Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Bilingual Education Timeline

No description

Dora Celaya

on 19 September 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Bilingual Education Timeline

by Dora Celaya Following the Footsteps
of Bilingual Education The 13 Colonies were founded by people from diverse cultural & linguistic backgrounds. Linguistic and cultural tolerance were typical.
Languages such as English, German, Swedish, Dutch, French, and Welsh were commonly used.
Official documents were printed in English, French, and German. Colonial Period 1800's Instruction in Different Languages Education was offered in a great variety of languages: English, German, Dutch, French, Polish, Italian, Spanish, Czech, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish.

1828: The US government recognized the language rights of the Cherokee. However, native languages & cultures continued to be repressed.

1830s - 1840s: Bilingual education was offered in many religious and public schools. Some state legislatures passed laws authorizing instruction in two languages (Ohio, Louisiana and New Mexico).

1879: American Indian children were sent to boarding schools and many native languages began to be lost.

By the end of the century, there was an increasing demand for immigrants to assimilate the American culture and the English language. 1850s - 1950s: Spanish speakers received mandatory English-Only instruction.

Bilingual and/or non-English instruction was offered in Czech. In Texas The Constitution left out an official language and state and local governments decided on the language used for instruction. 1900 - 1910: Over 8 million immigrants entered the US into an "Americanization" process.

By 1919, 15 states had passes laws that favored English-Only instruction.

1920s: Quota system for immigration reduced the entrance of many nationalities. This caused second generation immigrants to stop using their native language. Bilingual education disappeared.

1920s - 1960s: Language minority students were submersed in English-Only instruction (sink or swim) and were punished for using their native languages in school.

As many other important Civil Rights issues, education was widely affected by the Civil Rights movement all over the country, through a series of Court Cases and Legal Documents. 1900s 1964 Civil Rights Act 1981 & 1982
US vs Texas 1974 Lau vs Nichols 1977 Rios vs Reed 1970 Diana vs
Board of Education 1946 Mendez vs Westminster 1981 Castañeda vs Pickard 1972 & 1974
Serna vs Portales 1974 ASPIRA vs New York 1965 Elementary & Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) 1954 Hernández vs Texas 1958 National Defense
Education Act 1918 - English- Only rule in education is instituted.
1920 - The "Escuelitas" Program initiates: schools in the south of Texas providing home-based reading and writing instruction in Spanish.
1964 - The Laredo School District became the first to offer bilingual education in Texas.
1969 - The English-Only legislation was officially ended with the HB 103 bill, which launched non-mandatory bilingual education programs in the state, through grade 6. Texas and New Mexico became the first states to repeal English-Only laws.
1973 - Title VII ESEA funding is granted to 19 school districts in Texas to implement bilingual education programs.
1973 - SB 121 amends the Texas Education Code, allowing the first Bilingual Education and Training Act (mandated bilingual education from grades 1 through 6).
1981 - SB 477 expands bilingual education and/or special language programs for students from kindergarten through grade 12 (bilingual education in elementary levels, bilingual or ESL in middle school, and ESL in high school.
1996 - the Commissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating Limited English Proficient Students: gives a detailed interpretation of bilingual education and special language programs. In Texas... Desegregation case for Mexican Americans in California
The court ruled in favor of Mendez based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling on the grounds that the segregation law only applied to the Chinese or Japanese.
It did not challenge the "Separate but Equal Doctrine". Pete Hernández was found guilty by an all-white jury.
After unsuccessfully appealing to the Texas Supreme court, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hernández.
Although this case is not directly related to education, the final ruling held that the 14th Amendment provides equal protection to all minorities. The competitiveness brought forth by the Cold War and the Russian launch of Sputnik triggered the US to seek international status and power.
Through the National Defense Education Act, the federal government provided funds to expand the instruction of foreign languages. Title VI prohibits institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
This served as the foundation of numerous court cases that sought support for education of language minority students. 1964 Civil Rights Act In 1970 the OCR issued a memorandum to all schools requiring them to offer adequate support in the instruction of language minority students.
It also prohibited the use of data relying on language for assigning students to special education programs. 1970 The Office for Civil
Rights Memorandum This prohibits states receiving federal funds to deny equal learning opportunities to people based on race, color, sex, or national origin.
Unlike Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, this applied to ALL schools, not just those receiving federal funds.
Establishes that equal opportunities go beyond equal facilities and access to teachers and schools must offer support for students who have trouble with English. 1974 Equal Educational
Opportunities Act To provide funding for public education.
Title I specifically addresses children from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The Bilingual Education Act (Title VII) was added in 1968 to provide funding to help ELLs, although it didn't mandate bilingual education. 1973-1974: bilingual education was officially referred to as a means to face the needs of ELLs.

1978: the transitional nature of the approach to address the needs of ELLs is specified and the use of federal funds in language developmental/maintenance programs is prohibited.

1984: part of the legislation eliminated the restrictions for funding developmental/maintenance programs set in 1978 and promoted the creation of "developmental/maintenance bilingual education programs" through special grants. It also provided more funding for teacher preparation, gearing towards an enrichment approach.

1994: ESEA was renamed as the Improving America's School Act and School Reform. It allowed English proficiency students to participate in the bilingual education programs and opened the door to dual language models. Finally, it provided special funds to prepare bilingual teachers. Key Changes to ESEA Diana was placed in a classroom for mildly retarded students after taking an IQ test in English.
The court ruled that students should be tested in their native language.
For a more detailed account, visit: http://www.glogster.com/diana1970/diana-v-state-board-of-education/g-6lo499copossjank8gsaua0 The first successful court case that sought support for bilingual education.

The federal court mandated the school district in Portales, New Mexico to create a bilingual-bicultural curriculum, review assessment methods for Hispanic students, and recruit bilingual teachers.

In 1974, the court of appeals backed the ruling based on the veredict on the Lau vs Nichols case. A class action suit was presented on behalf of 1,790 Chinese students who were failing because they didn't understand English.
Although the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, it didn't offer a solution.
The district was mandated to provide "meaningful education" to students of limited English proficiency.
This case became the "facto" tool for the implementation of bilingual education in the United States. ASPIRA, a community organization, sued the City of New York seeking relief for ELLs.
Although the case was settled after the Lou ruling, the court mandated the city to carry out assessment and identification of students needing special language services. It also required it to implement an appropriate bilingual education program. This court case addressed the quality of the bilingual education program.
The court ruled that providing a "half-hearted" bilingual program violated the rights of ELLs.
It also acknowledged the need to provide meaningful education while teaching English language.
It called for instruction in L1 while English proficiency was developed. Once again the quality of bilingual education was put on the table. This time in Raymondville, Texas as a violation to the EEOA of 1974.
The court mandated quality bilingual education programs based on sound research, adequate research, and opportunities for all students to have access to the curriculum.
This ruling also pushed schools to check if their programs met the requirements of the laws regarding bilingual education and discrimination. US District Judge William Wayne Justice declared that the state of Texas had segregated Mexican American students and "vilified" the Mexican language and culture.
His ruling mandated the state of Texas to provide Mexican American students with bilingual education from kindergarten through 12th grade.
The ruling was reversed later, but the case pushed the governor to appoint a task force for the creation of a plan for bilingual education. Title I and III (formerly Title VII) directly affect the education of language minority students.
Title I requires school districts to hire teachers for low-income language-minority students who are fully certified and proficient in the languages of instruction No Child Left Behind Public schools, school districts, and states are required to be evaluated for the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Sets accountability measures in Reading/Language Arts, Math, and Graduation or Attendance Rate.

Requires the Texas Education Agency to compare its AMAOs to the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS).

It consolidates the services and funding for language minority students with the Emergency Immigrant Education Program. Other Key Provisions of NCLB Promotes English language development and allows flexibility for local governments regarding the implementation of programs.
Its emphasis is on English language acquisition and not on bilingualism.
Financial penalties are specified for states and districts that fail to meet the "benchmarks" for second language acquisition.
Funds are provided to the states according to a formula based on the number of ELLs and immigrant students. 95 % of this funding must be used in direct instruction of ELLs. Title III - The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement,
and Academic Achievement Act Local Education Agencies are accountable for ELLs' English language development and must explain to parents why their children are placed in special language program. In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act
restructured the entire educational system. All districts must develop Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) to monitor student progress in reaching English proficiency. Regardless of the great advances not only in research of bilingual education, but also regarding its application in the classroom, bilingual education continues to face many challenges. However, these challenges will bring forth greater changes. The 21st Century promises a great growth in this area and I can't wait to be a part of it all. BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Full transcript