Robb, Michele EDUC 31218 Lesson 1A-resubmission (instructor approved) July 11, 2013 The fate of bilingual education

swings on a pendulum depending on the cultural shift occurring in the U.S. at any given time. The U.S. has long been nicknamed the melting pot. It is no surprise that in its infancy, the citizens not only accepted bilingual education, but made it a matter of course due to the large populations that had a primary language other than English. German immigrants paved the road, establishing dual language programs throughout the Midwest (Lessow-Hurley 23). Due to the favorable feelings towards the Germans after the Revolutionary War, coupled by the financial backing of the German communities, the dual language programs gained momentum, both for German speaking children as well as AngloAmerican children learning German as a second language (Lessow-Hurley 23). However, as time progressed, our nation began to see itself more as the iconic one nation rather than the melting pot. This began the pendulum swing against the dual language programs. Its fate was sealed during World War I as the U.S., now a powerful voice in the world, came to believe it did not need any language other than English. As the world continued to get smaller, and the U.S. wiser, the pendulum shifted yet again. We became aware that to compete in the world market, space race and national defense, we had to join the world in the belief system of bilingual education (Lessow-Hurley 23). This was a time of growth, with the inclusion of several acts and laws established to include bilingual education. The 1960s and 1970s civil rights boom saw the formation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act including support services for English learners. However, these pieces of legislation

would not have come to fruition if not for the movement of individuals advocating for equal education. One such case began in 1971. A group of students of Chinese ancestry filed suit again the San Francisco Unified School District on the basis that they were not receiving equal educational opportunities. Their argument was that they did not have equal access to the curriculum due to it being in English. The District Court, as well as the Court of Appeals decided that SFUSD committed no wrongdoing as they provided the same education to all. It was stated by the Court of Appeals that all students bring a variety of strengths and weaknesses to their school career based on their social, economic and cultural background (Beyond Brown). The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with the students, citing that although the instruction was equal, there was no equality in the education for English learners as they are, effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education (Cornell University). The Supreme Court went on to say that schools that impose the requirement of being proficient in English in order to access the curriculum made a mockery of public education (Cornell University). The unanimous decision in favor of English learners led way to a system of identification, assessment, planning and transition of English learners. This system is commonly known as the Lau Remedies. School districts were to ensure that English learners needing these services had a method of becoming proficient in English, while also accessing the curriculum for their development. It also ensured that, although on this track, it would not pigeonhole English learners into a particular course of education (Kansas State Department of Education). This case is considered a milestone in bilingual education and the Lau remedies are still in effect by the Office for Civil Rights to assess school district compliance (Kansas State Department of Education).

The Williams Decision, also reiterated the need to assure all children are receiving a quality education in terms of basic resources and high quality teachers. It seems obvious that in order to compete in todays world, we need our current students to be educated to the full extent they are able. This requires use of quality resources, decent facilities and quality instructors. It is appalling to think of classrooms that did not have enough textbooks for all the children in the class or facilities in such disrepair that it created an unsafe environment for learning. The Williams decision seems to be the seed of why teachers are required to have the English Learners Authorization. Some may ask, Why? Why should I have to become authorized in order to be highly qualified? The answer is summed up in a document jointly released by the California Department of Education and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing dated August 26, 2005. It states, It does not matter whether there is one student or all the students in a class requiring English learner services, the teacher must hold the appropriate basic and English Learner Authorization. Yes, it does not matter. We have a responsibility as educators to teach our students. We are not to educate SOME or MOST but all students, and account for exceptionalities like English Learners, social-economic differences and developmental abilities. Decisions like Williams ensure that all groups are at the table, being addressed and all children are being educated.

Bibliography Beyond Brown. Summary of Lau v. Nichols 1974. Web. 9 July 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/beyondbrown/brownpdfs/launichols.pdf>. Lau Remedies. Kansas State Department of Education. 19 June 2008. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://www.ksde.org/default.aspx?tabid=1764> Lessow-Hurley, Judith. The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction. Sixth Edition. Information Packet. 08 July 2013. OConnell, Jack and Sam Swofford. Change in Certificated Assignment Monitoring and Data Reporting in Education Code Section 44258.9 as a Result of the Williams Lawsuit Settlement. California Department of Education, August 26, 2005. Web. 9 July 2013. <http://cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/documents/yr05ltr0826.pdf>. UCLAs Institute for Democracy, Education & Access. Williams Versus California, The Williams Settlement: What does it mean for California communities?. Just Schools California, 2004. Web. 9 July 2013. <http://justschools.gseis.ucla.edu/news/williams/>. United States Supreme Court. Lau v. Nichols. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cornell University Law School. Web. 9 July 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0414_0563_ZO.html>.