Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Flores v. Arizona
377
Flores v. Arizona
Nogales Unified School District (NUSD)
2009
Background
Insert your own text here. Talk about something related to your first topic or just put some placeholder text here.
In 1992, a class law action suit is filed in federal district court.
- Plantiffs- Parents of children enrolled in the Nogales Unified School District.
- Plantiff Alleged cilvil rights of Limited English profiient (LEP) students were violated because the program of instruction did not include.
- Adequate language aquisition
- At risk
- Low Income
- Minority Students
Plantiffs argued state's inadequcy regarding LEP students was a violation of the Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA).
Miriam Flores
Miriam Flores
- Miriam Flores attended Coronado Elementary School in Nogales, AZ and began her first year in Kindergarten in 1991. She recieved all instruction in Spanish during her K-2 years. However in third grade, she recieved Monolingual English classes without bilingual assistance. Therefore, she did not understand what was going on in class.
Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA- 1974)
Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA- 1974)
The EEOA prohibits discrimination in education
Discrimination cand be defined by the EEOA as:
- Race and national origin
- Sex- based
- Religious
- Disabilities
- English Language Learners
Schools must work with LEP students to overcome barriers by:
- Providing LEP students with a program designed to make them competent in speaking, understanding reading and writing in English
- Students still recieve the standard curriculum taught to all students in the school district.
Case Background
Case Background
- Federal guidelines enforcing Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were being violated and were required to provide LEP students with a program designed to make them competent in speaking, understanding reading and writing in English.
- Flores v. Arizona got off to a slow start. William E. Morris originally filed the case on behalf of plantiffs from Nogales and Douglas that eventually dropped out on litigation. Morris initially filed the action seeking declaratory relief in federal court in 1992, but due to various delays, no decision was made on the merits of the case for eight years.
- to various delays, no decision was made on the merits of the case for eight years.
Timeline
- 1992- Flores v. State of Arizona was filed in federal district court
- 2000- (January)- District court declared Arizona's LEP program in violation of EEOA because funding level as it related to LEP students was " arbitrary and capricious."
- 2000- (August) - The State Board of Education and the Arizona Department of Education were forced to adopt official rules and policies as it pertained to LEP students.
- 2000- (November)- Voters approved Proposiion 203, which repealed existing bilingual education laws and enacted new ones.
- 2007 - ( September)- A task force for the state formally adopted SEI models that highlighted:
- Entry/ exit classification
- Classroom student grouping by proficiency levels
- Class size targe 20-23
- Four hours of English language development for the first year.
- 2007- (November) - A task force adopted the budget form developed by ADE (Arizona Department of Education) to fund SEI (Structured English Immersion) models.
- 2009- (June) The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the State Court which allowed the state to determine its own requirements with regard to ELL instruction.
Supreme Court Case Desicion
Insert your own text here. Talk about something related to your second topic or just put some placeholder text here.
Supreme Court Case Desicion
In a long-running case, the 9th Circuit appeals court ruled in February 2008 that Arizona must comply with a federal district court decision requiring it to do more to adequately fund instruction for English-language learners. The court rejected arguments that provisions in the No Child Left Behind law on ELL students significantly altered the law in this area and that the state had satisfied its obligations under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. The state has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court proceedings
Court proceedings
On August 24, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated the District Court’s
assessment of fines, removal of the AIMS
graduation requirement for ELL pupils and
rejection of HB 2064.
Decision was sent back to the district court in 2007.
The Courts
The Courts
Final Court Ruling
- State Public Instruction Superintendent Tom Horne petitions the SCOTUS to be released from court supervision.
- A 5-4 decision from SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower district court.
On June 25th, 2009: The United States Supreme Court overturned the decision of the state court. Allowing the state to determine its own requirements with regards to ELL instruction.
Final Court Ruling
Relevance to Case
Insert your own text here. Talk about something related to your third topic or just put some placeholder text here.
Relevance to our current society...
Figure 1. Percentage of public school students who were English language learners, by state: School year 2014–15
Relevance to our current society...
- The affects of this case greatly increase the barriers for language minority students.
- Studies have found that bilingual students have greater cognitive flexibility.
- Cultural benefits for bilingualism include keeping a relationship with your origin.
- A study in Florida suggests that fully bilinguals earn an average of up $7,000 more.
- Academically, it is easier for students to make the transfer of what they have been taught in their native language and transfer to English.
Local Connections to the case that highlight the number of ELL's in Dallas ISD.
In my local district the number of ELL's are steadily increasing. The case of Flores v. Arizona, along with other landmark cases like Lau v. Nichols and Plyler v.Doe pave the way for the rights of English Language Learners to be enforced all over the country.
Closing Remarks
Insert your own text here. Talk about something related to your fourth topic or just put some placeholder text here.
If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his own language, that goes to his heart.
‒Nelson Mandela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sffi2hDSMlE
References
(n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp