Andrew Davis
ED388B
Professor Hakuta
Draft of Ideas for Webpage
January 23, 2001
IDEAS FOR CONTENT OF WEB PAGES AND SUB-PAGES
Court Decisions (summaries with links to full text):
- Lau v. Nichols
- Castaneda v. Pickard
Policy Guideline Memorandums (summaries with links to full text):
- Pottinger memo (1970)
- Lau Remedies
- Other OCR memos
Important Events Related to Education of English Language Learners over the Past
Several Decades
- Chronology
- Summary of major shifts in policy for Federal Government
State Policies and Resources
- In-depth analysis of several key states (e.g., California, Florida, Texas, North
Carolina, Massachusetts, Arizona)
- Summary of policy for each state
- Compare and contrast state policies with examples – i.e., create different
scenarios and outline how the education and instructional methods would differ in
different states, regions, cities, etc.
- Eligibility procedures for state mandated tests
- Funding differences between states
o Funding formulas
o Totals per student
o Effect of variation in student classifications/definitions by state
Ballot Initiatives
- Proposition 227 (California)
- Proposition 203 (Arizona)
Congressional Acts
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1968 –
Bilingual Education Act
- Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)
Important Offices/Departments
- Federal level
o Office for Bilingual Education and Minority languages Affairs (OBEMLA)
o Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
-
State and local level (comparable offices/departments to OBEMLA and OCR in
state governments and/or local school districts (e.g., large urban school districts
like Los Angeles Unified or New York City)
Descriptions of Different Types of Instructional Programs for English Language Learners
- Bilingual
o Two-way
o Transitional
o Maintenance
- Immersion
- Primary Language
- ESL/ESOL
Glossary of Key Terms
Frequently Asked Questions
Links to articles, speeches, papers, editorials, and other publication organized by subject
area (and other ways)
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND POLICIES
CONGRESSIONAL ACTS:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated that there be no discrimination on the
basis of race, color or national origin in the operation of any Federally assisted
programs.
POLICY GUIDELINE MEMORANDUMS:
Summary of Memo (May 25, 1970) from J. Stanley Pottinger (Director, Office for Civil
Rights) to School Districts with More than Five Percent National Origin-Minority Group
Children:
The purpose of the memo was to explain and clarify Federal policy regarding the
responsibilities of these school districts to provide equal educational opportunities to
national origin-minority group children deficient in English language skills. In other
words, the memorandum spelled out the implications of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The memo did not direct school districts to establish bilingual education programs.
Rather, school districts were advised to pay special attention to four major areas of
concern related to compliance with Title VI:
1) School districts were instructed to take “affirmative steps” to open their
instructional programs to offer special language instruction to national originminority group children who have a limited command of the English language.
2) School districts were not allowed to: 1) assign these students to classes for the
mentally retarded “on the basis of criteria which essentially measure or evaluate
English language skills”; or 2) deny these students access to college preparatory
courses on the basis of the districts’ failures to teach them English.
3) All ability grouping or tracking systems used by the districts had to be designed
to provide special language instruction to these students and could not operate
as dead-end or permanent tracks.
4) Administrators had to communicate with parents in a language they could
understand to inform them of school activities and news.
MAJOR COURT DECISIONS:
Lau v. Nichols:
This Supreme Court decision, issued January 21, 1974, remains the only ruling by the
court on the rights of language-minority students. The case originated in 1970 when a
lawyer in San Francisco, Edward Steinman, filed a class action suit on behalf of a
client’s child, Kinney Lau, and approximately 1,800 other Chinese students in the San
Francisco Unified School District who did not speak English. Steinman alleged that these
children were being denied “education on equal terms” because of their inability to
speak, read, and write in English. These children, therefore, were failing in school
because they didn’t understand the language of instruction.
The Supreme Court’s decision in 1974, which overturned the rulings of Federal district
and appeals courts on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District officials,
decreed that the Chinese-speaking children were entitled to special language assistance
to allow them to participate more effectively in the schools’ instructional programs. When
delivering the opinion of the court, Justice William O. Douglas declared that “There is no
equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks,
teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively
foreclosed from any meaningful education.” The “sink or swim” approach to educating
children with limited command of English would no longer be an acceptable method of
instruction.
The Lau decision did not mandate the provision of bilingual education. Rather, the
school districts were given the authority to use their expertise to determine the best
approach for the limited English proficient children. That is, as Justice Douglas added in
the court’s opinion, “No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to students
of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to
this group in Chinese is another. There may be others.”
Castaneda v Pickard:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made its ruling in this case in 1981. The appellate
court relied on Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of
1974, which required school districts to take “appropriate action to overcome language
barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” In
its 1981 ruling, the court outlined the following criteria for a program serving limited
English proficient (LEP) children:
1) It must be based on a “sound educational theory.”
2) It must be “implemented effectively,” with adequate resources and personnel.
3) After a trial period, it must be evaluated as effective in overcoming language
handicaps.