The first case was United States v. Texas (1971, 1981). Citing José Cardenas’ testimony that English language learners (ELLs) were failing not because of their own shortcomings, but because of the school system’s failings, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the creation of a bilingual program. The objective of the program would be to not only help Spanish-speaking students learn English and get accustomed to American culture, but also to help Anglophone students learn Spanish. This ruling represents a step of progress since Lau because Lau only served to help ELLs catch up to the mainstream curriculum.
Another landmark case was Serna v. Portales (1974), which concerned a white-majority school district in New Mexico that failed to meet the educational needs of students with Spanish last names (argued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The court ruled that this argument was valid--school districts (not just the one being sued) had the responsibility to implement bilingual programs to satisfy the needs of every student. As in Lau, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that school districts could not ignore the needs of ELL students.
Yet another influential case was Aspira v. New York (1975). In 1972, Puerto Ricans in New York sought to obtain equal educational opportunities as their white counterparts and filed suit against the New York Board of Education. The main result of this case was the Aspira Consent Decree, a pivotal decree that mandated transitional bilingual programs for students with Spanish last names who spoke Spanish better than English. Although the Decree is frequently criticized by opponents of bilingual education, it serves as a framework for many language education models across the country.
Finally, Rios v. Reed further championed bilingual education in New York in 1978. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Puerto Rican parents argued that many bilingual programs were bilingual in name only. That is, they had little to no native language instruction and were based mostly on the English as a second language model (ESL). The federal court ruled that the district’s bilingual programs were indeed inadequate. Specifically, they lacked curriculum standards, entrance and exit requirements, and trained teachers. While the court did not suggest any fixes, the Office of Civil Rights ensured that the district made improvements, and this case showed that it matters how, not just if, a bilingual program is implemented.
Food for thought: the federal court in Rios clearly struggled to fix the problem it pointed out. What sorts of legislation might be able to regulate bilingual education program quality? How can such legislation be extended, implemented, and enforced across the country?
Sources:
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/landmark-court-rulings-regarding-english-language-learnershttp://www.maldef.org/education/litigation/us_v_texas/index.html
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/444296
Interesting topic. Due to the rise of globalization, a lot of people across America's political spectrum are recognizing the globalizing forces on the economy and political systems of putting people in contact with one another from diverse places. In areas such as Southern California, the southwest and Miami, a lot of Latino students can communicate bilingually but are unable to study Spanish literacy. In our state, Californians voted to pass a ballot measure known as Proposition 227 that imposed wide reaching restrictions on bilingual education (effectively banning it) in 1998. This was repealed by Proposition 58 on November 8, 2016.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/12/bilingual-education-programs-_n_5138927.html