-
1828 & 1879 Treaties between US Government and Cherokee Tribe
1828 Treaty- US Govt. recognized language rights of Cherokee tribe
21 schools established
Cherokee language used
90% literacy rate 1879 US Govt. forced Native American children to attend off reservation schools
English only taught
Punished for speaking native language English settlers’ descendants resent waves of immigrants that followed
Jews, Italians, Slavs and later Mexicans and Asians
Force English only instruction in public and private schools -
WWI: The Criminalization of German, Japanese and Spanish, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
WWI:
-Various states criminalize the use of German in all areas of public life.
-15 states legislated English as the basic language of instruction.
-Japanese language schools were closed during World War II
-Up until the late 1960”s, "Spanish Detention"
Meyer v. Nebraska -Prohibited coercive language restriction.
-The “frenzy of Americanization” changed public attitudes
-By the late 1930’s bilingual instruction was virtually eradicated due to pressures of assimilation. -
Title VI of Civil Rights Act (1964) & May 25th Memorandum (1970)
Title VI of Civil Rights Act (1964)
Set minimum standard for the education of any student by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. -
Bilingual Education Act 1968 & all the Amendments
Bilingual Education Act 1968
· $85 million to fund programs for
children ages 3-8
· Funds were to support:
Education programs,
Train teachers and aides,
Develop & disseminate
instructional materials
Encourage parental involvement
·Amendments (attempt to clarify program designs) -
Bilingual Education Act 1968 Title VII amendment to 1965 ESEA
Bilingual Education Act 1968
Title VII amendment to 1965 ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
· Passed by the Fed Govt
· Non-English speakers were considered educationally disadvantaged
· Bilingual education provided resources to compensate
for their “handicap” of not speaking English
· Federal aid to bilingual education was seen as
a “remedial” program rather than an
innovative approach to language instruction. -
Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools (1972)
Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools
First case that federal courts began to enforce Title Ⅵ of the Civil Rights Act.
Judy Serna’s mother filed a lawsuit against Portales Municipal School District for unequal educational opportunities.
A federal judge ordered instruction as part of a desegregation plan:
Native language
Native culture
Bilingual/bicultural curriculum -
Lau v. Nichols (1974) Alexander v. Sandoval (2001)
Supreme Court ruled:
providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum is not equality. Therefore, educational practices that excluded children from effective education on the basis of language was made illegal.
Violating Students civil rights based on discriminatory effect rather than discriminatory intent
- chinese-speaking students in SF could sue for discriminatory effect.
-overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001. intent must be proven. -
Section 204(f) of The Equal Education Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974
Affirmed the Fed Govt has a special and obligation to uphold Act by state and dist. levels.
Legislative changes include: a) eliminating poverty as a requirement, b) included Native American children as eligible c) providing for English - speaker to enroll in bilingual programs, d) funding for teacher training, e) technical support for program development f) develop and disseminate materials.
U.S. Commissioner of Education followed Lau Remedies of 1975 to give robustness to the programs. -
Rios v. Read (1977)
Addressed the lack of unqualified administrators in a local school district and the inadequacy of the bilingual program (based on ESL)
Brought to light 1) the role of teachers 2) accountability of districts administrators to implement culturally appropriate bilingual programs.
1978 Title VII
1) Instruction in English be designed for competency in English. 2) English speakers in bilingual programs were to help improve English skills, 3) parents were to be included in design of programs -
English as the Official Language Movement of the 1980s
In order to naturalize immigrants coming into US
English language mandated ubiquitously in US
Discriminatory legislation towards multilingual
Ballots and voting material
Programs along with cut of funding -
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981)
Be based on “sound educational theory”
“Implemented effectively”
“Evaluated as effective in overcoming language barriers”
Bilingual teachers (qualified)
English language tests not standard for children -
Plyer v. Doe (1982)
1982 Supreme Court decision
- under 14th amend. States cannot deny school enrollment to children of illegal immigrants. -Forbade immigration agents from raiding schools in deportation sweeps -Freed educators from role of enforcing citizenship as requirement for schooling -
The 1984 Reauthorization of Title VII
This provided two types of bilingual programming
Transitional- period of support before mainstreaming
Developmental- supports language development/competence in both languages. -
Idaho Migrant Council v. BOE (1981), Keyes v. School Dist. #1 (1983) & Gomez v. Illinois SBOE (1987)
-
1988 Title VII Reauthorization
-
California Prop. 227
Although federal protections for English Learners (EL) continue--states are more concerned with their own autonomy, than with the rights of EL.
In 1998 California passed Prop. 227, which stated that EL students were to be taught in an English only mainstream classroom-regardless of their English Proficiency.
After Prop 227 was successful in CA, its backers funded anti-bilingual education laws in AZ, CO, and Mass. All but CO were enacted. -
Improving America's Schools Act IASA (1994) & Goals 2000
Amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 within the framework of the “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” (1994)
Provisions for reinforcing professional development programs.
Increasing attention to language maintenance and foreign-language instruction.
Improving research and evaluation at state and local levels.
Additional funds for immigrant education. -
Title III of ESEA-NO Child Left Behind (2001)
Federal funding contingent on EL student performance on standardized testing (STAR)
“Must meet the same challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet”
Short sighted punitive sanctions caused more harm to low income schools with large populations of ELs
