History of Bilingual Education in the U.S.

Where do I start this week?
The history of Bilingual Education in the US and Lau v. Nichols (1974)?
Options for funding our Public Schools?
American Education and our Courts?

Regarding the history of bilingual Education, I was surprised to read in Joel Spring's American Education (chapter 10, pg. 325-6) about an early court case, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923). There had been an earlier Nebraska law that required all students in private and public schools be taught in the English language. The purpose of this law was to curb German nationalism during WWI. In Meyer, the court declared this law unconstitutional. This court decision, rather than being cited in later court cases regarding bilingual education, would set a precedent for a 1925 case (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) regarding private schools and state compulsion to attend schools. But I found the reasons behind requiring English instruction in this case and the court's findings to be interesting.

In researching bilingual education I came upon an article by Gloria Stewner-Manzanares, "The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later" and learned the following history regarding Bilingual Education in this country from 1968 - 1988.

The Bilingual Education Act of 1968, ironically, did not require bilingual education. It did, however, give school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education programs without violating segregation laws. This law was not specific and participation was voluntary.

In Lau v. Nichols (1974), a lawsuit was brought forth stating that 1800 Chinese students in San Francisco were being denied an equal education because of limited English ability. There had been a 1970 memorandum issued by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that mandated a remedy to English language deficiencies. The US Supreme Court considered this memorandum in its ruling for the Lau decision, that same facilities, same text, same curricula do not constitute equal education.

The Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 extended the Lau ruling to affect all students and school districts, not just those in schools that received Federal funding, and stated that language barriers must be overcome by instructional programming. To help school districts comply with Lau v Nichols, the HEW Office of Civil Rights issued a set of guidelines later known as the Lau Remedies. These guidelines served two purposes; to determine if a school district was in compliance with the law and to provide guidance in the development of educational plans

In 1978 the Education Amendments specified the goal of transitional bilingual programs; native language was to be used only to the extent necessary for students to become proficient in English and programs designed only to maintain the native language were excluded from funding.

The Lau Remedies lacked the legal basis of a federal regulatory document. The Department of Education in 1980 proposed two goals for the Lau Remedies:
1) LEP (Limited English Proficient) students should learn English as quickly as possible
2) Mandate that LEP students be taught required subjects in a language they could understand until English was learned.

The debate focused on three questions:
1) Who should control education, the federal government or local school districts?
2) Should schools teach exclusively in English or allow the native language to be used?
3) Who should pay for bilingual education programs, the federal government of local school districts?

Implementation costs were a concern. In 1981 the Secretary of Education withdrew the proposed Lau Remedies. This was a part of a larger movement to deregulate social, educational and human services and to encourage state officials to be responsible for financing and monitoring the education of LEP students. The federal government encouraged each state to set its own priorities. Following this debate the 1984 Bilingual Education Act addressed the need for increased flexibility and gave local school districts greater authority in deciding how LEP students should be taught.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/classics/focus/06bea.htm

This was alot to absorb and, of course, 20 more years have passed since the writing of this article. For a future blog I would like to continue this research to cover Bilingual Education 1988 -2009.

Before I close for today, I would like to mention the continuing inclination of the federal government to give authority as well as responsibility to state governments and to local school districts. I found this repeatedly to be the case in reading American Education's chapter 10, "The Courts and the Schools." I see it with NCLB. The federal government sets a regulation and then turns it over to the states to decide how best to either implement or meet this regulation. This discussion will have to be saved for another time.