|
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
students are students with a home language background other than English, whose
English language skills are not yet well enough developed for them to be able to
participate successfully in classrooms where all academic instruction is
provided in English. Numerous acts, laws, court decisions, and guidelines have
been written over the years for those students. They combine to create and
clarify the current legal responsibilities of all United State school districts
for the education of LEP students. The following acts, laws, and other legal
references are presented, either in brief summaries or through quotes, so that
parents, guardians, and school personnel will be more familiar with the school
district’s obligations in the education of LEP students.
FEDERAL LAW:
1) 1868 - Fourteenth
Amendment
"No state shall deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
2) 1964 - Civil Rights Act,
Title VI
"No person in the U.S.
shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance."
3) Bilingual Education Act
(Amended in 1974 and 1978)
"The Congress declared
it to be the policy of the United States, in order to establish equal
educational opportunity for all children, (a) to encourage the establishment and
operation, where appropriate, of educational programs using bilingual
educational practices, techniques, and methods; and (b) for that purpose, to
provide financial assistance to local education agencies, and to State education
agencies for certain purposes, in order to enable such local educational
agencies to develop and carry out such programs in elementary and secondary
schools, including activities at the pre-school level, which are designed to
meet the educational needs of such children; and to demonstrate effective ways
of providing, for children of limited English speaking ability, instruction
designed to enable them, while using their native language, to achieve
competence in the English language."
4) May 25, 1970, Memorandum,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
This memorandum interpreted the
Civil Rights Act. It delineates the responsibility of school districts in
providing equal education opportunity to national origin minority group students
whose English language proficiency is limited. The following quotes discuss some
major areas of concern with respect to compliance with Title VI and have the
force of Law:
"Where inability to
speak and understand the English language exclude national origin minority group
children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a
school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the
language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these
students."
"School districts have
the responsibility to adequately notify national origin minority group parents
of school activities which are called to the attention of other parents. Such
notice, in order to be adequate, may have to be provided in a language other
than English."
"School districts must
not assign national origin minority group students to classes for the mentally
retarded on the basis of criteria which essentially measure or evaluate English
language skills; nor may school districts deny national origin minority group
children access to college preparation courses on a basis directly related to
the failure of the school system to inculcate English language skills."
"Any ability grouping
or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special
language skill needs of national origin minority group children must be designed
to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an
education dead-end or permanent track."
5) 1974 - Equal Educational
Opportunities Act (EEOA)
"No state shall deny equal
educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color,
sex or nation origin, by ... the failure of an educational agency to take
appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation
by its students in its instructional programs."
COURT CASES
United States Supreme Court:
1974 - Lau vs. Nichols
In Lau vs. Nichols, the Supreme
Court found the following: "There is no equality of treatment merely by
providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and
curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively
foreclosed from any meaningful education.
1982 - Phyler vs. Doe
In Phyler vs. Doe, the United
States Supreme Court held, in a five-to-four decision, that the Texas law
allowing education agencies to deny enrollment to children of undocumented
immigrants was unconstitutional. The ruling was based on the equal protection
provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of particular
concern to the Court was the fact that children rather than their parents were
involved. The Court believed that denying undocumented children access to
education punished the children for their parents’ behavior. Such an action,
the Court noted, did not square with basic ideas of justice.
United States Federal Court:
1981 - Castaneda vs, Pickard
Castaneda vs. Pickard is
considered by some to be the most significant court case since Lau vs. Nichols.
The Fifth Court of Appeals decision created the framework for determining
whether or not an educational agency is taking "appropriate action"
according to the EEOA. This three-part test is comprised of the following
guidelines:
1. Is the school system’s
program for limited English proficient students based on sound educational theory?
2. Are the practices and
programs implemented by the school district effective?
3. Does the program demonstrate results to prove its effectiveness?
The legal rationale stated
previously provides only one part of the reason that special instructional
programs for limited English proficient (LEP) students are necessary. Equally,
if not more, important, is that fact that these types of programs are consistent
with best educational practices. Both research and experience have proven that
they provide the most valuable educational opportunities for LEP students.
In reviewing what is known
about learning a second language, in this case, English, for LEP students, it is
important to keep in mind some of the following in providing service to these
students.
General Considerations:
It is not necessary to give up or forget a first language in order to learn a
second language.
On the contrary, it has been
shown that developing and maintaining skills and proficiency in the first
language enhances acquisition of a second language. Students who are proficient
in their first language will acquire English more easily and more quickly.
Students who read in their first language, will learn to read faster and more
easily in English. It is, therefore, not useful nor practical, and in many ways
counterproductive, to encourage parents of LEP students who do not speak English
well themselves to try to speak English with their children at home. Parents can
read to their children in any language that is comfortable for them. The school
and the parents together can plan for rich and pleasant experiences for LEP
students in English, both in and out of school.
Lack of skill and
proficiency in English does not in itself make a student eligible for Special
Education services.
An individual student who lacks
English language skills is different from an individual with a language
disorder. A student from another culture may have learning styles and concepts
of appropriate school and classroom behavior that, while they may differ from
the American mainstream perception of the same may be appropriate to that
student’s cultural background and experiences.
In the course of normal second
language acquisition, an LEP student may not be able to perceive nor to
pronounce certain sounds that do not exist in his/her first language, or are not
used in the same position. Normal sound patterns and interference from the first
language in an LEP student may lead students to not discriminate English sounds.
This is not a learning, speech, or hearing disorder. A student may acquire oral
and written skills in English at different rates. Oral fluency in English may
not be an indication of the overall English language skills necessary for
academic achievement.
Therefore, before a student can
be served in Special Education, a student should be assessed in the first
language to determine if the suspected condition exists in the language and
cultural context with which the student’s most familiar and comfortable. It
can be assumed that a suspected speech disorder, for example, that does not
appear in the first language, is then a natural characteristic of second
language acquisition and that the student should be referred for English as a
Second Language instruction.
It may take a long time to
learn English well enough to participate fully in an all-English language
mainstream classroom.
Researchers have recently
concluded that it may take from three to up to ten years to master the
sophisticated English in the four skill areas (listening, speaking, reading,
writing) that is required to fully participate and learn in an academic setting.
This may vary with each individual student’s background, age, experience and
first language literacy, as well as with the amount of support from school and
parents. It is important to note that the language needed for basic oral
survival, while acquired relatively quickly (1 to 3 years) is not sufficient for
students to perform well in the classroom. Early acquisition of basic,
predictable oral language, or even slang, may lead mainstream teachers to
believe that an LEP student knows more English than he or she actually knows,
when actually the student does not know enough English to fully participate
academically in an English language mainstream classroom.
|
