Addressing the Educational Needs of English Language Learners: an Introduction to the 2012 Dps Consent Decree
| Publication year | 2015 |
| Pages | 45 |
| Citation | Vol. 44 No. 10 Pg. 45 |
Special Issue: Education Law
Addressing the Educational Needs of English Language Learners: An Introduction to the 2012 DPS Consent Decree
By Rene Galindo.
About the Author
Rene Galindo is an Associate Professor, School of Education & Human Development, University of Colorado at Denver-rene.galindo@ucdenver.edu.
Language restrictionism has shaped the development of educational programs for English language learners in the United States. The 2012 DPS Consent Decree is a negotiated and court-monitored ELA program that attempts to improve educational outcomes for linguistic minority students.
As the Supreme Court noted in Brown v. Board of Education, "[I]t is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education."[1] In Plyler v. Doe, the Court stated, "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments."[2] This is certainly increasingly the case where access to not just an education but to a high-quality education is critical, if not essential, for individuals to lead successful, productive, and self-sufficient lives.
In Plyler, the Supreme Court firmly established that every student, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, and immigration status, has the right to equal access to an education. And in the years following that decision, equal access to education has come to include resource equity, meaning all children shall have equal access to school resources, such as diverse course selections, advanced placement courses, technology and facilities, instructional materials, and teachers qualified to teach those higher-level courses. What has been less clear is whether equal access to education includes language equity or equal access to a high-quality education for those students whose first language is not English.
In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court held that for students with limited to no English proficiency, there is no equality of treatment merely by providing those students the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum.[3] In that case, 1, 789 Chinese students were failing in school due to their limited English skills and were, therefore, denied education on equal terms.[4]
This article provides a brief overview of the concept of language restrictionism within the framework of historical anti-bilingual education initiatives in public education. It also briefly examines the 2012 Denver Public Schools (DPS) Consent Decree within this limited context.
Relevance of Language Restrictionism
English language learners (ELLs), or students whose first language is not English and who are in the process of acquiring English, represent the fastest growing school-age population in the United States.[5] Some estimates put the number of ELL students in the nation around 4.7 million.[6]Within the DPS system it has been estimated there may be more than 34, 413 ELLs.[7] This means that perhaps as much as 38% of the district's students speak a language other than English at home. While Spanish is by far the most prevalent native language for these students, it is certainly not the only native language spoken by ELL youth.[8] Therefore, improvement of ELL educational outcomes is vital to the success of the school district as a whole. To be academically successful, ELLs must not only work toward English proficiency, and develop biliteracy, but also simultaneously master academic content. These combined challenges often result in ELL students testing far below grade level and experiencing significantly higher drop-out rates.
Language Restrictionism and its Impact on Education
Language restrictionism is a policy favoring prohibitions on the use of languages other than the dominant language. It is not necessarily the designation of an official language, but rather through language policies it operates as such. It is the result of the identification by an administrative body of the dominant language for governmental or educational purposes.[9] Language restrictionism promotes monolingualism through official policies that repress the multilingualism of a society within a given domain of public activity.[10] Official designation of a language may be considered the most significant act that a government can take with respect to language planning because it holds great consequences for minority language communities in terms of their role in society and their access to social arenas, such as education and voting.[11] Also, the status of speakers of minority languages is greatly affected across time as a result of the societal devaluing of their native language.[12]
Restrictions placed on language use are accompanied by other measures indicative of the dominant political culture of the time.[13] For example, during the 1910s in Nebraska, when there were strong prohibitions against the German language, "aliens" were prevented from holding public office or teaching in any public, private, or parochial school.[14] In the current era, language restrictionist policies—such as state official-English and anti-bilingual initiatives—have developed alongside anti-immigrant policies like California's Proposition 187.
Although Proposition 187 was found to be unconstitutional, other legislation that restricted benefits to immigrants was not.[15] For instance, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 targeted immigrants by eliminating some of the social benefits that legal immigrants could receive, such as food stamps.[16]Language restrictionism has not only been a component of nativistic reactions to immigrant languages, but has also affected other language communities—including Native Americans and Mexican Americans—that predate the arrival of Western European immigrants.[17]
From 1789 to 1880, before the large wave of immigration from Western Europe, there was no explicit designation of English as the official language for state government or education.[18] There also existed greater tolerance for the use of non-English school texts and non-English languages for instruction in bilingual schools.[19] For example, Pennsylvania passed a law in 1837 permitting German schools to be funded on an equal basis with English schools, and Midwestern states were willing to subsidize German instruction in public schools.[20]
After the Civil War, nativism—inspired by groups such as the American Protective Association —ended the era of tolerance toward instruction in languages other than English.[21] This reaction was not based on educational need but rather on political, religious, and economic views.[22] As the teaching of languages other than English came under severe attack, immigrant communities shifted from public to parochial schools to maintain mother-tongue education.[23] In response, language restrictionist legislation was written to limit instruction in foreign languages in parochial, private, and public schools.[24] Resistance by language minorities, both historically and currently, to official designation of the dominant language indicates awareness on their part of the devaluing consequences of official designation.
In Colorado, bilingual education was available in German and English or Spanish and English.[25] According to a Colorado school law passed in 1867, school districts with at least 25 German children were directed to establish a bilingual school.[26]In 1870, one of the four Denver public schools was a German bilingual school.[27] By 1877, German went from being a language of instruction to a mere subject.[28] A school law enacted that year mandated that English should be the language of instruction in public schools.[29] However, with a request from a minimum of 20 parents, German or Spanish could be taught as a subject.[30] Support for bilingual schools disappeared by 1919 when a state school law excluded non-English languages from public schools and allowed their use only as subjects in private schools.[31]
Language restrictionist actions continued throughout and beyond World War I. From 1913 to 1923, many states passed statutes requiring English to be the language of instruction in both public and private schools.[32] By 1923, 34 states had passed language restrictionist laws requiring English instruction in the schools.[33] For example, the Siman Act of 1919, enacted in Nebraska, required all s ubjects taught in public, private, and parochial schools to be in English.[34] Non-English languages could only be taught as foreign languages after the eighth grade.[35] A coalition of German, Polish, Bohemian, and Danish communities challenged the Siman Act in court, but the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of an injunction in December 1919.[36]
In a related Nebraska case, Robert Meyer was arrested and fined in 1920 for offering German instruction during recess.[37] The defendant alleged that the Siman Act was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment since it restricted his vocation as a foreign language teacher and constituted an invasion of personal liberty.[38] The teacher further asserted that the law violated Nebraska's constitutional guarantee of religious liberty.[39] Meyer lost his appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which held that teaching ancestral languages to children was "unfavorable to national safety and self-interest."[40]
Meyer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which considered his case along with four others dealing with similar language restrictionist issues.[41] The Court's decision in Meyer v. Nebraska overturned the state Supreme Court's decision, reasoning that during peacetime, no threat to national security could justify restricting the teaching of languages in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial