-
Illinois school code( present version)
There have been numerous amendments to the School Code since 1961 (could not find specific day in 1961). Currently, Section 14c of the code addresses transitional bilingual education. This reflects state policy for equal educational opportunities and creates both full and part time transitional programs for students based on their needs.Applicable to children incapable of performing ordinary classwork in English, pre-k - 12. -
Prior to 1968
No federal educational language policies for ELL students -
Bilingual Education Act
Title VII of ESEA. Provided grants to school districts and other eligible entities for LESA (limited English Speaking Ability) students living in poverty. Underlying view of ELL students was that they had a deficit, lack of English, which need to be corrected. The Bilingual Education Act was reathorized six times, the final time in 2001. Each reauthorization recognized additional personal and societal benefits of bilingual education. This was the first piece of legislation signed in 1968. -
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973
Parents brought lawsuit claiming education was a fundamental right under the 14th amendment and that wealth based discrimination (how the school districts were funded via their tax bases) was illegal. The case worked its way up to the Supreme Court which found that there is no right to education, either explicity or implicitly in the Constitution. As a result, future lawsuits raising this issue did not rely on the U.S. Constitution as the basis for a claim. Claims were based on state consitut -
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, still followed today. Class action of Chinese American students who were placed in mainstream classrooms to either "sink or swim". The Court found that these students were not receiving equal treatment even with the same facilities,teachers and books, they were effectively foreclosed from meaningful education because of language barrier -
Serna v. Portales 499 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1974).
Plaintiffs, students with Spanish surnames, brought claims of discrimination pursuant to Title IV and the equal protection clause. Plaintiffs took issue with district's curriculum, failure to provide bilingual education, failure to hire teachers and administrators of Mexican American descent. Trial court found a violation of the equal protection clause. District required to impliment a bilingual/bicultural curriculum and hire more Spainish surnamed personnel -
Equal Educational Opportunities Act
EEOA was an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Provided, in pertinent part, no state can deny students the right to equal education by "failure by an educational agency to take 'appropriate action' to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs. Appropriate action has not been defined but has been interpreted to include bi-lingual education. -
Aspira Consent Decree
In 1972 a case was brought against the New York Public Schools by Puerto Rican students with limited English proficiency. The case was resolved by the entry of the Consent Decree which established the right of public school students with limited English proficiency to receive bilingual education. Aspira is not a person but a " national Hispanic organization dedicated exclusively to developing the educational and leadership capacity of Hispanic youth". -
Lau Remedies Document Dept of Health, Education and Welfare
After the Lau ruling, the Deptartment of Health, Education and Welfare issued a set of guidelines that translated schools' legal obligations into pedagogical directives. Resolving to prevent local districts from choosing the cheapest "band-aid" treatments, such as remedial English classes, federal officials required the use of bilingual instruction in elementary schools where enough LEP students spoke the same language to make it practical. Guidelines based on the Lau ruling. -
Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District 628 F.2d 1271
Plaintiffs, Mexican American students, brought claims of discrimination pursuant to Title IV based on the District's curriculum and its hiring practises. Trial court found plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a claim and, if they had standing, they had failed to show discriminatory practises. Plaintiffs appealed the hiring practise issue only. 10th Circuit found that plaintiffs had standing but they upheld District Court's finding re failing to show discrimination. -
United States v. Texas, 506 F. Supp 441 (E.D. Texas 1981)
Case originated in 1970 and after a trial an order was issued finding defendants in violation of both the Constitution and Federal law with regards to providing students with equal educational opportunities. The defendants were required to submit to the court a comprehensive plan for addressing the violations. Court of Appeals affirmed the plan, entered via an order in Nov. 1970, the Supreme Court denied certorari. -
506 F.Supp 405 continued
Supplemental claims were brought to enforce the order as to Mexican American students. Expert testimony was presented claiming the only way to have equal education was to teach students in the language they already know. The supplemental claims were brought based on Title IV, 14th amendment, EOEA and equal protection clause. The Court rejected the Title IV claims but found that the State must make bilingual education available in all grade levels
and -
Castenada v. Pickard
Texas case claiming school district did not address the needs of ELL students as mandated in EEOA. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found there was no mandate for bilingual education. Nevertheless, the Court found the district did not meet the requirements of EEOA and established a 3 prong test for whether or not an action is an "appropriate action" under the EEOA. 1. based on sound educational theory 2.implemented with sufficient resources and personnel 3. evaluated to determine effectiveness -
Plyer v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
5th Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed in that the ruling struck down a state statute denying funding for education to unauthorized immigrant children and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge unauthorized immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented immigrant student to compensate for the lost state funding. This has been applied to K-12 only. -
Gomez v. ISBE 995 F.Supp 900 (7th Cir. 1987)
7th Circuit Court of Appeals (covers Illinois) issued an opinion relying heavily on the Castenada test (thereby adopting the test).Case was class action claiming the ISBE and State Superintendent violated the EEOA by failing to have uniform and consistent guidelines for school districts regarding LEP students. The 7th Circuit applied the Castenada test and found the district failed to meet one of the 3 prongs. -
NCLB
Provides, in part, that districts receiving Title III funds for their ELL students must be held accountable for their ELL students learning of English. This accountability is AMAOS, Annual Measurable Achievent Objectiives. If a district fails to meet these goals they may be required to create and submit to the State a DIP, District Improvement Plan. -
Flores v. Arizona cont.
Court which in remanded the matter back down to the District Court in 2009 for additional factual findings. As of March 2013 case was still ongoing. -
Flores v. Arizona
Parents of LEP children claimed discrimination and violation of EEOA claiming curriculum did not include adequate language acquisition, academic instructional programs and funding for at-risk, lowincome,minority students. District Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Consent decree subsequently entered addressing all issues but funding of the ELL programs Several years passed while the parties and the legislature wrangled with the funding issues. The case was ultimately sent to the Supreme -
Illinois Legislation "parent academies"
Governor Quinn signed HB-3819 on 8/9/12. The effective date of this law was 1/1/13. The law requires the state's Advisory Council to evaluate the success of bilingual programs and explore the benefits and possibilities of “parent academies,” an initiative to increase the participation of parents whose first language is not English