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

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 state's certification and licensing requirements, (2) obtained at least a bachelor's degree, and (3) demonstrated subject matter expertise. The procedure for demonstrating subject matter knowledge depends on a teacher's 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.