# data[].attributes.body
The Nationality Act of 1906, required that all immigrants entering America need to apply for their citizenship and learn the national language. The eligible applicant would file a declaration of intent and give it to the court whether local, state or federal. The process would take two to seven years and during that period of time the applicant could have requested for their citizenship. The procedures of getting approved and becoming a citizen of the United States of America, would consist of having a clean background and lived here for five entire years. Once the applicant became approved the judge in charge of the case of naturalization would call them in for a hearing in court and have them say an oath of allegiance to the United States constitution. Once the oath had taken place the judge would grant them their citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska law banning the teaching of foreign languages to schoolchildren, finding that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

# data[].attributes.body
Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down the Territory of Hawaii's law, making it illegal for schools to teach foreign languages without a permit, as it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
A jurisdictional question as to whether Judicial Code 266 was applicable in the Territory of Hawaii arises in No. 52. It was postponed by order of this Court on June 1, 1948, to the hearing of that case on the merits. This Court postponed action on the petition for certiorari in No. 474 until the hearing of No. 52 on the merits. As the record, arguments and briefs here and the opinions below fully present the case decided by the District Court, to avoid further futile proceedings we now grant the petition for the writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals before its decree and proceed in No. 474 to a review of the judgment of the District Court of Hawaii. The opinions appeal in 74 F.Supp. 852, Mo Hock Ke Lok Po v. Stainback.

Respondents here were plaintiffs in the trial court. They are Chinese School Associations, a Chinese school, all giving instruction in Chinese, and a teacher of Chinese in Chinese language schools. After December 7, 1941, these schools closed and have not reopened. Prior to that date they had more than 2,000 pupils, several hundred of whom were in the first and second grade, and numerous teachers. Under J.C. 266 they sought an injunction against officers of the Territory of Hawaii charged by law with the administration of an Act of the Territory 'Regulating the Teaching of Foreign Languages to Children,'2 from enforcing it in any particular against [336 U.S. 368 , 372]   the teaching of foreign languages to the respondents' pupils.

The Act was grounded on a legislative finding 'that the study and persistent use of foreign languages by children of average intelligence in their earl and formative years definitely detract from their ability properly to understand and assimilate their normal studies in the English language.' Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, 1871. 'School' was defined as any teaching regularly of two or more persons in a group. 3 Requirements for pupils and teachers in foreign language schools were set out. 4 Visitation of the foreign language schools by appropriate officials for enforcement purposes was authorized. 1875. The only sanction for enforcement is by injunction. 5   [336 U.S. 368 , 373]   This lack of coercion by fine or imprisonment and the limitation of enforcement to injunction are important factors in our conclusion upon No. 474.

The complaint alleged that in violation of the Fifth Amendment the Act deprived plaintiff schools of the right to manage their property by contracting with instructors and parents for the teaching of Chinese, and the plaintiff teacher of Chinese of his right to follow his occupation. 6 See Farrington v. T. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 299 , 409. The judgment of the special district court granted a sweeping permanent injunction against enforcement of the Hawaiian Act. As our conclusions are based solely upon procedural issues, any further discussion of the facts or of the law applicable to the merits is not appropriate. [336 U.S. 368 , 374]   The complaint asked for and obtained a three-judge court under the provisions of the Judicial Code 266.7 The minute entries of proceedings and trial and the opinion re applicability of 266, Judicial Code, 74 F. Supp. at [336 U.S. 368 , 375]   page 858, show suggestions that a special district court under Judicial Code 266 cannot be called for Hawaii. The statement of jurisdiction laid bare the problem with commendable frankness. It lies at the threshold of any consideration of this appeal. 8

# data[].attributes.body
response to Brown v. Board - finding other ways to segregate students de facto, including through language -- emphasis on English literacy for voting, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
sought to address this problem by banning literacy tests and other educational pre-requisites to voting (Liebowitz, 1969). While this ban changed voting rights since 1917 literacy testing has remained a requirement for

naturalization as a US citizen. Although literacy in any language had been acceptable previously, in 1950 the Federal Code established literacy in English as a condition of naturalization. The role of English literacy as a gatekeeper

in immigration and naturalization has expanded over time, and

English literacy is now valued over first language literacy when compared to earlier periods of US history, p. 18

sought to expand educational access and equality

# data[].attributes.headline
1965, Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.subject
1965, Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.body
federal aid for public schools

then, in 1968 - renamed the bilingual education act, provided funding for bilingual education specifically

(Tandra's video before discussed how it arose from social movements for access to not only language but also other social/human rights to housing, food, healthcare, etc.)

p. 17 - Although the law did not offer a definition

of bilingual education, and nor did it specify which program model schools should adopt for ELLs, it did acknowledge bilingual education as a viable approach for meeting the needs of poor, language minority students

# data[].attributes.body
Title VII of the elementary and secondary act of 1968, Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson. The first bilingual, bicultural education program at the federal level.
Supplemental funding for school districts interested in establishing programs to meet the needs of people with limited English abilities. had to be from low-income families, provided funding for planning and developing bilingual education problems as well as training and operation for these programs.
Pros:
1. growing size of non-English speaking populations
2. education was becoming much more important in terms of employment and social mobility
3. demonstrated program designed to meet the educational needs of low-income limited English-speaking children
4. byproduct of the civil rights movement
5. congress wanted to satisfy the social, political, economic and cultural environment of the US.
Cons:
1. Failed to provide a systematic means of determining success of programs
2. Addressed by the bilingual education act of 1974

# data[].attributes.body
Addendum 1975 Lau Remedies: Guidelines that school districts should follow in order to comply with Lau decision...
The highest court in the land ruled in that civil rights court case that San Francisco schools had to provide Chinese children with a bridge to the curriculum that took their inability to speak and understand English into consideration. The case greatly expanded the rights of all children with limited English skills to receive special help to learn English. The ruling doesn’t specify what kind of approach schools should use to help such students. (EdWeek, 2007)

# data[].attributes.headline
1974, Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1974, Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

# data[].attributes.body
Required school districts to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers w/ 3-prong approach
1) program based on recognized theory
2) faithfully implemented according to theory
3) demonstrated effectiveness over time

Undocumented students allowed to attend public school for the first time and offer classes in students' first languages while learning English as a second language.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1994, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

# data[].attributes.body
p. 17 - brought sweeping reforms based on standards that, for the first time, also mandated the inclusion of ELLs, and ultimately culminated in the termination of the Bilingual Education Act in 2001 with the passage of No Child Left Behind.

p. 28 - Now the pendulum has swung again into a period of language restriction, and a dramatic shift in orientations towards minority languages can be observed in the changes

made to federal education legislation for ELLs from the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to the 2001 reauthorization. In many ways, the 1994 amendments to the law were favorable towards bilingual education. At the same time, however, they

equally reflected a movement away from the focus on educational access and equality found in legislation such as the Civil Rights Act (1964), and towards a new emphasis on educational standards, outcomes and excellence

instead (Fowler, 2000; Kaestle, 2001). The testing movement has thus reemerged in the United States in a new form

# data[].attributes.body
No child left behind: Signed by President Bush is the successor of the elementary and secondary education act; much debate over how helpful it was to non-native speakers
launched important councils that deal with bilingual education:
1. NACBE: National advisory council for bilingual education
2. OBE: office of bilingual education: reevaluates education programs.
In most circumstances, the NCLB allows for a maximum three-year transition period for English-learning students to be placed in classes with native English speakers. Because of the NCLB's emphasis on standardized testing as a means of determining performance, and because English-learning students must take the same standardized tests as other students, schools with many immigrant students may face a disadvantage.