Cobb County ESOL

Office of Civil Rights Enforcement Policy of 1991

It addresses components within the compliance points: 1) ESL teachers must have been trained adequately and must be evaluated by someone familiar with methods being used, 2) Exit criteria should be based on objective standards, 3) schools cannot have policies of “no double services” refusing alternative language service and special education to children needing them and, 4) cannot be categorically excluded from gifted/talented or other special programs.

Click the following links for more information:

Synopsis of the OCR Enforcement Policy of 1991

Civil Rights Enforcement Policy of 1991

Congress: Civil Rights Restoration 1988

This law clarified previous laws to ensure that discrimination is prohibited throughout an entire institution or agency, if any part receives federal assistance. If any state and local agencies, school systems, and corporations were found to be in violation of civil rights laws and refused to comply with the law, all of the federal funding for that institution would be in jeopardy of being withdrawn.

Click here for more information on the Civil Rights Restoration.

Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education 811 F.2d 1030 (1987)

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that state education agencies as well as local education agencies are required, under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974), to ensure that the needs of limited-English-proficient children are met.

Click here for more information on Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education.

Keyes v. School District #1 895 F.2d 659 (1983)

A U.S. District Court found that a Denver public school district had failed to satisfy the second of the “Castaneda Test’s” three elements because the school district was not implementing an adequate plan for national origin minority students.

Click here for more information on Keyes v. School District #1.

Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying a free public education to undocumented immigrant children regardless of their immigrant status. The court emphatically declared that school systems are not agents for enforcing immigration law, and determined that the burden undocumented aliens may place on an educational system is not an accepted argument for excluding or denying educational services to any student.

Click here for more information on Plyler v. Doe.

Castañeda v. Pickard 648 F.2d 989; (1981 U.S. App.)

The court established a three-part test to evaluate the adequacy of a district’s program for

ELLs: 1) Theory:  Is the program based on an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field or is considered by experts as a legitimate experimental strategy, 2) Practice: Are the programs and practices, including resources and personnel, reasonably calculated to implement this theory effectively, and 3) Results: Does the school district evaluate its programs and make adjustments where needed to ensure language barriers are actually being overcome?

Click here for more information on Castañeda v. Pickard.

Rios v. Reed (New York, 1978)

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York found Pastchogue-Medford School District’s transitional bilingual program inadequate, with regard to school professionals’ knowledge of bilingual teaching methods, language assessment and program placement procedures, native language curriculum materials and native language instruction. The court wrote: “while the district’s goal of teaching Hispanic children the English language is certainly proper, it cannot be allowed to compromise a student’s right to meaningful education before proficiency in English is obtained.”

Click here for more information on Rios v. Reed.

Cintron v. Brentwood (New York, 1978)

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the Brentwood School District’s plan to restructure its bilingual program, finding that the proposed plan “kept [Spanish-speaking students] in music and are in violation of the Lau Guidelines.” The program also failed to provide for existing students whose English language proficiency would enable them to understand regular English instruction.

Click here for more information on Cintron v. Brentwood.

Serna v. Portales 499 F.2d 1147 (1974)

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found “undisputed evidence that Spanish surnamed students do not reach the achievement levels attained by their Anglo counterparts.” The court ordered the Portales Municipal Schools to design an educational plan that would address the needs of national origin minority students by implementing a bilingual and bicultural curriculum, reviewing testing procedures to assess achievement in that curriculum, and recruiting and hiring of bilingual school personnel.

Click here for more information on Serna v. Portales.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. State Board of Education, U.S. Court of the Southern District, Florida Consent Decree 1990

The Consent Decree is the State of Florida's framework for compliance with the following federal and state laws and jurisprudence regarding the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students. It is the most comprehensive guidance for the structure and administration of ESOL programs.

 

Equal Education Opportunities Act 20 USC Sec. 1703 (1974)

This civil rights statute prohibits states from denying equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex or national origin. The statute specifically prohibits states from denying equal educational opportunity 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.

Click here for more information on the Equal Education Opportunities Act.

Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563 (1974)

The Supreme Court ruled that equality of educational opportunity is not achieved by merely providing all students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum. “Students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.” The court ordered that districts must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by non-English speaking students.

Click here for more information on Lau v. Nichols.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare May 25 Memorandum (1970)

The Memorandum clarified a school district’s responsibilities with respect to national origin-minority children, stating, in part, that “where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open the instructional program to the students.”

Additionally, the memo forbids specialized programs for ELLs to operate as an educational dead-end or permanent track. The school districts are required to notify adequately the language-minority parents of school activities that are called to the attention of other parents. Such notice, in order to be adequate, may have to be provided in a language other than English.

Click here for more information about the May 25 Memorandum.

Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968

The Bilingual Education Act recognized the unique educational disadvantages faced by non-English speaking students and established a federal policy to assist educational agencies to serve students with limited English proficiency by authorizing funding to support those efforts. The Act also supported professional development and research activities. Reauthorized in 1994 as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act, Title VII was restructured to provide for an increased state role and give priority to applicants seeking to develop bilingual proficiency.

The Act expired in 2002.

Click here for more information on Title VII, aka the Bilingual Education Act.

Title VI Civil Rights Act 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. The Title VI regulatory requirements have been interpreted to prohibit denial of equal access to education because of a language minority student’s limited proficiency in English.

Click here for an Overview of Title VI and ELL Information from the Office of Civil Rights.

Mendez v. Westminster 64 F. Supp. 544 (1946)

In this case, a unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a federal district court decision that had struck down the segregation of Mexican and Mexican-American students in four Orange County, California school districts as a violation of the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. One of the grounds for segregating such children at the time was that they were deficient in English, and the challenge to the practice by several families was that Spanish-speaking students of Mexican descent lost ground in learning English in such segregated settings.

The case is viewed by many as the first federal court decision to strike down segregation in K-12 education, and it helped lay the groundwork for the legal attack on racial segregation that led to the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

The school districts in the Mendez case had declined to appeal the 9th Circuit decision to the high court, and later in 1947, California repealed its laws authorizing school segregation. The repeal was signed by then-Gov. Earl Warren, who went on to deliver the Brown opinion as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click here to learn more about Mendez v. Westminster.

Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

In the first U.S. Supreme Court case to address foreign-language teaching in American education, the justices struck down a Nebraska law that barred public and private schools from offering instruction in any language but English. A teacher in an evangelical Lutheran private school had been charged with reading a Bible story in German to a student, in violation of a law adopted at one peak of anti-immigrant sentiment.

“The protection of the [U.S.] Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue,” Supreme Court Justice James C. McReynolds wrote. The decision established the principle that parents have a constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children, including their education.

Click here to find out more about Meyer v. Nebraska.