History of Bilingual Education in the United States

In 1967, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced a bill which proposed to provide assistance to school districts in establishing educational programs specifically for LESA students.(Limited English Speaking Ability)

The first federal recognition that LESA students have special educational needs and that in the interest of equal educational opportunity, bilingual programs that address those needs should be federally funded.
It also began the process of formally recognizing that ethnic minorities could seek differentiated services for reasons other
than segregation or racial discrimination.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/images/bilingual.jpg
Provisions: Grants were given to provide
1)resources for educational programs
2)training for teachers and teacher aides.
3)development and dissemination of materials
4)parent involvement projects

The Act did not explicitly require bilingual instruction or the use of the students' native language for educational purposes, but encouraged innovative programs designed to teach the students English. The Act also placed priority on low income families; non-English-speaking students from families with
moderate income levels were not included.

Title II of the Educational Amendments Act of 1974, the Equal Educational Opportunity Act, also affected the education of LESA students by specifically mentioning that language barriers were to be overcome by instructional programs. This Act effectively extended the Lau ruling to all students and
school districts, not only to those receiving federal funds. School districts were required to have special programs for LESA students regardless of federal or state funding.

This case was a class- action suit brought against the San Francisco school district, alleging that 1,800 Chinese students were being denied an equal education because of their limited English skills.

The Supreme Court overruled the lower courts, arguing that the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curricula do not constitute equal education.

They ruled that no student shall be denied "equal access" to any academic program due, due to "limited English proficiency."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png

To comply with the Lau v. Nichols ruling the HEW Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a set of guidelines.These guidelines served two primary purposes: to determine whether a school district was in compliance with the law and to provide guidance in the development of adequate educational plans aimed at correcting civil rights violations.

Under the 1984 Amendments, grants were awarded for several types of special programs for LEP students including:
1. transitional bilingual education programs, in which structured English language instruction is combined with a native language component and up to 40 percent of the class may be non-LEPstudents;
2. developmental bilingual education programs, in which full-time instruction is given in both English and a second language with the goal of achieving competence in both English and a
second language;
3. special alternative instructional programs in which the native language need not be used, but English language instruction and special instructional services are given to facilitate achievement of English competency.

The Amendments also stipulated that parents or guardians take a greater role in the education of LEP students. The schools were to explain why their child was selected for a Title VII program and inform them about available alternatives. The parents or guardians were also to be informed of their right to
decline enrollment in any of the Title VII programs and accept enrollment in mainstream classes.

Introduced a constitutional amendment that made English the sole official language of the United States.
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/assets/asset_upload_file137_12305.jpg

Hayakawa founds "U.S. English", a legislative organization.

twenty-five states had made English their official language.

was to increase flexibility in federal programs for LEP students to enable local school district to determine the best method of teaching LEP students. It went beyond the 1984 Amendments in (1) suggesting that school districts have the discretion to determine the extent of native language instruction required for special programs for LEP students, (2) calling for extensive parental involvement by requiring that parents or guardians be placed on advisory councils that were mandated for each school district, and (3) requiring school districts to demonstrate local capacity building to continue special programs without federal funds. Also, it clearly stated that the goal of programs
for LEP students was the rapid acquisition of fluency in English.

In addition, there is a three-year limit on a student's participation in a transitional bilingual education program or in special alternative instructional programs. Under special circumstances, a student may continue in a program for up to two additional years.

http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects05/be/comic.jpg

Similar to proposition 227 in California. Eliminates teaching students in any other language besides English.

Similar to proposition 227 in California and proposition 203 in Arizona. Eliminated bilingual education in Colorado's public schools.

By the 2005-06 school year, states were required to begin testing students in grades 3-8 annually in reading and mathematics. By 2007-08, they had to tests students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school. The tests had to be aligned with state academic standards.
http://teacherstraining.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/standardised-test-3.jpeg

By the end of the 2005-06 school year, every teacher in core content areas working in a public school had to be "highly qualified" in each subject he or she taught. Under the law, "highly qualified" generally meant that a teacher was certified and demonstrably proficient in his or her subject matter.
http://lifeschooling.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/nclb-logo1-150x150.jpg

States were required to bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state tests by the 2013-14 school year. Individual schools had to meet state "adequate yearly progress" targets toward this goal (based on a formula spelled out in the law) for both their student populations as a whole and for certain demographic subgroups. If a school receiving federal Title I funding failed to meet the target two years in a row, it would be provided technical assistance and its students would be offered a choice of other public schools to attend.

Particularly concerning its rules surrounding adequate yearly progress and the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013-14. Traditionally high-performing schools made headlines as they failed to meet their set rates of improvement, and states saw increasingly high rates of failure to meet the rising benchmarks. By 2010, 38 percent of schools were failing to make adequate yearly progress, up from 29 percent in 2006.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan launched a $5 billion proposal "Race to the Top" aimed at improving the teaching profession at every level.“Our goal is to support teachers in rebuilding their profession – and to elevate the teacher voice in shaping federal, state, and local education policy,”
http://americaspeaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RaceToTheTopIcon.jpg

Latino's have already surpassed African Americans as the nation's largest minority, and they are expected to make up to 25 percent of the total population of the country by 2050.