Bilingual Education Act

Long before Question 2, federal laws have impacted the education of English language learners. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, minority students were educated in “sink or swim” English immersion classes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. ELLs were not offered much support in their English learning. Four years later, English language learners were specifically addressed in Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, also known as The Bilingual Education Act, which established federal policy for bilingual education to allocate funds for innovative programs, and recognized the unique educational disadvantages faced by non-English speaking students. Between 1978 and 1994, there were several amendments to Title VII:

Bilingual education has been a debatable subject since its conception during the case of Lau vs. Nichols, in the early 1970’s. However, in that case, the court only ruling was that the children’s

• In 2001, No Child Left Behind replaced the Bilingual Education Act. This new bill was focused primarily on English Language Learners and brought about drastic change in both bilingual education and bilingualism

Movements for bilingual education rose in 1974 with the Equal Education Opportunity Act and Bingual Education Act, which ordered federally funded schools to meet special educational needs for students not proficient in English. Unfortunately, dropout rates and lack of English-language proficiency alarmed the states that these bilingual programs were not efficent. Because of this, arguments between English-only advocates and supporters of bilingual educations emerged. Articles such as the New York Times have proclaimed the failures of bilingual education. One cause could be the resistance of immigrants from English language acquisition, who hold tight onto their first language and culture. Despite this, studies show that generations

Around 1959, bilingual education took flight in the United States. Starting in Miami and quickly making its way San Francisco, bilingual education soon led to the Bilingual Education Act, which promoted “No Child Left Behind”. Only twenty years later, the act acquired the attention of high schools around the country. Nonetheless, bilingual education is not always taken to be the cure-all for acclimating immigrants to the United States. In his article “Aria: A Memoir of Bilingual Childhood”, Richard Rodriguez argues that students should not take part in bilingual education by explaining how it takes away individuality and a sense of family through the use of ethos, diction, and imagery; Rodriguez also uses parallelism and ethos to point out how a bilingual childhood can help students feel connected to society.

In the article, Speak Spanish, You’re in America!: El Huracan over language and Culture, Juan Gonzalez, a journalist and broadcaster of the daily show, Democracy Now, describes how bilingualism has impacted the United States’ modern education system. He describes an amendment that would constitute English as the official in the United States, which he believes can be a potential threat to the educational system. Gonzalez suggests that instead of having an amendment that constitutes English as the national language, American schools should implement Spanish to highlight the importance of being bilingualism in the American educational system. A constitutional amendment declaring English as the national language would be damaging to bilingual students because it would limit their capability of communicating in English or their native language, and therefore they have would fall behind in classes and will not succeed in the American educational system. To highlight the importance of bilingualism, even more the educational system should implement a variety of languages.

School principals will find in the following lawsuits the legal framework to provide educational services to ELLs in public schools. Baker (1997) points out that a landmark case in favor of bilingual education in the United States was a lawsuit in 1970. The case was a class-action suit brought by the parents of nearly 3000 Chinese students against the San Francisco School District (Lyons, 1990). This case originated that in 1974 the Unites States Supreme Court handed down its only substantive decision regarding the responsibilities of school districts serving ELLs (Lyons, 1990). The court indicated that under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Chinese students were entitled to receive specific support to allow them full participation in the school program (Crawford, 1989). This case was known as Lau v. Nichols and its verdict outlawed English submersion programs for language minority students, and resulted in nationwide ‘Lau Remedies’ (Baker, 1997). Lyons (1990) writes that the ‘Lau Remedies’ specified how to identify and evaluate language minority students, determine appropriate instruction, decide when ELLs were ready for mainstream, and determine the professional standards expected of teachers serving language minority students. Under the Lau Remedies school districts were encouraged to provide

Proposition 58 would undo almost 20 years of regulations limiting bilingual education. It repeals the English-only immersion requirements, along with the waiver provisions of the 1998 Proposition 227. Currently, under Proposition 227, all education is conducted exclusively in English, with a few exceptions. These exceptions include voluntary education programs, such as dual emersion classes, where students concurrently learn English and a second language. In effect, this proposition would bring back programs where students, that are not fully fluent in English, have education in both English and their native language. I understand the educational value of bilingual classrooms; however, I am concerned that it would cause segregation and significant disadvantages for students.

The greatest concern of mandating “English only” schools in California for example is that 80 percent of the population of students is Latino. Miner further explains, “Good bilingual programs are about more than learning a language, it should be about respect for diversity and multiculturalism (Bilingual Education, 1999).”

I completely agree with you that the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 is a great program that provides assistance to students with limited English speaking ability. With this bill, many immigrant students have the same opportunity to learn in a new language. As you stated above, the Brown vs Board of Education Act of 1954 is one of the most important against the segregation in public school. However, we can say that more need to be done to resolve the problem of racial and segregation in this country.The supreme court had to order and reinforce the segregation ruling over and over in making sure that every student has access to an equal education regardless the color of their

At the beginning of the century, Bilingual education was not only absent in Texas public schools, it was illegal. The “English Only” law was passed in 1918. The law made it illegal for educators to use another language in classrooms and charged educators with a misdemeanor for using languages other than English in a classroom unless the class was a foreign language class. The apparent issue with the “English Only” law in Texas is that students could not understand their teachers and were not given a real opportunity to learn English. Texas still feels the weight of poor education policies that stayed far too long. Bilingual Education was illegal in Texas until 1969.

It is no secret that the debate over what is the best course of action to educate our non-native English language students across the country is a highly charged topic that runs from the classroom to Capitol Hill. There have been many shifts in direction and focus of educational programs for English Language Learning (ELL) students during the past century in our nation's history. In 1968, with the passage of the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) legislation was

Jarvis encourages the reader to think of language as right, as problem, and as resource. If language was seen as right during the Civil Rights Movement, by focusing on programs to fight social inequality due to language barriers, then in the 1980s, Jarvis asserts, language was seen as problem. Jarvis states that the English-only movement that began in the 1980s, spearheaded in part by John Tanton and California Senator S.I. Hayakawa, contributed to the 1998 passing of California proposition 227. Jarvis asserts that a five-year evaluation of proposition 227 found inconclusive evidence in demonstrating whether “structured immersion” was more effective over bilingual education (pg. 273). This report suggested shifting from the immersion/bilingual debate and focusing on a new paradigm. Jarvis suggests that in search of this new paradigm, focus must be put on viewing language as a resource. For instance, Jarvis uses San Diego County Public Schools as an example of a human capital approach. This approach seeks to preserve and develop students’ first language skills, while further developing their English skills. Jarvis says it is important to recognize that bilingual success is a community

This legislation undermined the English-only legislation still official in some states (Baker, 1997). The original Bilingual Education Act of 1968 had the following main purposes: “(1) increase English-language skills. (2) maintain and perhaps increase mother-tongue skills, and (3) support the cultural heritage of the student” (Leibowitz, 1980, p. 24). According to Crawford (1989), the White House exerted pressure on Congress to approve no funding for Title VII during the first year. In 1969, a scanty appropriation of $7.5 million was sufficient to just fund projects that served 27,000 ELLs (Crawford, 1989). Crawford (1989) states that about 112,000 ELLs were served in 1972 out of the estimated 5 million school age

In this literature review I will be discussing studies that are in favor, not in favor, and neutral on bilingual education.