LEGAL PROVISIONS

Educational policies for ELL students in the public schools are guided by a rich history of major legislation. In order to provide a working knowledge of the legal protections for ELLs, we will focus on four of the landmark cases.

We will use the mnemonic The Four A’s to operationalize these four major legal provisions. The Four A’s emphasize the main themes of: Antidiscrimination, Access, Accountability, and Assessment. Brief synopses or text extracts of each provision follow.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Antidiscrimination
Outlawed discrimination in Federally supported programs. Helped define LEP. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal financial assistance.

Lau v. Nichols, 1974
Access
Clarified “equal access”. A class action suit originally filed on behalf of Chinese-speaking public school students against the San Francisco Unified school district in 1970. In question was whether non-English speaking students received an equal educational opportunity when instructed in a language they could not understand. In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the San Francisco school system to provide appropriate and meaningful instruction to students who did not speak English, denied them the opportunity to effectively participate in the public education program. The San Francisco school system was found to be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Schools must take affirmative steps to assure effective participation of all students. (Lau Resource Center)

No Child Left Behind, 2001
Accountability
Included LEP students in Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) calculations. ELL students must participate in statewide assessments and districts must determine appropriate accommodations, in order to reliably and validly track ELL achievement and progress through the curriculum.

IDEA, 2004/6
Assessment
Addressed the inappropriate representation of ELL students in programs for students with disabilities. Assessments should not be culturally discriminatory and should be provided in the student’s native language. IDEA reemphasized native language assessment, first mandated by P.L. 94-142, in 1975. Evaluation procedures must be administered in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally. The value of qualitative information and non-standardized procedures, such as: portfolio assessments, dynamic assessment, language samples and the use of interpreters when necessary, are highlighted to appropriately determine the strengths and needs of each ELL student. (q.v., Appendix A: IDEA Issue Brief)

These legal provisions, and others, make it clear that school systems, as well as teachers and staff, are responsible for the academic success of ELL students.