published by the Washington Post.
Highlights From First Two Weeks Of The Online Book Chat About Our New ELL Book
Four games for vocabulary development is an excerpt from our book, The ELL Teacher's Toolbox, and appears over at the British Council.

Rita Platt has written a very positive review of our new book, The Ell Teacher's Toolbox, over at Middleweb.

4 Fun Ways to Practice Short Oral Presentations is the headline of yet another excerpt from our book, The ELL Teacher's Toolbox. It appears in Middleweb.
Highlights From Last Two Weeks Of The Online Book Chat About Our New ELL Book JOIN A SUMMER VIRTUAL BOOK STUDY ON OUR BOOK, "THE ELL TEACHER'S TOOLBOX"
In the meantime, you can access tons of free resources from our - and my - previous books here.

What a great day of ESL training!! I just LOVE The ELLS Teacher's Toolbox!!! Thank you so much @KatyOOL for this resource!!! Can't wait to delve in! #ellteachertoolbox #eslstrategies #katyisdool pic.twitter.com/4oOzIFWflx

- Cari Bickham (@CariBickham) August 9, 2018

Look at these amazing anchor charts our #ESL teachers made to sum up chapters from #ELLTeachersToolbox by @Larryferlazzo. We love ❤️ this resource! #katyool @cjnguyen10 pic.twitter.com/TBBvMOnXCP

- 🌍 ναℓєηтιηα gσηzαℓєz (@ValentinaESL) August 9, 2018

We ran that round a bit differently than other rounds and did not do weekly questions. We had Ts choose their top 10 strategies and share what they learned, how the strategies were helpful, what they tweaked etc.

- Katie Toppel, Ed.D. (@Toppel_ELD) September 11, 2018

Loved this format given the structure of the book. Currently studying this book w/staff; departments are choosing top 5 & sharing out, reflecting, celebrating successes, etc.

- Alycia Owen (@alycia_owen) September 12, 2018

Using Photos In Speaking and Listening- "If Animals or Inanimate Objects Could Talk"
Sometimes speaking in front of a large group can be scary and speaking through other objects can help reduce anxiety and promote confidence.@Larryferlazzo #ELLTeachersToolbox #ESC1WebbookStudy pic.twitter.com/mORWjE5eT6

- A_GarzaRHHHS (@araseli_garza) May 6, 2019

Here's a wild Escape The Room feature created by teachers to support PD done through our book, The ELL Teacher's Toolbox.

From Rachel Sherwood: I am absolutely loving this book! I especially love the chapter on music and am already thinking through how I can utilize the songs from Hamilton! in my lessons next year! #NKYELBookClub pic.twitter.com/6VVvPWGUp7

- EL Program at NKCES (@NKCESELProgram) May 4, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here Are Free Resources For "The ELL Teacher's Toolbox"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You can now order our book on Amazon. The ELL Teacher's Toolbox: Hundreds of Practical Ideas to Support Your Students will be published in April, 2018. Fifteen ways to adapt your textbook so your students aren't bored to death is the headline of a post appearing in my British Council blog.

# data[].attributes.body
6 BEST PRACTICES FOR WORKING AND SUPPORTING ELL STUDENTS
1. Cultivate relationships and be culturally aware and responsive to all students.
2. Teach language skills across the curriculum. (For example, every class can have students compose some type of writing prompt.)
3. Emphasize productive language by having things like word walls and vocabulary cards.
4. Speak slowly - and increase your wait time when waiting for a response from an ELL student.
5. Differentiate and use multiple modalities when creating instruction, group and individual learning.
6. Incorporate the student's native languages - this include when sending paperwork home to non-English speaking parents