Anti Bilingual Education Law

917 Words2 Pages

This essay will consist of two analyses of significant legislations. One is the reauthorization of 1994 regarding the Bilingual Education Act (BEA). Two is Title III or English Language Acquisition Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act. The three states discussed in this essay regarding English language learner issues are California, Arizona, and Massachusetts. However, these three states share the anti-bilingual education law. California enacted the law in 1998. Arizona initiated the law in 2000. Massachusetts approved by legislature the law in 2002. This essay will also discuss the comparisons with the anti-bilingual law passed in these three states, explanation of challenges with the anti-bilingual law in the three states and an explanation of the benefits of the anti-bilingual law in the three states. The reauthorization of 1994 involved the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) or Title VII. This reauthorization promoted the goal of bilingualism or being able to communicate in two different languages for English language learners rather than simply transition to English. Therefore, the advocates for native instruction made strong solid progress with the 1994 reauthorization of the BEA which acknowledges minority language students’ capacity for academic excellence while at the same time encouraging and promoting the benefits of multilingualism (“Bilingual History,” 2010). However, the BEA ended in 2001. Therefore, Title VII was replaced by Title III. Title III or the English Language Acquisition Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act was enacted as part of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001. Title III ensure that children who are limited in English proficiency (LEP) which includes immigra... ... middle of paper ... ...ls accountable by requiring that all English learners be tested annually (“Bilingualism for Children,” 2004). In the state of Massachusetts they are the opponents of requiring minority students to learn and be taught instruction only in English which does not include their native language. Massachusetts legislature states that this is not the approach to use when initiating a language policy. Therefore, the state legislature points regarding English only are “direct democracy does not give adequate protection to minorities, it exacerbates the tendency to make decisions about sensitive immigration issues on the basis of rhetoric, emotional reactions, and campaign politics, and it gives uniformed drafters and voters the power to make complex policy decisions implementing particular educational methods about which they know very little” (Ross, 2007, pp.1516-1532).

Open Document