-
Meyer v. Nebraska
This case concluded that the banning of teaching other languages besides English in the classroom was wrong. It helped highlight the need for English learners knowing their own language. The case established that knowing another language did not hurt the learner. It was a step before discovering that other languages can help the learner in the classroom. With additional support in their own language, an English learner can be educated quicker. This case added to this cause. -
Farrington v. Tokushige
Legislature had passed laws to restrict the specific amount of time spent teaching in another language. The case found that this restriction violated parents' rights to determine their children's education. The case allowed states to determine public school language instruction, but parents could determine their children's language instruction outside of school. It allowed for English learners to be instructed in their own language, which could ultimately help them learn the content. -
Period: to
ESEA: The Elementary and Secondary Act
This act provided funding directly to students from low-income families. The funding would go directly to textbooks, resources, or special educational programs to help these students succeed. Due to many English learners being from low-income backgrounds, money would be able to go toward their educational needs. This act was reauthorized eight times to better represent students. -
Period: to
Title VII: The Bilingual Education Act
This act acknowledged the importance of providing additional help to English learners, which incorporated the use of bilingual programs. It would provide funding to bilingual programs, staff training, and programs to support English learners. -
EEOA: Equal Educational Opportunities Act
This law insists the equal treatment of all students no matter their race, color, sex, or national origin. The law requires that all students are provided with supports or provisions that aid in learning. For English learners, it advocates for schools to provide the resources they need to be successful. It reiterates the necessity for appropriate action to be taken to help these students overcome the language barrier. Schools are required by law to service them. -
Lau v. Nichols
This case was one of the first true advances for English learners. The case was created by parents of English learners who brought attention to the inadequate education of their children. The English learners were expected to learn with the same content, material, and criteria as their English native speaker counterparts. The case highlighted the inequality of English learners, and how school systems need to take active steps to help these English learners. -
Castaneda v. Pickard
Coming after EEOA, this case tried to establish what "appropriate action" (implemented in EEOA) should be taken for English learners. It did not advocate for bilingual education but founded ways for the school to better educate English learners. They concluded that ELL programs should be backed by proven educational ideas, and there should be resources to aid students. They also insisted that the resources used should be constantly evaluated to be proven useful for the student. -
Plyer v. Doe
The court found the law to hold school funds away from illegal immigrants unconstitutional. Students who were illegal immigrants were people who deserved the right to attend school. This case decision protected English learners and their specific immigrant status, which did not dictate how they were treated in the system. These students were required to have the same funding and assistance that any English learner was intended to receive. -
Gomez vs. Illonios State Board of Education
This case found that English learners were not being adequately taught in the classroom. There was no differentiation in place for these students to help extend their learning. The case reiterated the importance of the Castaneda v. Pickard instituted ELL program requirements. The requirements were essential to helping English learners truly get an equitable education. -
Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
This act replaced Title IV, dictating that there would be funds provided for students to learn English. The act also specified what type of instruction would be used for English Learners. The act specified how the language instruction education programs would help develop English fluency and use both English as well as the child's native language to help develop this English fluency. These students would have to meet Engish proficiency levels required by law. -
Period: to
NCLB: No Child Left Behind
A rendition of the ESEA that provides funding for low-income families, but also added specific requirements to be met by these students. Schools were required to have their English learners meet an adequate yearly progress that showed English proficiency growth. These requirements were attributed to Title III when NCLB was no longer inacted in 2015. -
Period: to
ESEA Flexibility
When states were not meeting adequate yearly progress, as dictated by NCLB, this act was created to help states not be affected by their failing status. The states would need to provide evidence that they were instigating healthy college expectations for students, were providing differentiation, and were instigating effective instruction in schools. This would provide reasonable expectations for English learners and natural growth in the English language with all the supports applied. -
ESSA: Every Student Succeeds Act
This was the most recent rendition of ESEA. It provides help to low-income families. This act takes features from both NCLB and ESEA flexibility to provide realistic accountability for states. It requires states to meet certain criteria but adds the flexibility for schools who do not automatically reach these standards. It emphasizes the importance of student growth from the previous year, and how the school achieves this goal. This act provides English learners with supports needed.
