Fluent Essays

Review the historical perspectives（bilingual ed legal chart） and highlight ONE influential case in the U.S. legal system and its implications,  and evaluate the California Williams Decision. APA format , u can read the sample essay attached Bilingual Education and the U.S. Legal System. In review of this weeks reading about Bilingual Education I was surprised that dual language instruction has been available in the United States since the beginning of our nations history. I was both impressed and discouraged to read how learning a language has been influenced by politics. What stood out most was the statement by Sequoyah, Enlightenment and civilization of people would progress and develop in proportion as they were able to express themselves and preserve their ideas upon the written and printed page, and exchange these ideas, one with another, by this medium (Foreman, 1938. p.74). This statement is so powerful and continues to ring true today. I was equally impressed with the frankness of the author in discussing the ambivalence bilingualism in the United States, often viewed with disfavor. We consider it a worthwhile accomplishment for a college graduate from an English-speaking background to master a second language. But we insist that the children of immigrant families relinquish their first languages as part of their Americanization. Kjolseth (1983) has suggested that we tend to admire individual bilinguals, such as celebrities, scholars, and diplomats, and to disparage bilinguals, or members of ethnic groups. In the popular view, individual bilingualism is often associated with elevated socioeconomic status; group bilingualism is generally associated with poverty and lack of education. Individual bilinguals acquire their second language through effort and scholarship; group bilinguals acquire their second language at home (Judith LessowHurley, 2012, p25). I concur that this prejudice still exists in our schools and American society. Knowing this, we as educators must continue to educate our peers and help our students, all students, not just our EL students. Therefore, instead of highlighting one case I would like to highlight a few key cases that shaped the history of our education system. The Court decisions and powerful historical events that have had the most impact on my life would be Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Civil Right Act (1964), the Stand at the School House Door (1963), the Long Walk Ruby Bridges (1963) and Title IX (1972). The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is considered by many as a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case which ended state laws allowing separate public schools for black and white students. The unanimous (9-0) decision ruled that separate education facilities are unequal. As a result of this case racial segregation was not allowed under the Equal Protection Clause of The United States Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. I truly believe this decision by the court led to the Civil Rights Act which changed the entire direction of our country and our educational system. The Civil Right Act (1964) which outlawed segregation in the United States schools and other public places, originally to help African American was amended to protect women and included white people for the first time. The social implications at the time were that not everyone accepted the Brown v. Board of Education decision and it implementation, as segregation beliefs of separate but equal held strong. As a young student, (9 year old,) I can remember the 1963 Stand at the Schoolhouse Door incident involving then Governor George Wallace. Governor Wallace blocked the door at the University of Alabama preventing the enrollment of two black students. I remember watching this on television and studying George Wallaces inaugural address where he stated, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. I can remember the impact of watching Governor Wallace not step aside and how, (buy order of President John F. Kennedy), Henry Graham, the General of the Alabama National Guard, said, Sir, it is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the order of the President of the United States allowing Vivian Jones and James Hood to enroll in school. Vivian Jones went on to be the first African American to graduate from the University of Alabama. The picture of this event is held in my mind forever and has been hung in every classroom I have taught in since 1976. I also remember watching and studying the Long Walk of Ruby Bridges (1963). Ruby Bridges was the first black child to attend an all white elementary school in New Orleans, Louisiana. She and I were born in the same year, 1954 and I remember watching this on television and studying this historical event in school. I remember thinking that she was just like me and talking with my mom about why she had been denied attending the elementary school close to her house. This picture was the first historical event picture I purchased in my collection and has also hung in every classroom I have taught in. Title IX (1972) has had the most direct effect on my education and teaching career. It stated, No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This had a major impact on athletic programs in the United States and directly female athletes. I had graduated from high school in 1972 and had experienced the inadequacies of sports opportunities for females in high school. Additionally, in college, I experienced this inequality again as it took time for Title IX to be fully implemented. The college I attended did not have womens athletic scholarships until the year I graduated, 1976. It was a law that never mentioned sports but drastically impacted the landscape of games by forcing schools to provide equal opportunities for both genders. There has been monumental advancement in the participation of girls and women in athletics in the decades since. And even now, 42 years later, many colleges and universities still are not compliant with the law. In 2012, after 15 years of being an administrator I returned to teaching. When I was hired, the Physical Education Department at Dodson Middle School, (to my surprise), was two separate departments. Men taught boys and the women taught girls, no co-ed instruction for the last 10 years. I was the only teacher who would have 3 classes of all boys and two classes of all girls, (loosely co-ed). After the first two weeks of school I spoke with the principal and inquired how and why this was happening. He, also new, was told that the school had written a waiver that had been in place for years. (Waiver and Inclusion=oxymoron. A good example of when a school district gets sooo large it is hard to govern). We both read the waiver, which made no sense and he inquired in a Department Meeting how this was working. Long story short, over the years with several changes of department members the two groups were divided and some arguments had happened. He asked for an explanation of which way the department should be co-ed or separate, with an emphasis on defending your position, as he was being required to explain this to his supervisors. I was the only one who wrote a response, explaining that we were in violation of the law, Title IX (1972) and a list of many reasons why we should be co-ed. He changed the Department to co-ed this year. This change, along with two additional members to the department and the development of the Dodson Way has begun to change the face and focus of the P.E. program. I feel that being co-ed, our focus on No Tolerance for Bullying and the lessons that go with this in our first year as a united group all working together model inclusion and have begun a positive shift in the focus of our school. The Williams Decision (2004) which required that equal education facilities are necessary for educational equity. This decision is so true and is a start in a positive direction. However, its implementation is still ongoing; at least in my district there is still a long way to go. While I am a believer in less government, it is important that government be involved when grave inequities require change. Hopefully, the changes in education will continue to be in a positive direction that includes all students and our society as a whole. Lessow-Hurley, J. (2012). The Foundations of Dual Language instruction, sixth edition. Historical Perspective Historical Perspective of Bilingual Education Brown vs. Board of Education (1953) Segregation of children in public schools, solely on the base of race, even though the physical facilities and all other tangible factors may be equal, deprives children of minority group of equal educational opportunity. (14th amendment) Civil Rights Act 1964 Most important law that had far reaching and tremendous long-term impact on our country. It prohibited discrimination in every form and venue in our country. It related and included African Americans, women, and others. Lau vs Nichols 1974 Ruled that English is the basic language of instruction. It ensured that English was to be learned by all pupils. Schools must have instruction for language deficiency. Aspira vs. New York Affirmed Lau and decided hwo receives services in school. Puerto Rico Legal Defense Fund Argued landmark cases that had profound implications for Latinos throughout the U.S. especially in New York. Keys vs. Denver First ruling on school segregation in the North and the West. Specified that L1 be required. Intentional segregation was stopped, especially for Latinos as well as African Americans as students. 1976 14 states mandate Bilingual Education. California AB 1329 Chacon-Moscone Bilingual Bicultural Education Act Explicitly proclaimed bilingual education as a right. AB 507, California Bilingual Education Improvement and Reform Act- 1980 Updated and strengthened AB 1329. This act mandated that districts provide instruction for every LEP student in California. Sunset AB 507- 1987 Federal Government intervened on AB 507. Despite the Acts’ Sunsetting, many of their “general purposes” remained operative and districts were required to follow these purposes in their programs. Districts use of students’ primary language remained operative. Prop 227 - 1998 California public instruction required to be in English. Provided money for children ($50 million yearly) to become fluent in English through intensive immersion special classes, English only classes. The vote was passed 3.3 million to 2.1 million. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), often abbreviated in print as NCLB, is a controversial United States federal law (Act of Congress) that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001[1], United States Senate on June 14, 2001[2] and signed into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high expectations and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools and in order to comply with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifies that powers not granted to the federal government or forbidden to state governments are reserved powers of the individual states. Teacher quality based on NCLB Act The No Child Left Behind act requires that, in order for states to receive federal funding, all teachers must be highly qualified as defined in the law by the end of the 2006-07 school year. A highly qualified teacher is one who has (1) fulfilled the states certification and licensing requirements, (2) obtained at least a bachelors degree, and (3) demonstrated subject matter expertise. The procedure for demonstrating subject matter knowledge depends on a teachers tenure and level of instruction. For those who are new to the profession of teaching(less than one year of experience): Elementary teachers must pass a state test demonstrating their subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading/language arts, writing, mathematics and other areas of basic elementary school curricula. Middle and high school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in each academic subject area they teach. Such demonstration can occur either through passage of a rigorous state academic subject test or successful completion of an undergraduate major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major, or an advanced certification or credentialing. Experienced teachers can satisfy the subject matter requirement in the same manner as new teachers or demonstrate subject knowledge through a state-determined high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE). These requirements have caused some difficulty in implementation especially for special education teachers and teachers in small rural schools who are often called upon to teach multiple grades and subjects. WILLIAMS VS. CALIFORNIA (2005). The Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State of California, et al. (Williams) case was filed as a class action in 2000 in San Francisco County Superior Court. The plaintiffs include nearly 100 San Francisco County students, who filed suit against the State of California and state education agencies, including the California Department of Education (CDE). The basis of the lawsuit was that the agencies failed to provide public school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional materials for schools in the first and second ranks (known as deciles) determined through the 2003 Academic Performance Index (API) Base. The settlement includes another $50 million for implementation costs and other oversight-related activities for schools in deciles one through three (2003 API Base). These two amounts were included in the state budget (Outside Source) signed in July 2004 by Governor Schwarzenegger. Another $800 million will be provided for critical repair of facilities in future years for schools in deciles one through three (2003 API Base). The settlement will be implemented through legislation adopted in August 2004: Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, AB 2727, AB 3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school students may benefit from funding from the Williams case settlement. As a result of the Williams case, the CDE has proposed changes to the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) template that all schools must update and publish annually. The proposed changes will help all schools report the overall condition of their facilities, the number of teacher misassignments and vacant teacher positions, and the availability of textbooks or instructional materials. The proposed changes were submitted to the State Board of Education, which approved the changes at its meeting on November 9, 2004. The new Williams-related reporting elements are being amended into the 2003-04 SARC template, which is expected to be released by December 15, 2004. More information is available at the SARC Web page. Here are the legal documents and legislation passed to fulfill the Williams requirements: * Memorandum to County and District Superintendents: (Dated 20-Dec-2004), regarding the Notice of Settlement in Williams. * Notice of Proposed Settlement (Posted 28-Jan-08; DOC; 87MB; 71pp.) | PDF (Posted 26-Oct-2004; 3MB; 76pp.) Notification to the parties in Williams of a proposed resolution to the case. * Settlement Implementation Agreement (Posted 28-Jan-08; DOC; 33MB; 42 pp.) | PDF (Posted 26-Oct-2004; 2MB; 46pp.) Outline of how Williams will be resolved. * SB 6 | SB 550 | AB 1550 | AB 2727 | AB 3001 (Outside Sources): Legislation enacted to resolve Williams. * Education Code Section 60119 - Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Material: Text of Education Code Section 60119, as revised by Chapter 900, Statutes of 2004.