Castaneda V. Pickard 2003 Summary

In 2001, NCLB established legislation in a sweeping overhaul of federal effort to support elementary and secondary education. The legislation (Section 11: Title III) holds school districts accountable for English proficiency and is based upon improved student achievement and accountability for results with an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research (Boward County Public Schools, 2010). With NCLB accountability, districts much describe how they will hold elementary and secondary schools accountable for meeting the goals and objectives for increasing the English proficiency of current ELL’s (Boward County Public Schools, 2010). Districts must also hold elementary and secondary schools accountable for meeting the goals and objectives for increasing academic achievement for all current and former ELL’s (Boward County Public Schools, 2010). Further required is an improvement plan that outlines interventions and procedures implemented if districts fail to meet the Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO). Procedures and implementation are monitored by SALA (Bureau of Student Achievement through Language Acquisition) (Florida Department of Education).

• The final decision in this case ruled that it is the State Department of Education’s responsibility to monitor programs for students who have limited proficiency in the English language.

“The NCLB law­—which grew out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive­­—significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers.” (Klein). In 1965, ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) was introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society Program to create a clear understanding of the Federal Government in K-12 school policy, which provided more that $1 billion

The primary goal of any school district’s English Language Learner policy should be to ensure that all students receive equitable access to the curriculum. The Office of Civil Rights memorandum (May 25, 1970) requires school districts to take affirmative steps to provide equal access to instructional program for students with limited English proficiency. The Illinois Constitution guarantees every child from kindergarten through grade 12, access to a free public education; which means, regardless of a child’s home language, he/she deserves a free and appropriate education (Illinois State Board of Education, 1998).

English language learners enrollment in the Council member districts has remained relatively stable over the past several years. In 2007-08, 1.1 million ELLs were enrolled in urban schools, accounting for 16.5 percent of total district enrollment. In 2009–10, 1.2 million ELLs were enrolled, accounting for 17.5 percent of total district enrollment (Uro & Barrio, p. 26, 2013). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 required students in grades three through eight to be tested every year in reading and math. While NCLB now holds educators more accountable with student learning, it now also tests English language learners (ELLs) in content areas (Coltrane, 2002, p.1). This denotes a question of validity and reliability with assessment. The

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

Efficient administrators must make certain their schools are in compliance with district, state, and federal educational guidelines. These statutes include identifying and delivering specified instructional lessons for students who qualify for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the students who qualify for ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages). Academic leaders who ensure compliance among these regulations and educate themselves on the appropriate instructional practices, will properly assist their teachers and students in finding academic success.

Honig vs. Doe is a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 20, 1988 (6-2) the California School Board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), (Steketee). After the school board suspended a student indefinitely for violent and disruptive behavior which was caused by his disability. Doe was a 17-year-old student who was taunted by his peers due to his physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits, (FreedomKentucky). Doe’s Individual Education Program (IEP) goal set was to improve his ability to relate to peers and control his impulses and anger. In November of 1980 Doe was overcome with anger and lashed out in an explosive manner where he choked a student with such force the student had abrasions on his neck, after the altercation he was being escorted to the principal’s office and during this process he also kicked out a school window in a moment of angry. Doe was suspended initially for 5 days the school board began the process of expulsion proceedings and informed the student’s family Doe would not be able to return to school until the proceedings were finalized. Doe qualified for special education services under the EAHCA and the suit was filed regarding “stay-put” act. The “stay-put” act allows children with disabilities to stay in their school environment while proceedings are under way unless teachers and the parents agree otherwise. Once the injunction was

In 1981, the parents of several school aged children of Mexican Origin filed a suit against Superintendent James Plyler, of Tyler, Texas, regarding immigration status. The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) case decision could not have happened prior to 1982, if numerous cases had not paved the way. Some of the significance cases were Vlandis v. Kline (412 U.S. 441 (1973)), which denied an individual an opportunity to present evidence they were a resident entitled to in-state-rates. In Weinberger v. Salfe (422 U.S. 771 (1975)), denied social security benefits to be paid to a mother and child after her husband died. In Toll v. Moreno (441 U.S. 458 (1978)), a student was financially depend upon a person who held a G-4 visa, granted to officers or employees of international organizations. In Elkins v. Moreno (435 U.S. 647 (1978), the student was refused in-state-status, whose parents were lived in Maryland.

In 1982, the Supreme Court decided Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley. A deaf student, named Amy Rowley enrolled in kindergarten in public school in Peekskill, New York. Amy’s parents met with school administrators to plan for her attendance and to determine what supplemental services would be necessary for her education. Amy was assigned a sign language interpreter for a short portion of her kindergarten year. After two weeks, the sign language interpreter reported that Amy did not need the services inside of the classroom. Once Amy fished her kindergarten year and started first grade, an IEP was prepared for Amy’s assistances. The IEP was provided to Amy and her parents that she would be kept in the

Developed By: Edwin C. Darden (director of education law and policy for Appleseed, a law instructor, and managing partner for The Education Advocacy Firm)

U.S. Dept. of Education. (n.d.). Elementary and Secondary Education Act | U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://www.ed.gov/esea

Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration. 1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling (qtd. in Stewart, par. 8).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA, first enacted in 1965 and previously reauthorized in 1994, encompasses Title I, the federal government's flagship aid program for disadvantaged students.

In order to address how and why agenda setting of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) came about, it is important to begin with addressing the education situation of 1965. According to McGuire (2008), the Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act