LAWS, LEGISLATION AND LEGAL DECISIONS

EFFECTING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Cristina HudginsMiddle Tennessee State University

Cmh3j.mtsu@gmail.com

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT-1964Brief Overview: “No person in the U.S. shall,

on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assisstance…”

(Title VI, Civil Rights Act)

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT-1964The Impact on ESL Education:

It requires states to offer all students, even non-native English speakers, an equal opportunity to receive an equal education.

It “prohibit[s] denial of equal access to education because of a student’s limited proficiency in English” (Federal Law and English Language Learners).

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT-1964The Impact on ESL Education continued: Programs to teach ELL students

should NOT be designed as a ‘fast track’ to learning English.

Parents of ELL students should receive information and notices in a language they can understand.

ELL students will NOT be placed in special education classes because they are not proficient in English.

SUPREME COURT CASE LAU V. NICHOLS-1974Brief Overview:

Giving students the same desks, books, teachers and lessons does not necessarily constitute an equal education.

Students who have little to no proficiency in English are still cut off from the instruction and therefore do not receive an equal education.

SUPREME COURT CASE LAU V. NICHOLS-1974The Impact on ESL Education: English Language Learners are offered

programs that give them full access to the same curriculum as native English speakers so their rights to an equal education are granted.

“One means of addressing these rights was through implementation of bilingual education programs, which give students the opportunity to learn academic content in their native language while they gain competence in English” (From the Ballot Box to the Classroom).

EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ACT -1974Brief Overview:

The schools are responsible for overcoming language barriers that hinder the participation of ELL students in any instructional program.

(Law & Policy: English Language Learners)

EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ACT -1974The Impact on ESL Education: Schools are required to provide information such

as the school policies, student handbooks, parent consent forms, other signs and labels in both English and the home language of the student. (Federal Law and English Language Learners)

So, now it can be sure that the parents, who may not be proficient in English either, will understand why their childt is in the program they are in as well as what other programs are offered and what other activities are taking place in the school.

FEDERAL COURT CASE: CASTANEDA V. PICKARD-1981Brief Overview: This court case resulted in the establishment of a

“three-part test to determine if school districts are complying with the EEOA of 1974.

The school/school district is required to: make sure the program implemented is based on

“sound educational theory” or a “legitimate experimental program design.

actually “put in to practice the educational program they have designed” and make sure to “allocate the necessary personnel and practices”.

Discontinue the use of programs that are not producing results.

(Linking Language Policy to Practice)

FEDERAL COURT CASE: CASTANEDA V. PICKARD-1981The Impact on ESL Education:

This court decision contributed a structured test to determine a school districts compliance with EEOA .

It gave ELL students a better chance of having effective programs to learn English and the other subjects.

FEDERAL COURT CASE: CASTANEDA V. PICKARD-1981The Impact on ESL Education:

The court decision also states “that the segregation of ELL is permissible only when” the benefits would outweigh the adverse effects of the segregation.

However, “OCR will not examine whether an ESL/Bilingual program is the least segregative.” They will only examine “whether the degree of segregation in the program is necessary to achieve the program’s educational goal.”

(Federal Law and English Language Learners)

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (NCLB)-2001Brief Overview:

The amount of federal funding that states receive depends on student progress.

NCLB “allows for local flexibility for choosing programs of instruction, while demanding greater accountability for ELLs’ English language and academic progress” (No Child Left Behind and English Language Learners).

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (NCLB)-2001Brief Overview continued:

States must develop standards for the proficiency required for the English Language and “they must link those standards to the state’s Academic Content Standards.”

Finally, “schools must make sure that ELLs are part of their state’s accountability system and that ELLs’ academic progress is followed over time.”

(No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners)

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (NCLB)-2001The Impact on ESL Education: Students are tested once a year ELLs must take state achievement tests for language

arts and math, with few case by case exceptions ELLs, as a group, must meet certain annual targets of

AYP ESL teachers must be English proficient The curricula used must be demonstrated to be effective

and tied to scientifically based research There must be standards and benchmarks established by

the state It must be explained to the parents why their child needs

a specialized language program and that they have the right to choose the program if multiple programs are in place

THE EFFECTS OF THESE LAWS AND DECISIONS ON TENNESSEE EDUCATION

Each of these laws or decisions has effected the education system in Tennessee.

ELL students are tested once a year. There are different tests that they are given. There are translators to speak with students

and parents. These translators also translate documents for both students and parents.

Individual students are tracked over the course of their education. This includes ELL students and their progress as a group.

HELPFUL, INFORMATIVE AND INTERESTING RESOURCES Developing ELL Programs http://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html

Tennessee ESL Program Guide http://www.tntesol.org/forms/ESLProgramGuide.pdf

Tennessee ESL Curriculum Standards http://www.tennessee.gov/education/fedprog/doc/fpeslcurriculum.pdf

Federal Law and English Language Learners http://www3.ksde.org/sfp/esol/federallawandenglishlanguagelearners.htm

Ballot Initiatives to Regulate the Education of ELL students http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/apr09/vol66/num07/From_the_Ballot_Box_to_the_Classroom.aspx

REFERENCES (2009). ELLS AND THE LAW: Statutes, Precedents [Electronic version].

Education Week, 28(17), 8-9. Retrieved May 19, 2010

Federal Law and English Language Learners. (2001, January 24). Retrieved May 17, 2010

Brown University. (2006). Policy: Linking Language Policy to Practice for English Language Learners. Retrieved May 17, 2010

Colorado, C. (2007). No Child Left Behind and English Language Learners. Retrieved May 17, 2010

Mora, J. K. (2009). From the Ballot Box to the Classroom [Electronic version] . Educational Leadership, 66(7), 14-19. Retrieved May 19, 2010

Zirkel, P. A. (2002). Decisions That Have Shaped U.S. Education [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 59(4), 6-12. Retrieved May 19, 2010