SEI+DefinitionLaws+and+Regulations+for+ELLs

Laws and Regulations Related to the Education of ELLs
There are several laws and regulations to ensure ELLs have equal access to high quality education in the United States. Until the 1960s, federal policy towards ELLs could be mostly described as "sink-or-swim". ELLs were offered few or no remedial services, and were generally held back in the same grade level until they had mastered enough English to advance in subject areas. However, since the Civil Rights Movement the federal government has clearly delineated a more responsive language minority policy. “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.” [3] // Lau vs. Nichols // established that equality of opportunity means not just the same education for every student, but the same opportunity to receive an education. This court case then clarified that equal education could only exist in an instructional setting where ELLs can understand the language of instruction. This criteria established by //Castañeda v. Pickard was// also recognized in the 1991 U.S. Department of Education **Policy**
 * Federal Policy**
 * In 1964**, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,** prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. Title IV paved the way for **the U.S. Department of Education Memorandum** of May 25, 1970 in which schools districts were asked to:
 * o Take steps to help Limited English Proficient (LEP) students overcome language barriers
 * o Ensure ELLs could participate meaningfully in school district’s educational programs
 * In 1970, the U.S. Office of Civil Rights also issued **Guidelines for School Districts Serving ELLs**. This memo described how schools had responsibilities under civil rights law to provide an equal educational opportunity to ELLs. It states that school districts “must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.” [1] It also explains that “federal law is violated if:
 * In 1974, a major court case tested the provisions of the Civil Rights Act and the 1970 memo. In **Lau vs. Nichols,** the U.S. Supreme Court upheld language minority students’ rights to equal education. It also described how equality under the law for ELLs implied much more than mere participation in the same schools as their Native-English speaking peers:
 * students are excluded from effective participation in school because of their inability to speak and understand the language of instruction;
 * national origin minority students are inappropriately assigned to special education classes because of their lack of English skills;
 * programs for students whose English is less than proficient are not designed to teach them English as soon as possible, or if these programs operate as a dead end track; or
 * parents whose English is limited do not receive school notices or other information in a language they can understand”. [2]
 * Lau vs. Nichols paved the way for Congress to pass the **Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA)** just a few weeks later. This law prohibits discrimination against faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requires school district to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation.
 * The EEOA gave ELL students the right to file civil suits in federal court if they are denied equal educational opportunities. In 1981, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld claims that the language remediation programs in a Texan school district violated the EEOA. In //Castañeda v. Pickard// the courts set a 3-pronged test to determine whether school programs complied with the provisions of EEOA:
 * o Theory: The school must pursue a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or, at least, as a legitimate experimental strategy
 * o Practice: The school must actually implement the program with instructional practices, resources, and personnel necessary to transfer theory to reality
 * o Results: The school must not persist in a program that fails to produce results.

As with other federal grants, //Title III funds must be used so as to supplement the level of local, state, and federal funds that, in the absence of Title III funds, would otherwise be expended for programs for LEP students and immigrant children and youth, and in no case supplant such federal, state, and local funds.**[4]**//
 * Update on School’s Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students with Limited English Proficiency**.
 * The **U.S Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR)** oversees whether school districts ensure equal educational opportunity for ELLs. According to OCR, districts must:
 * o identify students as potential ELLs;
 * o assess student's need for ELL services;
 * o develop a program which, in the view of experts in the field, has a reasonable chance for success;
 * o ensure that necessary staff, curricular materials, and facilities are in place and used properly;
 * o develop appropriate evaluation standards, including program exit criteria, for measuring the progress of students; and
 * o assess the success of the program and modify it where needed.
 * Finally, in 2002, **Title III of //No Child Left Behind//** created a grant program to support ELL instruction. In order to receive federal funding, school districts must meet Title III’s requirements:
 * o Teachers of ELLs must be certified as English language proficient
 * o ELL instruction must be based on sound research and demonstrated to be effective
 * o English language proficiency benchmarks must be established, and ELLs academic achievement and progress in attaining language proficiency must be assessed and monitored annually
 * o State English Language Proficiency standards must be established; content area standards must be aligned with state language proficiency standards
 * o Parents must be notified about program placement, academic achievement, and language proficiency progress

Current ELL policy in Massachusetts is grounded on state education reform laws and federal policy. The law also stipulates that ELLs “shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one school year”. [5] It also provides certain recommendations: placing ELLs of different grade levels but similar language fluency in the same classroom, reclassifying ELLs with a “good working knowledge of English… able to do regular school work” as former ELLs and transferring them to “English language mainstream classes”. Parents and guardians of ELLs are granted several rights under Chapter 71A. They may apply for an annual waiver from the sheltered English immersion program to place their child in mainstream English or bilingual classrooms. Schools in which 20 or more children request a waiver for bilingual education are required to offer the class. Finally, the law explains that parents and guardians can apply for the waivers if: Parents and guardians are also able to file civil suits to enforce this law.
 * Massachusetts State Policy**
 * The 1993 **Massachusetts Education Reform Act** serves as the background for standards reform in the Commonwealth. The Act aimed to:
 * o Equalize funding among districts to level the playing field
 * o Increase state spending on education
 * o Create curriculum frameworks for all content areas and set high expectations for academic achievement
 * o Create means for assessing student performance aligned with the MA Curriculum Frameworks
 * In 2002, **Ballot Question #2: English in Public Schools**, replaced previous state law that provided for transitional bilingual education for ELLs. The ballot question was codified into state law as **Chapter 71 A** of the MA General Laws. Chapter 71A requires, with limited exception, that all public school children be taught in English and are placed in English language classrooms.
 * o The child already knows English,
 * o The child is at least 10 years old, and/or
 * o The child has special education needs.
 * Massachusetts participates in **//No Child Left Behind’s// Title III** grant program. Currently, MA priorities for Title III are to:
 * o Increase English proficiency and academic achievement in core academic subjects of limited English proficient students by providing high-quality language instruction programs and content area teaching;
 * o Provide high-quality professional development to enable classroom teachers to deliver effective sheltered content and English language instruction; and develop, implement, and provide extended day, weekend, and summer opportunities for English language and academic content instruction for limited English proficient students; and
 * o Promote parental, family, and community participation in programs for limited English proficient children, including immigrant children and youth. [6]


 * In 2012, the Massachusetts Board of Education established additional regulations related to the teaching and learning of ELLs. The **Rethinking Equity and Teaching for English Language Learners** **(RETELL) Initiative** included a host of regulations related to teaching ELLs:
 * o Starting in 2016, or a year after teachers are placed in a RETELL cohort, teachers of ELLs and their administrators must earn the Sheltered English Instruction Endorsement. Educators who possess an ESL license or graduate degree in the field are exempted.
 * o In order to renew or advance their license, Massachusetts’s educators must obtain at least 15 PDPs in professional development related to the teaching and learning of ELLs.
 * o Candidates seeking to obtain an ESL license must pass the ESL MTEL and also complete a 150-hour practicum.

[1] [] [2] Ibid [3] Ibid [4] Title III in Massachusetts ([]) [5] MGL Chapter 71A, section 4 ([]) [6] Title III in Massachusetts ([]) Other sources: [] and []