-
Period: to
Compulsory Ignorance Laws
Southern colonies enacted laws which did not allow Native Americans to learn English literacy skills. -
Period: to
The argument for Bilingual Education - Coercive Assimilaiton Policies
President Harris argues for bilingual education which includes Native American children to be forcefully removed from their homes to attend boarding schools. These English only boarding schools were created under the Coercive Assimilation Policies -
Period: to
German language legislation
Attempts were made to disallow students to be taught in German in public schools. At this time over 600,000 students were being instructed in German. -
Period: to
Language restriction laws passed: WWI
Federal language laws passed by congress restriction the use of foreign languages in schools. -
Period: to
Meyer vs. Nebraska
This case ended a Nebraska law that required all instruction in schools to be taught in English. The decision allowed students to be taught in their home language. -
Period: to
Farrington vs. Tokushige
This case had a similar outcome to Meyer vs. Nebraska and allowed parents to hold extra-curricular home language classes. This decision limited the powers of the federal government to limit the teaching of languages other than English. -
Period: to
Brown vs. the Board of Education
Segregation law suit that stated that ELLs cannot be removed from their regular classroom with the excuse that the school is helping them learn English. The lawsuit also stated that all students are entitled to "equal educational opportunities". -
Period: to
Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965
This act was created to provide funding for low income students. Set the groundwork for future legislation for English language learners. It was replaced by No Child left Behind in 2001. -
Period: to
Title VII - Bilingual Education Act
The act was an addition to the ESEA and provided grants to eligible educational entities to support bilingual education. Included all children whose primary language was something other than English. This act was reauthorized six times, the last being in 1994. Each reauthorization more clearly defined the importance of bilingual education not only educationally but also socially. It was replaced by NCLB in 2002. -
Period: to
Lau vs. Nichols
This lawsuit stated that placing ELLs in an English speaking classroom with a sink or swim attitude and no services was not treating them equally. Justice William Douglass said that placing students in this situation actually prevented them from gaining any meaningful education. The "Lau Remedies" that followed resulted in the implementation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. -
Period: to
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974
This act was created because of the ruling from Lau vs. Nichols. It states that English Language Learners receive "educational opportunities" so they have "equal participation" in school. More bilingual education programs were created as a result for English Language Learners. -
Period: to
Castaneda vs. Pickard
This lawsuit stated that bilingual education was not required but their had to be a system in place to address the needs of ELLs. These systems must include a sound educational theory, be implemented with enough staff and supplies, and have an assessment in place to make sure students are overcoming language barriers. -
Period: to
Plyler vs. Doe
This court ruling stated that children who are undocumented may attend school where they live in the United States and cannot be excluded because they are immigrants. -
Period: to
Gomez vs. Illinois State Board of Education
This act ruled that schools are responsible for providing support and services to English language learners but do not tell the schools with these programs specifically needed to look like. This act was born from Castenada vs. Pickard and used the Castaneda test to determine compliance. -
Period: to
English for the Children Initiative
These initiatives adopted by three states called for the moving away from traditional bilingual education to structured English immersion programs. They were not successful and many schools in those states continued to offer traditional bilingual education through waivers. The states involved were California (1998), Arizona (2000), and Massachusetts (2002). -
Period: to
Flores vs. Arizona
Also related to the Castaneda case, it showed problems from the three rule approach to evaluate ELL programs. This case led to more funding for programs. However, no improvement in services was noted. -
Period: to
No Child Left Behind
Title I of NCLB placed a huge emphasis on measuring success and teacher accountability through testing and looked at the needs of low income students. Title III made home language instruction for LEP a state decision. There were 2 requirements for ELLs: teach English and teach content as related to academic standards. States refocused on setting up standards and assessment. Testing was used to determine if schools were making adequate yearly progress for their English Language Learners. -
Period: to
American Rocovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - ARRA
Race to the Top (RTTT) part of ARRA was initiated by President Obama and provides competitive grants for states to use for educational reform. The four components are: standards that prepare all students including ELLs and students with disabilities for higher education, developing and rewarding highly qualified teachers and administrators, data that supports staff initiative to improve instruction, and providing intervention to poorly performing schools. This led to ESEA Flexibility in 2011. -
Period: to
Common Core State Standards Initiative
The CCSSI states what knowledge students need to obtain. This initiative does not directly address ELLs but does include standards to improve language skills of all students. The language of instruction is not specified making the initiative compatible with bilingual education. This act was a move towards a national curriculum. -
Period: to
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility
ESEA flexibility created because many schools were failing to meet their AYP expectations. ESEA flexibility gave relief to states from Title I of NCLB. It required that states use best practices for ELLs. However, ELLs were not considered their own entity and were grouped in under the umbrella of at risk students. -
Period: to
Every Student Succeeds Act
This is the latest renewal of the ESEA. It ended NCLB but still holds schools accountable for adequate student progress. This act gives power back to the states on how to measure student progress and how to evaluate teachers. Testing is used to measure growth rather than a student's ability to perform specific grade level skills. It also allows school to not test ELLs their first year enrolled in school in language arts and/or math.