DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of Tfje Uniteti States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of Tfje Uniteti States LIBRARY SUPREME COURT, U. S. In the Supreme Court of tfje Uniteti states KINNEY KINMON LAU, a MINOR )' BY AND THROUGH MRS. KAM WAX ) LAU, HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ) ET AL., ) ) Petitioner, ) MO. 72-6520 ) vs } ) ALAN H, NICHOLS, ET AL,, ) ) Respondents, ) Washington, D. C, December 10, 1973 Pages 1 thru 68 Duplication or copying of this transcript by photographic, electrostatic or other CD SUPREME m MARSHAL facsimile means is prohibited under the o order form agreement. CO RECEDED COURT, ’ S OFFICE U.S HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. Official 'Reporters Washington, D. C. 546-6666 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KINNEY KINMOH LAU, a MINOR BY AND THROUGH MRS. KAM WAX LAU, HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL., Petitioners, v. No. 72-6520 ALAN H. NICHOLS, ET AL., Respondents. Washington, D. C. Monday, December 10., 1973 The above-entitled matter came on for argument at 11:08 o’clock a.m. BEFORE: WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice of the United States WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS, Associate Justice WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., Associate Justice POTTER STEWART, Associate Justice BYRON R. WHITE, Associate Justice THURGOOD MARSHALL, Associate Justice HARRY A. BLACKMUN, Associate Justice LEWIS F. POWELL, JR., Associate Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Associate Justice APPEARANCES: EDWARD H. STEINMAN, ESQ., Washington, D„ C.; for the Petitioners. J. STANLEY POTTINGER, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.; for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting petitioners. THOMAS M. O'CONNOR, ESQ., City Attorney, San Francisco, California; for the Respondents. CONTENTS ORAL ARGUMENT OP: PAGE Edward H. Steinman, Esq», For the Petitioners 3 In Rebuttal 58 J. Stanley Pottinger, Esq,, For the Petitioners 20 Thomas M. O’Connor, Esq,, For the Respondents 32 * # * Afternoon session begins at page 40, 3 PROCEEDINGS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: We will hear arguments next in No. 72-6520, Lau, Et al. v. Nichols. Mr. Sfceinman, you may proceed whenever you are ready. ORAL ARGUMENT OF EDWARD H. STEINMAN, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS MR. STEINMAN: Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: I wish to devote the first 20 minutes of my opening argument to the constitutional issued raised in this case. I would then be followed by Mr. J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, who will address himself to the statutory violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The issue in this case concerns the discrimination suffered by nearly 1,800 non-English speaking Chinese students in San Francisco in the provision of educational benefits and opportunities. Both the Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals below were satisfied that so long as the San Francisco school system provides the same instruction, the same material, and the same teachers to all students, the equal pro­ tection clause is satisfied. Regardless of the fact that these students, since they do not understand English, and since they are sitting in classes where English is the instruction -- was the language of instruction, regardless of the fact that these 4 students cannot learn., Q Mr. Steinman, might I interrupt you. Actually, are these 1,300 more or less students — they are referred to in your brief and I think in the record as Chinese students. They are mt Chinese Americans, they are Chinese? MR. STEINMAN: They are both Chinese Americans, they are both native born and they are also foreign born, Your Honor, The school system, in answer to interrogatories, said that it does not keep records on the origin of birth or on citizenship of the students. But of the seven named petitioners before this Court, five of them are native born American citizens. Q They are? MR. STEINMAN: Yes, five of them, David Leong, David Sun, Judy Sun, Karen Yee and Joan Yee. Q There has been a good deal of recent immigration into the United States, and particularly into the City of San Francisco, is there not, from Taiwan and — MR. STEINMAN: Oh, definitely. I think it is clear that many members of the 1,800 students that we represent are recent immigrants. I think though that one thing must be pointed out, which was pointed out in the reply brief of pe­ titioners, that the immigration laws were relaxed in the mid­ sixties and the new laws went into effect on July 1, 1968. Yet the defendants, in their own survey conducted in November of 1967, seven months before the new immigration laws even went into effect, admitted that there were close to 2,000 non- English-speaking Chinese students who, as petitioners are before you, effectively pursued an education, Q And this 1,000 is out of how many Chinese or Chinese American students in the school population of San Francisco? MR. STEINMAN: The school population of San Francisco, in the record of the case, there are approximately — one figure is 13,000 from the City Attorney, one figure is 15,000 from the school district. There are also 3,000 Chinese speaking students in San Francisco, of which the petitioners represent approxi­ mately 63 percent of those. The petitioners represent those Chinese speaking students, Your Honor, who receive nothing but the regular instruction in English. In the lower court below, there was another class, group of petitioners who were non-English speaking Chinese students who did receive some special help. Those petitioners are not before this Court. Q What was that 13,000 or 15,000 figure? MR. STEINMAN: The total number of Chinese students within the San Francisco school system. Q So that this group of 1,800 is something more than 10 percent? MR. STEINMAN: Probably between 10 and 15 percent, depending on which figure you use. 6 Q I was just curious whether or not native born American citizens in San Francisco grow up not knowing English, or whether this group does and it does embrace primarily recent emigres from Taiwan and elsewhere, and Ilong Kong? MR. STEINMAN: I don’t think that --- based on the facts in the case, Your Honor, although the school system does not break it down, as I said, seven months before the immigra­ tion laws even went into effect, the school system admitted that there were nearly 2,000 non-English speaking Chinese students who receive nothing. The November '67 survey admitted that there were approximately 2,400 non-Enqlish speaking Chinese sfciidents within the entire school district, and of those 2,400 nearly 2.000 were of the same type of dilemma confronting the petitioners. They don't speak English, they don't understand English, and yet their entire instructional program is in regu­ lar classes where English is the language. Q Yes, I know the argument, but mv query is to why, it was as to whv they don't speak English, and I think that may have something to do with this case. MR.STEINMAN: I think why they don't speak English — of course, it is not in the record, but I think that this Court can take cognizance of the fact that the Chinese community in San Francisco is what we refer to as a ghetto, it is quite insular. And when the students who are born in this country cane to the schools, they do not have facilities in English. 7 And unfortunately the actions of the school system perpetuate that inability to speak English. Q Well, in the Chinatown part of San Francisco, is it true that most of the people there don't speak English? MR. STEINMAN: I don’t know the facts — Q The fact that it is a ghetto doesn’t answer that question one way or the other. MR. STEINMAN: I don’t know, I don’t think we can speak in terms of most. I think we can speak in terms of the 1,800 students, a vast percentage are native born Americans who have lived their entire lives in San Francisco and have come to the school system speaking no English. Q You say a vast, majority now, these 1,800, are native born? MR. STEINMAN: Wall, again, I cannot address that be­ cause it is not in the record. All I can rely on the fact is that in 1967, the school system admitted, even before the im­ migration laws were changed, that there were 2,000 students in the school system right then who were Chinese speaking who do not speak English. And this was before the immigration laws were even changed. So that is all I can surmise from the record, Your Honor. Q What is your ultimate complaint, that English should be taught in these schools? MR. STEINMAN: Well, what we would — 3 Q Or that the instruction should be in Chinese? MR. STEINMAN: oh, no. Our goal is the same announced goal that the school system in the State of California has made. Our goal is that we want the.se students to be taught English and to understand English sc they can have the type of mastery of English which our society requires. The problem now is that they are being taught in a language they do not understand, and we would like the school system to take whatever steps that are reasonable, and this of course is within their province, since they are the experts in this area, to take whatever steps that are reasonable to guarantee that these students are able to benefit from the instruction that they are given. Q So you would have the same objections if they taught them in Chinese? MR. STEINMAN: If the school system decided that teach­ ing them in Chinese was the most effective method, that would be a bilingual method, Your Honor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Educators Can Advocate for English Language Learners
    How Educators Can Advocate for English Language Learners ALL IN! TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTEN UP! ...................................................................................................................4 WHY ADVOCATE FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS? ...............................6 Underserved and Underrepresented .................................................................7 All Advocacy Is Local .............................................................................................8 Demographics Are Destiny ..................................................................................9 ADVOCACY IN ACTION ......................................................................................... 10 Five Steps to ELL Advocacy ................................................................................11 Web Resources ....................................................................................................13 Additional Rtng ....................................................................................................13 CURRICULUM ACCESS AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS............................................ 15 Ensuring Equal Access ........................................................................................15 Valuing Home Languages ..................................................................................16 Advocacy Strategies ............................................................................................16 Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Resource for Self-Determination Or Perpetuation of Linguistic Imposition: Examining the Impact of English Learner Classification Among Alaska Native Students
    EdWorkingPaper No. 21-420 Resource for Self-Determination or Perpetuation of Linguistic Imposition: Examining the Impact of English Learner Classification among Alaska Native Students Ilana M. Umansky Manuel Vazquez Cano Lorna M. Porter University of Oregon University of Oregon University of Oregon Federal law defines eligibility for English learner (EL) classification differently for Indigenous students compared to non-Indigenous students. Indigenous students, unlike non-Indigenous students, are not required to have a non-English home or primary language. A critical question, therefore, is how EL classification impacts Indigenous students’ educational outcomes. This study explores this question for Alaska Native students, drawing on data from five Alaska school districts. Using a regression discontinuity design, we find evidence that among students who score near the EL classification threshold in kindergarten, EL classification has a large negative impact on Alaska Native students’ academic outcomes, especially in the 3rd and 4th grades. Negative impacts are not found for non-Alaska Native students in the same districts. VERSION: June 2021 Suggested citation: Umansky, Ilana, Manuel Vazquez Cano, and Lorna Porter. (2021). Resource for Self-Determination or Perpetuation of Linguistic Imposition: Examining the Impact of English Learner Classification among Alaska Native Students. (EdWorkingPaper: 21-420). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://doi.org/10.26300/mym3-1t98 ALASKA NATIVE EL RD Resource for Self-Determination or Perpetuation of Linguistic Imposition: Examining the Impact of English Learner Classification among Alaska Native Students* Ilana M. Umansky Manuel Vazquez Cano Lorna M. Porter * As authors, we’d like to extend our gratitude and appreciation for meaningful discussion and feedback which shaped the intent, design, analysis, and writing of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative Self-Constructions of Senator Ralph Yarborough in the 1967 Congressional Hearings on the Bilingual Education Act
    Narrative Self-Constructions of Senator Ralph Yarborough in the 1967 Congressional Hearings on the Bilingual Education Act Jamie L. Schissel University of Pennsylvania The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 served as an important initiative in meeting some of linguistic needs of language minority students. This piece of legislation has been studied in terms of its content, interpretation and implementation. However, there is little research to explain how it was developed and passed into law and who played an important role in creating and supporting this bill. This paper uses political and linguistic anthropological discourse analytic methods to examine the narrative self- constructions of the co-author and chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Ralph Yarborough. After providing background on the socio-political climate oc- curring during these hearings, I address two separate research questions. First, I examine how Senator Yarborough constructed spaces where he in- troduced his self-construction narratives. Then, I analyze the self-construc- tion narratives in which he presented himself in three distinct roles: edu- cator, traveler and younger self. These narratives within the context of the congressional hearings have created a paradox of power and self-depreca- tion that characterizes Senator Yarborough’s self-construction narratives. Introduction he Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968 was an important piece of legislation for creating a space in federal policies to foster mul- tilingualism in U.S. public schools. The policy and its subsequent Treauthorizations have been scrutinized by teachers, administrators and researchers. Although focusing on the policy as a text affords many mean- ingful insights, it ignores the agency of the authors or sponsors of the leg- islation.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Instruction Educational Programs and Academic
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst College of Education Faculty Publication Series College of Education 2015 Language instruction educational programs and academic achievement of Latino English Learners: Considerations for states with changing demographics Francesca López University of Arizona Elizabeth McEneaney University of Massachusetts - Amherst Martina Nieswandt University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/education_faculty_pubs Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation López, Francesca; McEneaney, Elizabeth; and Nieswandt, Martina, "Language instruction educational programs and academic achievement of Latino English Learners: Considerations for states with changing demographics" (2015). College of Education Faculty Publication Series. 330. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/education_faculty_pubs/330 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Education Faculty Publication Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Language Instruction Educational Programs and Academic Achievement of Latino English Learners: Considerations for States with Changing Demographics FRANCESCA LÓPEZ University of Arizona ELIZABETH MCENEANEY University of Massachusetts Amherst MARTINA NIESWANDT University of Massachusetts Amherst Little research currently examines language instruction educational programs (LIEPs) in states with a more recent growth of the Latino English learner popu- lation. To meet this need, the authors examined the content each of the state LIEPs, focusing chiefly on the extent to which the types of language support, as well as the stipulations associated with them, are made explicit.
    [Show full text]
  • "The Bilingual Education Act: Language Minority Students And
    The Bilingual Education Act: Language Minority Students and Equal Educational Opportunity Ann-Marie Wiese and Eugene E. García Graduate School of Education University of California, Berkeley Abstract This paper traces the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) from its inception in 1968 through its most recent reauthorization in 1994 as the primary federal legislative effort to provide equal educational opportunity to language minority students. Federal legislative initiatives which provide the foundation for the BEA are discussed. The polemic between two philosophical positions, assimilation and multiculturalism, is introduced along with the need for further colloquy. The evolution of the BEA from its inception in 1968 through its reauthorization in 1994 is analyzed. Finally, the authors comment on the current proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the future of Title VII. Today, one in three children nationwide is from an ethnic or racial minority group, one in seven speaks a language other than English at home, and one in fifteen was born outside the United States. Educating language minority children has been a broader concern throughout our nation’s history, and in 1968, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA),1 Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), specifically identified the education of “children of limited English-speaking ability” as “one of the most acute educational problems in the United States” (BEA, 1968, Sec. 701). Since 1968, the BEA has attempted to articulate how state and school districts can facilitate equal access to education for language minority students. This paper investigates federal bilingual education policy as a legislative attempt to remedy the inequities experienced by language minority students in the educational system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Training Module for Capacity Building May 2006 Page 1 Table of Contents
    INTRODUCTION TO BILINGUAL EDUCATION: LEGAL ISSUES, TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY GUIDELINES, MODELS AND RESEARCH A TRAINING MODULE PUBLISHED AS PART OF THE LEP STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE GRANT Department of P-16 Initiatives Texas Education Agency In Collaboration with The Institute for Second Language Achievement (ISLA) Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi And The Advocacy Systems for Education Cedar Park, Texas May, 2006 A Training Module for Capacity Building May 2006 Page 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I. THE EVOLUTION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION • Early Beginnings • Language Minority Students • Limited English Speaking Ability [LESA] • Limited English Proficient [LEP] • English Language Learners [ELL] II. STATE DEMOGRAPHICS • Enrollment Trends [Overall] • Enrollment Trends [Language Minority] • Enrollment Trends [LEP] • Grade Levels Impacted by Enrollment Growth • Implications of Rapid Growth • Teacher Diversity and Availability III. BILINGUAL EDUCATION MANDATES • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 • OCR National Origin Memorandum • Lau vs. Nichols • Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 • Lau Remedies • Bilingual Education Legislation in Texas • Civil Action 5281 • Senate Bill 477 • Title III IV. STATE’S CURRENT POLICY, 19 TAC CHAPTER 89 • Policy and Implementing Regulations • Definitions • When is Bilingual Education or ESL required? • Exceptions and Waivers • Program Content; Method of Instruction • Enrollment of Students • Facilities and Classes • Assignment of Teachers to a Program • Compliance with Statute • Language Proficiency Assessment Committees • Evaluation A Training Module for Capacity Building May 2006 Page 2 V. PROGRAM MODELS • Bilingual Education • Dual Language Immersion • ESL VI. THE TEXAS SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS STUDY • Background • Purpose • Design • Scope • Criteria for Participation • Findings VII.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Bilingual Education Act, 1967-68
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1973 An analysis of the Bilingual Education Act, 1967-68. Gilbert Sanchez University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Sanchez, Gilbert, "An analysis of the Bilingual Education Act, 1967-68." (1973). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 4214. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/4214 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FIVE COLLEGE DEPOSITORY Gilbert Sanchez 1973 All Rights Reserved AN ANALYSIS OF THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT, 1967-68 A Dissertation Presented By Gilbert Sanchez Submitted to the School of Education of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION AN ANALYSIS OF THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT, 1967-68 A Dissertation By GILBERT SANCHEZ Approved as to style and content by DEDICATION To Monroe Sweetland, a scholar, a statesman, and above all a friend. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer owes a debt of gratitude to all who assisted in the preparation of this dissertation. Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Arthur W. Eve, Associate Professor of Education, University of Massachusetts, who directed and encouraged the writer to pursue this study. The writer is grateful to Professors David Yarington, Roger Peck, and Juan Caban, from the University of Massachusetts, for being members of the committee and for valuable teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum on Unionism and the Common Good
    National Education Association Unionism Training New Business Item 45 at the 2018 NEA Representative Assembly called for a curriculum to “promote the attitudes, values, and goals of unionism, solidarity, justice, fairness and the search for the common good.” The subsequent training, designed for NEA by University of Oregon Labor Education & Research Center and The Western States Center, covers a range of topics and activities to help participants explore what these values mean for our associations and movement. We have a few suggestions for the use of this curriculum: As individual icebreaker-style activities during association gatherings (meetings, retreats, etc.). As a longer half day or full day training experience with the modules used sequentially. The training is designed for anyone in the NEA community, but we would particularly suggest its use for those reinforcing or moving to an organizing model, Early Career Educators, Association Representatives, with community partners, etc. We would prioritize this training for emerging leaders to connect the bread and butter work of the association with NEA’s history and values as a social movement organization. The later modules also draw connections between our values as educators, the work of the NEA as a union, and our capacity to build power and effect change. Best Practices and Recommendations for Facilitating Challenging Trainings Facilitating training sessions on social justice topics, and especially those concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion, can be mentally and emotionally taxing for the facilitator and the participants. Facilitating requires more than time in the classroom. Thoughtful and thorough preparation is essential, as is de-brief and decompression afterwards.
    [Show full text]
  • Critically Assessing the 1968 Bilingual Education Act at 50 Years: Taming Tongues and Latinx Communities
    Bilingual Research Journal The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education ISSN: 1523-5882 (Print) 1523-5890 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj20 Critically assessing the 1968 Bilingual Education Act at 50 years: Taming tongues and Latinx communities Ofelia García & Kenzo Ka-Fai Sung To cite this article: Ofelia García & Kenzo Ka-Fai Sung (2018): Critically assessing the 1968 Bilingual Education Act at 50 years: Taming tongues and Latinx communities, Bilingual Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2018.1529642 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2018.1529642 Published online: 15 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 27 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ubrj20 BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2018.1529642 RESEARCH ARTICLE Critically assessing the 1968 Bilingual Education Act at 50 years: Taming tongues and Latinx communities Ofelia Garcíaa,b and Kenzo Ka-Fai Sung a,b aThe Graduate Center, City University of New York; bRowan University ABSTRACT As the 1968 Bilingual Education Act (BEA) reaches its 50th anniversary, we provide a critical historical review of its contradictory origins and legacy. By distilling the BEA’s history into three periods that we label “power to the people,”“pride for the people,” and “profit from the people,” we demon- strate that the bill was never meant to fully support 1960s Latinx activists’ goal for a race radical bilingual education to confront racism and structural inequities, yet it offered a transitory moment in which aspirations for such goals were partially realized.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bilingual Education Act
    The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later 1 The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later Gloria Stewner-Manzanares Introduction The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 is noted as the first official federal recognition of the needs of students with limited English speaking ability (LESA). Since 1968, the Act has undergone four reauthorizations with amendments, reflecting the changing needs of these students and of society as a whole. Even the definition of the population served has been broadened from limited English speaking to limited English proficient (LEP) students. It is important for those working with LEP students to gain an understanding of the growth of bilingual education in the United States so that they are better informed when faced with current issues in the education of LEP students. This paper highlights changes in the legislative history of specialized education for students of limited English proficiency. It begins with the authorization of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and examines the reauthorizations of the Act in 1974, 1978, 1984, and 1988. Important events surrounding legislative action are also described to offer greater understanding of the social and economic circumstances that influenced legislative changes. Since the Bilingual Education Act provides competitive grants that school districts and other educational institutions may apply for, this paper also examines the fiscal support provided by the federal government. 1968 Bilingual Education Act In 1967, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced a bill which proposed to provide assistance to school districts in establishing educational programs specifically for LESA students. Among the recommendations of this bill were the teaching of Spanish as a native language, the teaching of English as a second language, and programs designed to give Spanish-speaking students an appreciation of ancestral language and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilingual Education: an Overview
    Order Code 98-501 EPW CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Bilingual Education: An Overview Updated June 7, 2001 Patricia Osorio-O’Dea Analyst in Social Legislation Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Bilingual Education: An Overview Summary The U.S. Department of Education (ED) administers the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), the federal education program specifically intended for limited English proficient (LEP) children. The BEA, among other things, authorizes competitive grants for local school districts to assist them in educating elementary and secondary LEP students. The FY2001 appropriation for the BEA is $296 million. The BEA supports nearly 1000 projects nationwide. The BEA plays a relatively modest role in the education of LEP children. In total, there are an estimated 3.4 million LEP children in the United States with only 12% served in BEA projects. Most LEP children are served in local, state, and other federal programs which address, at least in part, their special educational needs. These programs utilize a wide array of instructional models for LEP children. Although conceptually distinct, many of these models are difficult to distinguish in practice. Fundamentally, these models may be differentiated by the role of the child’s native language. At one end of the spectrum, bilingual education projects use the native language for both English acquisition and academic learning in all subjects. Toward the other end of the spectrum, English as a Second Language (ESL), sheltered English, and immersion projects may place very little emphasis on the native language while expecting a relatively rapid grasp of English.
    [Show full text]
  • No Child Left Behind: Repealing and “Unpeeling” Federal Language Education Policy in the United States Bruce A
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarlyCommons@Penn University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons GSE Publications Graduate School of Education 3-2005 No Child Left Behind: Repealing and “Unpeeling” Federal Language Education Policy in the United States Bruce A. Evans Nancy H. Hornberger University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Education Policy Commons, and the Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration Commons Recommended Citation Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and “Unpeeling” Federal Language Education Policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4 (1), 87-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10993-004-6566-2 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/317 For more information, please contact [email protected]. No Child Left Behind: Repealing and “Unpeeling” Federal Language Education Policy in the United States Abstract For more than three decades U.S. language education policy was realized through the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), enacted in 1968 to meet the educational needs of language minority students. The BEA emphasized bilingual education and provided options for the development of students’ native language as well as their English language proficiency and academic achievement. In 2002 the BEA was replaced with the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Current policy implicitly repeals the BEA and emphasizes the need for schools to quickly develop students' English language proficiency and move them to English only classrooms.
    [Show full text]