-
Ohio becomes first state to adopt bilingual education law
Ohio allowed German-English instruction in schools at the request of parents. This law resulted in other states following in Ohio’s footsteps with their dominant foreign language in the area. In 1847 Louisiana allowed French and English instruction, and in 1850 the New Mexico Territory allowed Spanish and English instruction. (History of Bilingual Education, 1998) -
Nationality Act in Texas
Along with the Naturalization Act passed by congressed the same year, the Nationality Act in Texas required immigrants to learn to speak English in order to be naturalized citizens. It also designated English as the only language to be taught in schools. This act was justified by the relationship of English and U.S. identity and the correlation between bilingualism and inferior intelligence, which we now know is false. (Nieto, 2009, p. 62) -
Meyer v Nebraska
This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case on the instruction of foreign-language in American education. A teacher in a parochial school was charged for reading Bible storied in German to students. This went against the Siman Act in Nebraska, which prohibited public and private schools from providing instruction in any foreign language. The Supreme Court ruled against the Act because it violated the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. This cause similar cases to be overturned. (Walsh, 2008) -
Farrington v Tokushige
In the 1927 case Farrington v Tokushige, the Supreme Court overturned a law that forbids foreign language instruction in schools in Hawaii. This protected after-school language programs especially Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs. These results did not stop the state of Hawaii from limiting private foreign language education. After WWII, they passed an act to prevent the Chinese community from their language. (Wright, 2010) -
Mendez v Westminister
Sylvia Mendez was a child who was turned away from a California public school for whites only. The schools argued that they were not segregating on race but because of their language deficits. The U.S. Court of Appeals sided with Mendez stating that the segregation was against the 14th amendment. Segregating Spanish-speaking students meant they were falling behind in learning English in these settings. This case helped lay the groundwork for Brown v Board of Education. -
Stainback V Mo Hock Ke Kok Po
In the 1949 case Stainback V Mo Hock Ke Kok Po, the judge ruled that parents have the right to decide what language their children are taught in. This did not mean that more schools were teaching foreign language. Instead the state cannot prevent private language classes. These cases affirmed the right to learn foreign language. As a result many children are able to learn their home language in heritage schools. (Wright, 2010) -
Civil Rights Act Title VI
The momentum from Brown vs. Board of Education resulted in the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. This act prohibited discrimination and Title VI pertained to education. Title VI allowed the government to withhold funds from school districts that continued segregation. This would in theory promote ELLs to be integrated into schools with higher quality education. (Nieto, 2009, p 63) -
Period: to
Bilingual Education Acts
Also known as Title VII, it was designed to support the education of ELLs. The Act provided federal aid for districts to develop special programs to meet the needs of ELL students such as teacher training and development of instructional materials. At first the main purpose was to provided part of the instruction in the student’s native language.
In 1974, an amendment was added to explicitly define bilingual programs and requirements that defined a successful program. (Nieto, 2009, p 63) -
Lau v Nichols
A group of Chinese students who claimed that a San Francisco School District left them to “sink or swim” in classrooms by not providing them extra supports despite their ELL status. The district claimed they did nothing wrong by providing the same treatment to all student. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts are responsible to provide the necessary programs and accommodations to support ELLs. The court ruled that the district violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Nieto) -
Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA)
After the Lau v Nichols case, Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA). This act declares: "No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by … (f) the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs." There are been many lawsuits have been made based on this act. (Wright, 2010) -
Lau Remedies
The Lau vs Nichols case did not mandate any specific remedies and only ordered the school district to take ‘appropriate action’. The Office of Civil Rights created the Lau Remedies to function as standards for all school districts. They released a series of guidelines such as identifying and evaluating ELLs, determining appropriate instructional approaches, deciding when ELLs were ready for mainstream class, and determining standards teachers should meet. (Wright, 2010) -
Castañeda v Pickard
The school district was charged for failing to meet the needs of ELLs as mandated by EEOA. The federal court found that the school district was not meeting the requirements of EEOA. As a result a three-pronged test was determined to require school districts ‘appropriate action’. The Castaneda standard mandates that districts must have 1. A pedagogically sound plan ELL students, 2. Sufficient qualified staff, and 3. A system to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. (Wright, 2010) -
Plyler v Doe
The Supreme Court ruled against a Texas law that withheld funding from school districts for the education of illegal aliens. The court determined that although illegal aliens were not citizens they are people are were protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Although this does not directly affect bilingual education, illegal immigrants are also considered to be ELLs. (Legal History of Bilingual Education) -
Gomez v Illinois
“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that state education agencies as well as local education agencies are required, under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974), to ensure that the needs of limited-English-proficient children are met.” (Laws and Court Cases). This ensured that ELLs in IL are not left to ‘sink or swim’ in the classroom. -
Improving America’s School Act
It reauthorized the Bilingual Education Act. The laws main purpose was “developing bilingual skills and multicultural understanding”. Bilingual education was considered an asset to improve the country. This act resulted in the development of dual language programs. (Nieto, 2009, p. 64)