Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Evolution of Federal Policy on ESL (Common Core State Standards (Parties…
Evolution of Federal Policy on ESL
Common Core State Standards
Parties involved:
1) National Governors Association 2)Council of Chief State SChool Officers (CCSSO)
What the oucome/decision was
: 43 states, the District of Columbia, four U.S. territories, and the Department of Defense school system had adopted the CCSS
Purpose/history of policy:
internationally benchmarked college- and career- ready "next generation" standards that are designed to raise the bar and ensure that all high school graduates are preared for the academic rigors of college coursework and the demands of the workforce.
What it said about ELLs at that time:
CCSS do not specifically address ELLs and do not replace the state English language proficiency standards required by Title III -
Date:
2014
Lau vs Nichols
Parties involved:
Supreme Court
What the outcome/decision was
: --> Lau Remedies
Purpose/history of policy:
Chinese American students in San Francisco were placed in mainstream classrooms despite their lack of proficiency in English and left to "sink or swim". The district argues that the Chinese American students received treament equal to that of other students.
What it said abotu ELLs at that time:
ELLs were not provided with appropriate education
Date:
1974
Title VII Bilingual Education Act
Date:
1968 - 2002
Purpose/history of policy:
Senator Ralph Yarbouough of TExas introduceda bill to provide federal funding for school districts to support bilingual education programs.
What it said about ELLs at that time: "
Children of limited-English speaking ability (LESA)" --> Children who come from environments where the dominant language is other than English
Parties involved
: Johnson administration
What the outcome/decision was:
his bill became BEA and entered into federal law as Title VII of the ESEA --> provided grants to school districts and other eligible entities through a competitive grant process
FL Consent Decree
Purpose/history of policy:
the state of Florida's framework for compliance with the following deferal and state laws and jurisprudence regarding the education of ELL students
What the outcome/decision was:
addresses the civil rights of ELL students to have equal access to all education programs
Date:
1990
Parties involved:
League of Untied Lation American Citizens (LULAC), State Board of Education Consent Decree, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
What it said about ELLs at that time
: need to provide equal rights to ELLs
Equal Educational Opportunities Act
Parties involved
: U.S. Department of Education
What the outcome/decision was:
wasn't passed in 1972. Lau vs Nichols (1974) led to the official passage fo the act
Purpose/history of policy
: Section 1703(f) "No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by ... the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs
What it said about ELLs at that time:
ELLs were not provided with appropriate education
Date
: 1974
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Purpose/history of policy:
there was no federal educational language policies for ELLs. Schools oftenignored the needs of language minority studetsna dn simply placed them in regular classrooms, where they were left to "sink or swim".
Parties involved:
President Lydon B. Johnson's War on Poverty
Date:
1965
What the outcome/decision was
: Congress passed the policy in 1965
What it said about ELLs at that time:
vast majority of states were demmed as failing to make AYP --> combined ELLs and "at-risk" students into one larfe-super subgroup --> unique linguistic, cultural and academic needs of ELLs will be far less apparent and less likely to be addressed
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
Parties involved:
the U.S. Department of Justice, United States Department of Education (ED)
What the outcome/decision was:
agencies and institutions received ED funds covered by Title VI
Purpose/history of policy:
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance
What it said about ELLs at that time
: was an increase in the enrollment of national-origin-minority students who couldn't speak, read or write English well to enroll an educational programs without appropriate support services
Date:
1964
No Child Left Behind
Parties involved:
the Office of Bilingual Education and Miniruty Language Affairs & the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
What the outcome/decision was:
Title I --> There is now bipartisan acknowledgement that NCLB is flawed, rigid, unrealistic, has failed to produce promised academic gains.
The purpose/history of policy
: George W. Bush's plan to reauthorize ESEA
Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students) : 1) provide formula grants to state education 2) no distinction between bilinguals and non-bilingual programs 3) requires ELLs be placed in "language instruction education programs
Title I (Improving the Achievement of the Economically Dsiadvantaged): ensure that all children have a fair, euqal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standarads and State academic assessments
What it said about ELLs at that time:
bilingual was removed --> limtied English proficient label depicting students from a deficit view.
Date
: 2001
ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act)
Parties involved:
the Department of Education
What the outcome/decision was:
President Obama signed and it represented good news for America's schools
Purpose/history of policy:
make sure that public schools provide a quality education for all students
What it said about ELLs at that time:
don’t yet communicate fluently or learn effectively in English
Date:
2015
Lau Remedies
Parties involved
: U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights
What the outcome/decision was:
required districts to implement bilingual education programs for ELLs
Purpose/history of policy
: go after districts that were ignoring the needs of programs for ELLs (based on Lau vs Nichols suit)
What it said about ELLs at that time:
ELLs were not provided with appropriate education
Date
: 1992
Plyler vs Doe
Parties involved:
What the outcome/decision was:
Texas legislature revised its education laws todeny enrollment in their public schools to and withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the country
The Purpose/history of policy
:a class action was filed on behalf of certain school age Mexican children living in Texas who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the U.S. The class filed a mtion for permanent injunctive relief, asking the district court to prevent deendatns from denying a free public education to members of the class.
What it said about ELLs at that time:
Date
: 1982