Florida Consent Decree and Rights of Second Language Learners Discussion, Essay Example

Throughout the history, language strategies and procedures have been exceedingly politicized in the United States of America. Using English language as the single language of tuition has been constantly stressed by state and federal legislative guiding principles, rather than authorizing native verbal communication during the lessons. However, it is often suggested to preserve and incorporate home language in helping out Limited English Proficient students striving for English proficiency. Among these disagreeing ideas and policies stays the necessity of English Language Learners to advantage fully from public schools of Florida and San Francisco.

During the past several years, an instantaneous increase in the quantity of English Language Learners (ELL) and the responsibility burden placed upon schools at the federal, state, and local levels have occurred. “In the late eighties documented inequities in educational opportunities for linguistic minority students in Florida’s schools prompted the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), joined by other minority community groups, to bring suit against the Florida Department of Education (DOE) on behalf of those students” (The Inclusion of Limited English-Proficient Students in Florida’s K-12 Content Classrooms). The Florida Department of Education joined into a working relationship with the League of United Latin American Citizens and created English to Speakers of other languages (ESOL) agreement, which mandated recognition, classification and supervising of students, including LEP students, in categorical curriculums, staff improvement, and the integration of ESOL approach into subject matter. The agreement in question has lead to the creation of a special office (Office of Minority and Second Language Education), which observes Limited English Proficiency students of all levels, maintains a database for these students, cooperates with schools to assist with implementation procedure, and advises different ESOL policies for the different areas.

The inclusion policy, which is the topic, discussed in the case, is being encouraged extensively and is quickly substituting other models. This kind of model calls for the distribution of liability for the improvement of Limited English Proficiency students among school employees than more dedicated plan do. The agreement signed in 1990 was modified and the original provisions were expanded on September 10, 2003. Firstly, the adapted version allows qualified teachers to attain English to Speakers of other languages (ESOL) coverage. Second, all individuals occupying organizational and supervision counselor statuses require special training. Third, “the new 2003 amendment allows the plaintiffs to secure access to the ESOL teacher test and provide input that becomes part of the test’s design” (Lopez, 2004). In accordance with the Consent Decree, each student is obliged to have access to appropriate educational programming, according to the knowledge of English, skill, and ability. With the intention of monitoring this instruction, each district is required to present an LEP proposal to the Florida Department of Education (FDOE). Additionally, each student must have a LEP student plan, which includes identification date, evaluation data, and ESOL program goals.

On May 28, 1970, Kinney Kinmon Lau and 12 non-English-speaking Chinese American students filled a lawsuit against the president of the San Francisco School Board and the district in Federal District Court.(Nakanishi & Neshida, 58) It was made on behalf of 3000 Chinese American students. In fact, in San Francisco, they were receiving instructions in English language, which apparently they could barely understand. The Chinese-American community had multiple meetings with school administrators, thus proposing various solutions in order to solve the issue. They went to board meetings to request bilingual education and staged numerous protests for it. The school district responded by implementing one-hour per day ESL course for such students, but still not every student was receiving it. Thus, attorney Edward Steinman was representing Kinney Kinmon Lau and other 3000 students. The fundament of the case was distinctive concepts of equality. One type of discrimination is when the same people are treated differently, but it appears that treating different people the same way is evenly discriminating. Edward Steinman developed an argument that this inequality violated Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment as well.(Nakanishi & Neshida, 58) However, the Federal District Court refused to Chinese-Americans in fulfilling their demand, motivating that they were not legally obliged to receiving special instruction apart from other students of the district who studied according to generally accepted school program. The school district attorney noted that Chinese American students could have been offered it gratuitously upon the personnel permission. The Federal District Court pointed out that their legal rights for equal education actually were satisfied for they were receiving the same equal education on the same terms and conditions as other thousands of students in San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). Consequently, the same group of Chinese American students appealed the decision of Federal District Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals, thus having an amicus curie brief from the U.S. Government to support their claim. However, again the Court accepted the argument of SFUSD, claiming that they were only responsible for providing those students with the same textbooks, facilities, teachers, curriculum as other students in the district. In fact, the three-judge panel further concluded that all the difficulties experienced by Chinese American students were not the result of state and federal laws, but of their inability and failure to learn English language themselves. Eventually, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which overturned rulings by the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Ninth Circuit Court, referring to them as cruel, inaccurate and unsympathetic. On January 21, 1974, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of Lau v. Nichols that SFUSD had failed to provide equal educational opportunities for Chinese American students who do not speak English language, thus violating the regulations and guidelines of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) according to Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thereafter, the San Francisco schools signed a consent decree by which they agreed to offer bilingual education for Chinese, Filipino, and Hispanic students. Basically, there were two major issues in the case of Lau v. Nichols. The first one was whether the department of Health Education and Welfare was authorized to provide regulation of services offered by schools receiving federal assistance due to the services to non-English-speaking students. The second fundamental issue of the case was whether the educational program of SFUSD was opposing to Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Language struggles in educational environment has always been a topic revealing and bearing multiple arguments as to the possible barriers and communicational breakdowns. However, in a democratic lawful society education is a must and everybody must have equal rights to receive it. Both cases analyzed in this paper – Lau v. Nichols and LULAC v. State of Florida – can be a vivid example of the ongoing struggle and argument. However, the U.S. Government does not in any case try to prevent ESL students from getting education, but actually facilitates, thus contributing to realization of laws and legal rights.

References

Lopez, A. (October 8, 2004). Memorandum to the Author. Re: Newly Approved Modification to the Consent Decree. LULAC et al. vs. Florida Board of Education, et al. Case no. 90-1913-CIVMoreno. September 10, 2003 Stipulation Modifying the Consent Decree. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.

Nakanishi, D. T., & Nishida, T. Y. (1995). The Asian American educational experience. Routledge.

The Inclusion of Limited English-Proficient Students in Florida’s K-12 Content Classrooms. (2009). College of Education. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.coe.fsu.edu/whitepapers/inclusion.htm