History and Policy of English Language Programs

1. Federal Legislation and Court Decisions

Federal Legislation and Court Decisions

1964 Civil Rights Act Title VI was passed as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and the historic Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court Decision. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. In the words of President John F. Kennedy (1963): Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination. 

1968  Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) offering capacity building in the form of grants to local districts and states to develop and offer educational programs in the native language. Although the bilingual programs were primarily transitional in intent—that is, the native language would be provided as a temporary support for several years during which children learned sufficient English to survive—this transitional period also supported a point of view with respect to maintenance bilingualism. Advocacy for the value of bilingualism created a counterforce from new coalitions such as U.S. English (founded in 1983 by S. I. Hayakawa) and other defenders of the melting pot ideal who wanted to support the common language of English. The Official English movement should not be confused with “English Only”. The former is primarily concerned with guaranteeing that non-English speaking immigrants become proficient in English as quickly and effectively as possible. The “English Only” movement is an off-shoot of various anti-immigration movements in the United States and would prohibit the use of languages other than English in public places and signage.  Out of the disagreements between those who supported bilingual education and those whose emphasis is solely on the attainment of English proficiency came two important questions:

(a) Is bilingual education effective?

(b) How long does it take for students to learn enough English to perform successfully in school and careers?

The answers to these two questions are based on research discussed in Module 2 and in chapter 4 below.

1974 Lau v. Nichols,  a class-action suit brought on behalf of a student in the San Francisco Unified School District, Kinney Lau. Lau claimed that the district did not provide access to English language acquisition or to a meaningful curriculum for children who were limited in their English proficiency and that this violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin. Lau v. Nichols (1974) was decided unanimously in favor of plaintiffs by the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling 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.”

One consequence of Lau was that students with limited proficiency in English became a protected class, that for these students the same treatment did not constitute equal treatment, and that schools bore an affirmative obligation to address both the language and curricular needs of the students. More than even the prior legislation prohibiting discrimination, Lau v. Nichols pushed further into the educational sphere, requiring answers to questions about what kind of education constitutes “equality of treatment”. 

1974 The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) codified the Lau decision, prohibiting discrimination against faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requiring school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation.

1981 Castaneda v. Pickard. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of “appropriate action” as stated in the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. This decision ruled that determination of “appropriate action” should be guided by three standards:

1) the educational approach should be based on sound educational theory;

2) the educational approach should be implemented adequately; and

3) the approach should be  evaluated for its effectiveness in remedying the inequity.

Note: An implicit fourth standard was that if an approach is not effective, the implementation or the theory must be revised until the inequity is remedied. 1994 reauthorization of ESEA as Improving America’s Schools (IASA) was a product of the Standards-based reform movement which emerged following publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Influenced by federal legislation such as Goals 2000, the implications of this movement moved education of ELLs from a “categorical” approach (identifying classes of students and paying for education services that targeted their needs) to a focus on outcomes.  With standards-based reform, the goal was high standards for all – including English Language Learners.

2004 NCLB The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), as the 2004 reauthorization of ESEA (1965) is known, further focused reform on the assessment and accountability components of the emerging standards based educational reform movement. If a school did not meet progress targets for achievement, various actions were triggered.  In a bow to the U.S. English (Official English) movement, Congress renamed the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and it is now Title III of ESEA and called the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Furthermore, NCLB required each state to adopt English language proficiency standards and an aligned assessment.

2. The State of Florida: Consent Decree and Stipulations to the Consent Decree

1990 Florida Consent Decree. Based on the Civil Rights and ESEA legislation, the Lau (1974) decision, and the Castaneda (1981) decisions the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed suit against the state of Florida (1990) for violating the civil rights of Latin American students in its schools.)  The Consent Decree stipulated that all teachers must receive training in working with ESOL students. Elementary majors and secondary English majors in Florida teacher education programs must have 15 credit hours of ESOL training. Practicing elementary and secondary English teachers have the option of obtaining 15 credit hours or 300 professional development hours in ESOL. All other pre-service teachers, including physical education teachers, must have a minimum of three credit hours of ESOL training. Practicing physical education teachers may opt for three credit hours or 18 professional development in-service hours. As linguistic diversity increases in the United States, other states may adopt similar requirements. 

2003 Stipulated Agreement to Consent Decree. LULAC returned to court in 2003, arguing that the State of Florida had not achieved the necessary level of ESOL teacher training to accomplish the goal of academic equality for English Language Learners. On September 10, 2003, the State Board of Education and LULAC, through META representation, signed an agreement, a negotiated modification to the 1990 Consent Decree. The Stipulated Agreement, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno, is currently active in all of Florida's school districts. The Stipulated Agreement does not diminish any options for ESOL endorsement or coverage outlined in the 1990 Consent Decree. It does, however, expand some of the original provisions.

First, it provides an additional option through which a certified teacher may obtain ESOLcoverage.

Second, the amendment requires training, including post-certification hours, for all persons holding administrative and guidance counselor positions (60 hours).

Third, the new 2003 amendment allows the plaintiffs to secure access to the ESOL teacher test and provide input that becomes part of the test’s design.

(see Policy Brief 2004) pp. 5.5 et al for details of  1) Identification and Assessment 2) Equal access to appropriate programming, 3) Equal access to appropriate categorical and other programs for ELLs, 4) Personnel (see below), 5) Monitoring issues and 6) Outcome Measures. 

3. Research on Bilingual Education and ELL Outcomes

When it comes to English acquisition, native-language instruction is part of the solution, not part of the problem, according to Krashen and McField’s 2005 review of the latest evidence on bilingual education.   Based on 12 years of data from a large school district, looking at four distinct linguistic instructional environments: English immersion, transitional bilingual, maintenance bilingual, and dual immersion the study investigated whether reclassification timing, patterns, or barriers differ by linguistic program.

They found that reclassification patterns differ meaningfully between English immersion and two-language programs.  Students in English immersion perform better on English language tests in the elementary grades, but students in two-language (bilingual) programs catch up and surpass their English immersion peers by the end of Middle School.  This pattern holds, not only for reclassification, but also when examining academic ELA achievement and English reading, writing, speaking, and listening proficiency. These findings support both theory and research on second language acquisition and bilingual instruction. Both Transfer theory and Proficiency Theory suggest that acquiring a solid foundation in one’s native language makes it easier to acquire proficiency in a second language.

Secondary school teachers whose classes consist largely of working class students whose parents, although native English speakers, did not complete high school, would concur with these findings.  Students, whose native English consists of “basic interpersonal communication”, need to be deliberately taught the vocabulary of “academic English” in order to grasp the concepts necessary to meet subject area standards for high school completion.

Why does an extended period of instruction in “first language” support higher second language proficiency in the upper grades? The basic reason has to do with the development of knowledge about social studies, science, mathematics, and literature.  ELLs can develop Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) immersed in English-only settings.  Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) requires understanding academic concepts which can be used for reading, writing, speaking and listening in the academic subject areas.  These are more efficiently learned in the student’s first language, and then transfer with less difficulty to second language/English instruction and production. 

In practice, the research implies that:

1) in addition to permitting a longer period of engagement with “first language” content instruction, schools must also insure that ELLs are able to enroll in other classes as well as their “bilingual immersion” classes. 

2) teachers are properly prepared to teach ELLs within mainstream classes.

3) English language instruction is embedded in content area classes.

4) districts need to be be less concerned with how long students have been classified as ELL and more focused on making sure students take English-language content courses which allow for interaction with native English speaking students, and are taught by teachers properly prepared to provide the necessary support.

4. What This Course Means For Me

What does this mean for me? 

There are several important reasons why all of this policy and history of ESOL programs is important to me as an educational professional, and as person working with speakers of other languages. They are outlined below:

A. The history of immigrant achievement in 20^th century America shows that school success is a key factor, and that proficiency with cognitive academic language is necessary to school success.

B. The Civil Rights Movement, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with Title VI prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin, is what kicked it all of.

C. In 1968, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and funding became available for a wide array of educational programs intended to prevent educational discrimination against English Language Learners.  It was during the period immediately following this legislation that the question of how to include ELLs in educational programs became the subject of research and of experimentation in schools of education.

D.  Personnel Requirements of the 2003 Stipulations to the Consent Decree

1. Teachers of Basic ESOL or primary English and Language Arts who need ESOL endorsement must complete 300 in-service points (measured as 300 inservice hours) or 15 college semester hours in the areas of Methods of Teaching ESOL, ESOL Curriculum and Materials development, Cross-Cultural Communication and Understanding, Applied Linguistics, and Testing and Evaluation of ESOL.
2. Teachers of basic subject areas (mathematics, science, social studies, computer literacy) assigned in classrooms which have English Language Learners must learn ESOL strategies through the completion of 60 in-service points or the equivalent college credit of three semester hours.
3. Teachers assigned to instruct English Language Learners in other subject areas must complete inservice training equivalent to 18 in-service points or three semester hours.

References:

Hakuta, Kenji.( 2011) Educating Language Minority Students and Affirming Their Equal Rights: Research and Practical Perspectives. Educational Researcher, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 163–174

Technical Assistance for Teacher Preparation: Meeting the Needs of English Language Learners (ELL) in Florida. Florida Department of Education. Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Development. 2011

James Crawford’s Language Policy Website and Emporium http://www.languagepolicy.net/index.html

MacDonald, Victoria-Maria. (2004).The Status of English Language Learners in Florida: Trends and Prospects - Policy Brief. EDUCATION POLICY STUDIES LABORATORY. Education Policy Research Unit EPSL-0401-113-EPRU http://edpolicylab.org

Krashen, S. and McField, G. (2005). Reviewing the Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education. Language Learner November/December (2005). http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/RCN/Krashen-McField.pdf

Retrieved 2/23/2015 from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/biling.htm

Umansky, Ilana M. and Reardon, Sean F. Reclassification Patterns among Latino English Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms Educational Research Journal October 2014, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 879–912