History of Multilingual Competency in the United States

  • Bilingualism a common practice

    Bilingualism a common practice
    Bilingualism is a common practice. During this time period there are as many as twenty different languages being spoken in the United States. Some of the most common languages that were spoken during this period were Dutch, French, German, and several different Native American Languages. During this time period schools were established to help preserve the linguistic heritage of those who had immigrated to the US (Diaz-Ruiz, 2012).
  • Period: to

    History of Multilingual Competency in the United States

  • Early Cherokee Language Rights

    Early Cherokee Language Rights
    In 1818 the US government recognized the rights of the Cherokee Indians to speak their own language and have the right to teach their children in their native language
  • Native American Children Forced to Attend English Only Schools off Reservation

    Native American Children Forced to Attend English Only Schools off Reservation
    Native American Children are forced to Attend English only schools off the Reservations. In these schools for Native American children they students were punished for speaking in their native language, it was thought that the only way Native Americans could be successful was to assimilate fully into the American culture and completely forget their cultural heritage.
  • Meyer V. Nebreska

    Meyer V. Nebreska
    In 1923 in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska, the US Supreme court extends “…the protection of the Constitution to everyday speech and prohibited coercive language restriction on the part of the states” (Diaz-Rico 118). In this case the teacher, Robert T Meyer was convicted of teaching students to read in German, which violated the language law that Nebraska had at that time. The language law prohibited a teacher to teach students in grades one through eight in a foreign language (Meyer v. Nebraska
  • Japanese internment camps

    Japanese internment camps
    During this time period Japanese schools are closed and the majority of Japanese people in the US are forced to live in Internment camps in which school was taught only in English and the people were punished for speaking Japanese. During this time there was a lot of anti-Japanese sentiment due to World War II.
  • Civil Rights Act: Title VI 1964

    Title VI provided equal rights to education without regard to race, color, national origin, or the limited proficiency of English.
  • Lau v. Nichols

     Lau v. Nichols
    The Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court ruling decided that students had a right to a bilingual education (Asian Americans an Overview, 2010).
  • The Proposition 227 in California

    Proposition 227 of California states that children will learn to speak English by being taught in English (Diaz-Rico, 2012). The children that have limited English proficiency will be taught using a sheltered English immersion program and will move gradually from the sheltered classroom to a mainstream classroom as they learn the language. Within one year students should be fully immersed in English classes and no longer in the sheltered classrooms.
  • No Child Left Behind Act, Title III

    No Child Left Behind Act, Title III
    Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act is meant to help children with a low proficiency in English who are also in high poverty areas become more successful. This is to be done by holding schools, local agencies, and states more accountable to how well the students do on academic achievement tests (Diaz-Rico, 2012).
  • William et al. v. State of California et al.

    William et al. v. State of California et al.
    The Williams et al. v. State of California et al case decided that California schools needed to provide access to textbooks, facilities and teachers that is equal to all students including ELL students (Diaz-Rico, 2012). The group of plaintiffs in this case claimed that the “substandard conditions in California schools were causing deprivation in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution” (Diaz-Rico 125). The settlement for this case required that the California sc