DOMES? RESUME

ED 192 614 PL 011 847

AUTHOR Leibowitz, Arnold H.TITLE The Bilingual Education Actk A Legiilative

Analysis.INSTITUTION National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,

Arlington, Va.`SPONS AGENCY Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages

Affairs (ED), Washington, D.C.P02 DATE- 80CONTRACT 400-77-0101NOTE 67p.AVAILIBLE FROM National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1300

Wilson Boulevard, Suite 82-11, Arlington, VA 22209(1.25)

EDRS PRICE -11F01/PC03 Plus Postage..DESCRIPTORS American Indians: *Bilingual Education: Educational

Planning:-*Federal Legislation: Hispanic Aaericans:History: Immigrants: Non English Speaking

IDENTIFIERS *Bilingual :Education Act 1968: Bilingual Programs'

ABSTRACTThis analysis explicates the federal legislation

which is the foundation for many bilingual education-efforts in theUnited States today. The first section sets forth the politicalbackground. that led to the passage of the Bilingual Education Act of1968.. This background information considers the experiences of theHispanic population in the _southwest, the American Indian, and-theEuropean. isuigrant. The. history of restriction and-tolerance of.non-Englith-speakers is set forth. The-second section is.anexamination of the existing bilingual education legislation set forth.analytically, but with some attention to the evolution from 1968 to1974,and then 1978. Breadth of Coverageipurposes, program design,the allocation process, the application process for program grants,and program administration are discussed. The concluding sectionaddresses the questions raised by Congress and recent reports whichsuggest future direOtions and issues for bilingual education. (JB)

******i!****************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the" original document.***********************************************************************

illri"IllillaiqllIll"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS INOMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

N E-

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Tie Bilingual Education Act:

A Legislative Analysis

i"*.; Arnold H. Leibowitz u DEPARTMENT°, HEALTH.EDUCATION I WELFARE

ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO. ,DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

7

This document is published by Inter America Research Associates, Inc., pur-suant to contract ME 400-77-0101 to operate the Notional Clearinghouse forBilingual Education. The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education isjointly funded by the National Institute of Education and the Office of BilingualEducation, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractorstmdenaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged tofreely express their judgment in professional and technical matters; the viewsexpressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor-ing agencies.

InterAmerica Research Associates, Inc. d/b/aNational Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education1300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 112-11Rossiya, Virginia 22209(703) 522-0710/(800) 3364560

Cover design by Richard Phi, Pig / Mauro Associates, Inc.Typesetting by Hodges Typographers, Inc.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80.80121ISBN: 0-89763.022 -xFirst printing 1980Printed in USA

10 9 8 7 .6 5 4 3 2 1

3

I

Contents

Foreword ix

Introduction I

Historical Background: Tolerance and Restriction 3The Hispanic Population in the Southwest, 3The American Indian, 5The Experience of the European Immigrant, 6Restriction and Tolerance, 8

The Term: of the Bilingual Education Act ISBreadth of Coverage, 15General Purposes, 20Specific Purposes, 24Program Design, 29The Allocation Process, 35The Application Process for Program Grants, 38Program Administration, 41

Future Directions 43Service Rather Than Demonstration, 43A Coordinated Bilingual Education Program with

Increased Significance, 47

Conclusion 49

Selected Legislative History Documents SI

Notes SS

4

ix

Foreword

The Bilingual Education Act: A Legislative Analysis care-fully explicates the federal legislation which is the founda-tion for many bilingual education efforts in the UnitedStates today. Arnold Leibowitz begins with a historicallook at some of the forces which led to the first act in 1968and then traces the development of the law through theamendments of 1978. He discusses how the legislation haschanged and how Congress has evolved a position on therole of the federal government in bilingual education. Inaddition to providing extensive notes, the author includesa listing of key legislative documents.

Arnold Leibowitz, a constitutional attorney practicingin Washington, D.C., is vice-president of the OverseasPrivate Investment Corporation. He was formerly presi-dent of the Institute of International Law and EconomicDevelopment and legal advises- to the Guam-Virgin Is-lands constitutional conventions. From 1964 to 1966 heserved as general counsel for the Commission on theStatus of Puerto Rico. He holds an A.B. degree fromColumbia College, a LL.B. degree from Yale Law School,and he did graduate work in jurisprudence at the Uniyersity ofHeidelberg. His publications include Educational Policyand Political Acceptance: The Imposition of English as theLanguage of Instruction in American Schools (Center forApplied Linguistics, 1971) and "English Literacy: LegalSanction for Discrimination" (Notre Dame Lawyer,1969). In 1979 he prepared a special report for the Na-tional Institute of Education entitled "The OfficialCharacter of the English Language in the United States."

5

One of the activities of the National Clearinghouse forBilingual Education is to publish documents addressingthe specific information needs of the bilingual educationcommunity. We are proud to add this disti, ._4.;ished publi-cation to our growing list of titles. Subsequent Clearing-house products will similarly seek to contribute informa-tion and knowledge which can assist in the education ofminority culture and language groups in the United States.

NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSEFOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION

6

-I-r Bilingual Education Act:

A Legislative Analysis

7

1

Introduction.

The purpose of this monograph is to provide a clear expo-sition of the regulatory framework of bilingual education.

This monograph is divided into three. sections. Thefirst sets forth the political background which led to thepassage of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Thesecond is an examination of the existing bilingual educa-tion legislation set forth analytically, but with some atten-tion to the evolution from 1968, to 1974, and then 1978. Itsingles out the amendments of 1978 so that individualsfamiliar with the previous legislation will be able to seewhat changes took place as a result of the 1978 congres-sional action. Others, who may be less familiar with theprevious legislation, will be able to read the section as awhole for an understanding of the Bilingual EducationAct's provisions as originally passed and as subsequentlyamended. The third section addresses the questions raisedby the Congress and recent reports which suggest futuredirections and issues for bilingual education. (The keylegislative documents referred to in the text and footnotesare listed for convenience in the Appendix.)

8

$

Historical Background:Tolerance and IbntrictIon

The United States has from the outset been somewhatambivalent in its English language attitudes. On one hand,the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of language.'This is somewhat unusual since the designation of anofficial language is quite common in constitutional docu-ments, not only in multilingual countries,2 but also incountries where only one language is generally used.3 Onthe other hand, John Jay in the Federalist Papers saw theEnglish language as one tie which bound the federal struc-ture. "Providence has been pleased to give this one con-nected country to one united peoplea people descendedfrom the same ancestors, speaking the same lan-guage . . . very similar in their manners and customs. "4

These different points of view throughout our historyhave been debated with the government choosing to em-phasize one or the other as a function of economic needsand political stresses between the established classes andthe different visions of America's strength and weak-nesses. This chapter will examine a selected few of themany language groups which have emerged and evolvedin the United States and will show how their experienceshave shaped the federal role in bilingual education.

The Spanish conquistadores came to Mexico in 1519.Many of them intermarried with the Indians, and themestizo population expanded and gradually movednorthward. By 1790 an estimated 23,000 Spanish-

9

The HisparicPopulates

ha theSouthwest

speaking people were living in areas which later becamethe states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, andTexas .s

After the Mexican-American War of 1848, Mexicoceded to the United States a vast territory, includingCalifornia, Arizona, and New Mexico and also approvedthe prior annexation of Texas. All citizens of Mexicoresiding within the ceded domain became United Statescitizens automatically if they did not leave the territorywithin one year after treaty ratification. Thus, theSpanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest became aminority group in a country different in language andculture.6

At the end of 1848, there were approximately 15,000residents in California, half of Mexican descent. But theGold Rush quickly changed that. Within a year the popula-tion expanded to approximately 95,000 people, almost allAnglo-Americans. The Gold Rush not only initiated amonumental increase in the Anglo population but alsoresulted in a struggle over land, both of which operated tothe political detriment of the Spanish-speaking inhabi-tants.

At the time of statehood, eighteen percent of all educa-tion in the state was private and Catholic? These privateschools were composed of pupils mainly of Spanish-speaking descent, and the children were taught in theSpanish language under the direction of the padres. Ini-tially, these schools were state-supported.

In 1870 California passed a law requiring that "allschools shall be taught in the English language. "s Thislinguistic purism in the state-supported school systemwent hand in hand with the nativistic sentiments expressedin other fields. For example, in the early 1850s Californiapassed statutes suspending publication of the state laws inSpanish, requiring court proceedings to be in English, andimposing a new tax of five dollars a month for foreignminers and a head tax to discourage the immigration ofpeople ineligible for citizenship'

The two earliest New Mexico school laws, those of1863 and 1869, contained no language provisions. Theconditions in the territory leave no doubt that the publicschools provided or in the laws had a predominantlySpanish character. There were practically no Anglos in thestate; the laws were in fact first drafted in Spanish andtranslated only later into English:, According to the 1874annual report of the territorial school authorities, the corn-

10

S

position of the New Mexico public schools was five per-cent English speakers, sixty-nine percent Spsnish speak-ers, and twenty-six percent bilingual."

Gradually, Anglo-Americans from the East who wereunsympathetic toward Mexican culture came to dominatethe territory." In 1891 a New Mexico statute was passedrequiring all scho6 in New Mexico to teach in English"as part of a broader struggle over land whichwas develop-ing between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican Ameri-cans."

In Indian affairs, the evolution was similar. Congress Themade its first provisions for the expenditureof funds not to Ansuriansexceed S15,000 per year to promote "civilization among Wksthe aborigines" in 1802; and in 1819 Congress enacted aprovision which "still stands as the legal basis for most ofthe education work of the Indian Service":"

The President may . . . employ capable persons . . . for teach-ing [Indian] children in reading, writing, arithmetic . . . for thepurpose of . . . introducing among them the habits and art ofcivilization."

No specific mention is made regarding the use of theEnglish language in either the 1802 or 1819 provisions.Both attempt to promote "civilization." That the Englishlanguage is the "civilized" tongue and the Indian lan-guage "barbaric" is implied in these provisions, but notstated."

However, some Indian-initiated educational programswere quite significant. Thus, by 1852 the Cherokee Indiantribe ran a school system of twenty-one schools and twoacademies-1,100 pupils. Other tribesthe Choctaws,Creeks, and Seminoles, for examplealso had begun toestablish and operate their own schools."

As America expanded, the desire for the land ownedand occupied by the Indians became very great. Initiallythe hope was that the problem would solve itself: that asthe Indians became "civilized" their need for land wouldnaturally decrease. Educational policy was seen as ameans to "civilize" the Indians and, thus, permit thetaking of their land. President Monroe, writing in 1817,stated: "The hunter or savage state requires a greaterextent of territory to sustain it than is compatible with theprogess and just claim of civilized life . . . and mustyield to it.""

11

The discovery of gold on the Pacific Coast and in theRocky Mountains had an explosive effect on the popula-tion. The promoters of the transcontinental railroadssought grants of land along their routes increasing thepressure on Indian land and tribal units.2°

In response to the demand for more land, the Home-stead Act was passed in 1862, which opened up the plainsto white settlers. To facilitate the process, "encourage-ment was given to the slaughter of big buffalo herds, theIndians' principal source of food. With their meat gone, itwas believed the tribes would be forced onto the reserva-tions by the promise of rations. "21

English language in the Indian schools was first men-tioned in the report of the Indian Peace Commission, abody appointed under an act of Congress in 1867 to makerecommendations for the permanent removal of the causesof Indian hostility. Its report of 1868, motivated by acombination of humanitarianism, militarism, and expan-sionism, states:

. . . in the difference of language today lies two-thirds of ourtrouble. Schools should be established which children should berequired to attend; their barbarous dialects would be blotted cutand the English language substituted.32

After the treaty period came to an end in 1871, govern-ment schools conducted exclusively in English began to beestablished, gradually displacing the mission schools andtheir bilingual approach; many of the Indian schools whichthe tribes had begun to establish and run themselves werealso eliminated.

During the middle decades of the nineteenth century, therewas an extraordinary increase in immigration to the UnitedStates. It began soon after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe,gained momentum steadily in the thirties and forties, andreached its crest in 1854. Federal statistics (comprehen-sively collected for the first time in 1820) document thechange. In the decade of the twenties, the number ofarrivals was 151,000; in the 1830s a fourfold increase to500,000; in the 1840s,1,713,000; and in the decade of thefifties, 2,314,000.

In this pre-Civil War period the only large number ofnon-English speaking immigrants were the 1.5 millionGermans who aroused little hostility. They settled in the

12

relatively unpopulated frontier areas of the country wherethey were unnoticed and generally were in the majority,giving them a political and social advantage not availableto other groups at that time. In these farming districts, theGermans initially had no teachers at their disposal whowere familiar with English, and in any event, there waslittle need for a command of English during those earlysettlement years?' Thus, most of the earliest school lawsmade no mention of the language to be employed in thepublic schools."

The German migrants did not want English to beexcluded, but they asked that German be taught as well. Inresponse to the German demand, the Ohio legislaturepassed a law by which the German language could. betaught in the public schools in those districts where a largeGerman population resided;23 and in 1840 German-English public schools were introduced in Ohio."

In this initial state of tolerance, Pennsylvania, a fewyears earlier, had gone even further than Ohio. In 1837 aPennsylvania law was passed permitting Germanschoolsin some, all instruction was to be given inGermanto be founded on an equal basis with Englishones." In Wisconsin it became the norm that whenever anewly created school district contained a large Germanpopulation, teachers were hired and the schools wereconducted either exclusively in German or in both Germanand English 2i

After the Civil War, immigration continued to in-crease sharply; from 1815 to 1860, five million; 1860-1890, ten million; and from 1890 to 1914, fifteen million.The increase was in large part due to the steamship linewhich had replaced the sailboat in the transatlantic immi-grant trade, reducing the hazards of the journey andbroadening the 'geographic origins from which one couldembark." It was this later migration that became an in -...

creasing issue in the United States. From 1860 to 1890, asin the prewar years, immigrants came mostly from theBritish Isles, Germany, and Northern Europe; but in thelater period (1890-1914), they came from Southern andEastern Europe, from the non-English speaking countriesof Russia, Austria, Hungary, and Italy." Without moneyand with English language difficulties, they gravitatedtoward the cities where pay was somewhat higher andwhere the population density reflected the close contact ofvillage life at home.

As the end of the 'nineteenth century approached, nine-,

1.3

7

$

)

teen of America's largest cities consisted of over halfimmigrants and their children. While 18.37 percent of allAmericans were the children of immigrants in 1890, 86.36percent of Milwaukee's residents were immigrants and thechildren of immigrants; 80.12 percent of New York's;77.79 percent of Chicago's; 56.58 percent of Philadel-phia's; 71.04 percent of Brooklyn's; 67.46 percent of St.Louis's; 74.98 percent of Cleveland's; and 77.11 percentof Buffalo's. Their ethnic distinctiveness and religiousdifferencesmost were Catholic or Jewishtheir con-centration, their great visibility, and their initial exerciseof political power raised great fears among the Americanestablishment.

Restrictionist sentiment grew, aimed at both limitingimmigration and restricting access by the alien to thepolitical and economic institutions in the country. Theimage of the immigrant as unlettered and easily corruptedfocused attention on education and the English languageas the unifying and uplifting element. Representative ofthis view is the characterization of the immigrants byDorman B. Eaton in his major work, The Government ofMunicipalities:

What spectacle could be more humiliating to an American pa-triot . . . than those often presented in grog-shops. low lodginghouses, and gambling dens. when party leaders and captains . . .are competing . . .- among the degraded and criminal emi-grants. as ignorant of ozy law.; and language, perhaps as they were-regardless of the laws of the country from which they fled.31

Rostrictios From 1880-1925 English language requirements ex-ited panded rapidly gaining special vigor after World War I.

Tawas/is English literacy requirements as a condition of voting andholding office passed in over three-fourths of the states ofthe Union and limited access to the political arena. Stat-utes imposing English language tests for various occupa-tions from lawyers to bankers restricted economic accessto the American mainstream .32 These hurdles were paral-leled in education: thirty-seven states required English asthe language of instruction in the public schools." In 1879the off-reservation boarding school was established,separating Indian children from their parents and imposinga total ban on Indian language customs and dress.

There were some judicial challenges to English lan-guage requirements in the twentieth century with mixedresults. A ban on German language instruction was over-

14

turned," but English literacy tests as a condition of votingwere sustained.3s -

By 1968 when the federal government for the rusttime, by its passage of the Bilingual Education Act, sug-gested the permissibilityeven the desirabilityof in-struction in the native language, the political context hadsubstantially changed. BY 1960 the civil rights movement,pining strength after World War II, was at flood tide. Theexecutive and legislative branches had both come outrather strongly for civil rights and focused on the depriva-tions suffered by various minority groups. In addition tocivil rights legislation, the Economic Opportunity Act of1964" and the Elementary and Secondary Education Actof 1965" had focused on the poor and made education amatter of national policy and priority for all disadvantagedyouth.

The result of this legislation was that the needs ofMexican Americans and Puerto Rican groups gained in-creasing attention. The wave of ethnic consciousnesswhich accompanied the civil rights movement and socialchanges in the sixties no longer required Spanish-speakingparents to remain mute or to soften their desire that theSpanish language be given a more meaningful role in theirchildren's education.

The 1960 Census3s counted the Spanish-surnamedpopulation-in the five southwestern states of Arizona,California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, and thefigures were indeed significant. The total Spanish-surnamed population had increased more than fifty per-cent over the 1950 totals: to 3,464,999 from 2,281,710.The 1960' figures from Texas showed that the Spanish-surnamed population was 1,417,810 out of a total popula-tion of 9.5 million people, or almost fifteen percent of thattotal. California had the largest Spanish-surnamed popula-tion, 1,426,538a figure which showed an 87.6 percentincrease over 1950.

In the other southwestern states (Arizona, NewMexico, and Colorado), the Spanish-surnamed populationwas also identified and was, in all cases, approximatelyten percent or more." On the East Coast, although not asnumerically significant, there was a large number ofPuerto Ricans, for whom Spanish was the native tongue;there were over 600,000 Puerto Ricans in New York Cityin 1960, and by 1966, they represented almost twenty-onepercent of the total public school population of that city.°

i 5A A

The federal government and the individual states hadbegun to respond to this increased constituency. Forexample, in 1965 the federal government established theInteragency Committee on Mexican American Affairs 41to concern itself with Mexican American issues, and onJuly 1, 1967, a Mexican Affairs Unit began to functionwithin the United States Office of Education. Within thenext few years the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission published its first study of Mexican Americans,Spanish-Surnamed American Employment in the South-west; the U.S. Civil Rights Commission held its firsthearings on Mexican Americans and published its firstreport, Mexican Americans and the Administration of Jus-tice in the Southwest. The Congress, in the Voting RightsAct of 1965, suspended English literacy tests as a condi-tion of voting where past performance indicated dis-criminatory administration of the test 42 and, as a specialconcession to the educated Puerto Rican voter, bannedEnglish literacy tests when the voter had completed thesilth grade in an American school where the language ofinstruction was other than English.°

At the local level, the New York City Board of Educa-tion in 1958 published its comprehensive Puerto RicanStudy dealing with the difficulties encountered by thesenative Spanish-speaking pupils in the New York schoolsystem .° The Texas Education Agency in 1965 investi-gated the problems of Spanish-surnamed pupils in theTexas schools, and Colorado published in 1967 a generalstudy of the status of the Spanish-surnamed population inthat State.°

These studies pointed out that education was in theforefront of the concerns of the Spanish - speaking. The1960 Census statistics on the educational. level ofSpanish-surnamed students in the five southwestern statesshowed that Mexican American children had completedan average of 8.12 yeirs of schooling, four years less thantheir Anglo counterparts. The high dropout rate that thesestatistics evidenced caused great concern.

Although the Spanish-speaking were the primary forcebehind the bilingual education movement, the languageissue was present elsewhere as well, most notably inconnection with Indian children. Indian policy in 1950focused upon terminating federal recognition of the Indiantribe, eliminating services and relocating Indians intocities 46

- I6

In the later years of the Eisenhower administration, theemphasis on termination abated; and when the Kennedyadministration entered office, it conveyed to the Indiansits desire for reversal of the termination policy. A specialtask force, appointed to investigate the status of Indianaffairs, addressed itself to bilingualism in Indian educa-tion but did not provide a very strong case for it.'" It askedonly that the Bureau of Indian Affairs makea special effortto keep abreast of the latest developments in languagetraining and instruction and carry on inservice trainingprograms in conjunction with local universities. Underthefederal poverty program, additional monies were providedto the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and special innovationcenters were set up to develop new educational meth-odologies for Indians.

That something new was required was clear. Thecountry's Indian educational policies were reflected in thefollowing statistics. In the 1800s the Cherokees had aneducational system which produced a "population 90%literate in its native language and used bilingual materialsto such an extent that Oklahoma Cherokees had a higherEnglish literacy level than the white populations of eitherTexas or Arkansas"; in 1969 "40% of adult Cherokeeswere functionally illiterate. "'a

The culmination of the new approach was PresidentLyndon Johnson's Message on Indian Affairs delivered toCongress on March 6, 1968. The statement placed thehighest priority on the improvement of education for In-dians and the control of Indian schools by Indian schoolboards. It also stressed language needs and cultural rein-forcement.

These schools will have the finest teachers, fainiliar with Indianhistory, culture, and languagefeature an enriched cur-riculum . . . a sound program to teach English as a second lan-guage"

Moreover, educational theory had changed. Quiteapart from the political developments ,mentioned, therewas an increasing interest in introducing foreign languageprograms in elementary schools. This activity was assistedby a series of government grants under the National De-fense Education Act, passed in 1958 in response to theRussian launching of Sputnik. Title VI and, later, Title XIof that act emphasized the retention and expansion of ourforeign language resources, a theme which was to be

-17

12

repeated at the 1967 Bilingual Education Act hearings.

The most active language maintenance institution in the major-ity of ethnic communities in the United States is the ethnic groupschool. Over 2,000 such schools currently function in the UnitedStates, of which more than half offer mother tongue instructioneven when there are many "non-ethnics" and "other ethnics"among their pupils. On the whole, they succeed in reinforcing ordeveloping moderate comprehension, reading, and speaking facil-ity in their pupils. They are far less successful in implantingretentivist language attitudes which might serve to maintain lan-guage facility after their students' programs of study have beencompleted, approximately at the age of 14. . . . the levels offacility attained usually are sufficient to provide a foundation forcultural bilingualism. This foundation, however, is rarely rein-forced after the completion of the study in the ethnic groupschool."

This renewed interest in foreign languages and foreignlanguage teaching enabled new groups such as ACTFL(American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-guages) and TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers ofOther Languages) to assert themselves in educational cir-cles.

There were increasing numbers of experiments inbilingual programs to meet the needs of particular com-munities. Dade County in Florida (respondirg to the edu-cational wishes of the Cuban refugees), Rough RockSchool in Arizona (run by an all Navajo school board), anda number of cities in Texas and California initiated pro-grams and experimental approaches testing differentmethods to reinforce the cultural backgrounds of thecommunity and meet their educational needs s' The inter-national field as well provided paradigms and suggestionsfor action as a number of countries initiated and extendedbilingual programs.s2

The National Education Association (NEA) late in1966 sponsored a conference on the education ofSpanish-speaking children in the schools of-the South-west, which led to the publication of NEA's report entitledThe Invisible Minority, Pero No Vencibles. This reportstrongly recommended instruction in Spanish for thosechildren who speak Spanish as a native tongue. In April1967, at a San Antonio, Texas, conference on the MexicanAmerican, demonstrations were given of the work ofbilingual and English-as-a-second-language programs al-ready established in a few elementary schools in Texas.One of the major conclusions of the conference was the

18

ti

need for bilingual education with a call to the federalgovernment to assume an important part of this responsi-bility.

Need and experience had conjoined for the establish-ment of a nationwide bilingual education program.

19

13

The Terms ofthe Bilingual Education Act

At present, the act embraces those "of limited Englishproficiency." Estimates are that there are 3.5 millionstudents with limited English proficiency, only 250,000 ofwhich are served by Title VII."

The 1967 Senate Bill as introduced by Senator RalphYarborough directed itself to the Spanish-speaking only:"In recognition of the special educational needs of thelarge numbers of students in the United States whosemother tongue is Spanish and to whom English is a foreignlanguage. "s4

The approach was rationalized on the basis of theirnumber and different history from that of other groups.

We have 1:m ited this bill to the Spanish language because thereare so many more of them than any other group. If you spread thisidea to every language it would fragment and destroy the bill.There is also a basic difference between the Spanish-speaking andthe other non-English-speaking groups. If you take She Italians,Polish; French, Germans, Norwegians, or, other non-English-speaking groups, they made a definite decision to leave their oldlife and culture and come here to a new country and set upa way oflife here in accordance with ours, and we assumed they wereconsenting at that time to give up their language, too.

That decision to come here carried with it a willingness to giveup their language, everything.

That wasn't true in the Southwest. We went in and took thepeople over, took over the land and culture. They hadbur culturesuperimposed on them. They did not consent to abandon theirhomeland and to come here and learn anew. They are not only thefar more numerous group, but we recognize the fact that they areentitled to special consideration."

20

IS

Breadth ofCoveralls

AilNon-English

ProficientStudents

The Yarborough bill defined the Spanish-speakingstudent by birth: "Elementary and secondary school stu-dents born in, or one or both of whose parents were bornin, Mexico or Puerto Rico, and, in States for which suchinformation is available, other students with Spanish sur-names. "56

Both the limitation to the Spanish-speaking and thedefinition were sharply attacked by other members ofCongress and educators.

It is most doubtful whether the goals of these measures can beattained if its provisions are limited to one language and oneculture alone. Unless all Americans regardless of their nationalorigin are made to feel that the prenrvationtf the various lan-guages and cultures brought here by immigrants is important to theUnited States, there is little reason to believe that such a programrestricted to Spanish alone can be successful .°

The most serious defect of S. 428 is that it recognizes only ther-blems of the Spanish-speaking population. There are manyother groups across the land who have the very same problem whowould be ignored by this legislation. There are, for example,French speaking people in Louisiana and the far northeast. Thereare Indians scattered throughout the country, some on reserva-tions, and others, in fact some twelve thousand or more organizedgroups in this country with ethnic interests of one kind or another.Each one of these organizations, and the ethnic groups theyrepresent, has a real interest in Federal programs dealing with thespecial problems of the nor- English- speaking citizens of thiscountry. The bill as drawn ignores these interests and denies tothese other groups what it gives to the Spanish-speaking. I believethat this is unjust, and may very possibly be unconstitutional. Itappears to me that in view of our long history of pluralism, and inview of our continuing efforts to promote mutual respect andtolerance, we would be inviting grave and justly deserved criti-cism from many ethnic groups if we recognize the problems ofonly one.

No matter whether the legislation is aimed at one group, whichI believe would be wrong, or whether it intends to assist allnon-English-speaking citizens, I believe that the definition ofterms should not include a national origins test, and should not berestricted to persons born in a designated foreign country, orwhose parents were born in such a country.

There are many thousands of people in this land who do notspeak English even though their families have been here for manygenerations."

In the House of Representatives at about the same timea number of similar bills advocating bilingual educationwere introduced, most notably by Congressmen AugustusHawkins and Edward Roybal of California and Con-gressman Jerome Scheuer of New York" The Hawkins-Roybal bill expanded on the Yarborough bill to include

assistance to the French-speaking as well, and the Scheuerbill authorized bilingual instruction for all children whose .

native tongues were not English.The final 1968 law adopted the broader approach and

was directed at "children who come from environmentswhere the dominant language is other than English. "60Both the Spanish language limitation and the definitionwhich linked the Spanish-speaking to national origin wereeliminated. This expansion of the program was in keepingwith the Johnson administration's position which sup-ported bilingual programs in principle, although it feltmuch of the need was being met by existing educationalactivity.

The primary beneficiaries of any nationwide bilingual educa-tion program would undoubtedly be Spanish-speaking children.But there are also other groups of children needing special pro-grams whose home language is not Spanish. There are French-speaking children in Louisiana and near the Canadian border,children of oriental ancestry, and American Indians in significantnumbers in various areas.

We expect that the number of children from other linguisticgroups will increase in the next few years as a result of last year'sliberalization of the Immigration Act."

The 1974 amendments broadened. the definition ofthose included to children of "limited English-speakingability," and the 1978 amendments changed' the law todirect it at individuals with "limited English profi-ciency. "62 The 1978 law expanded the act's coverageconsiderably. The change was also made to eliminate thesomewhat pejorative connotation of the previous law andto maintain the focus on English learning while alloviingadministrative flexibility. The new definition no longerrequires children to be removed from bilingual programs.prematurely (once they have gained the ability to speakEnglish' although their overall English proficiency is lim-ited). On the other hand, students would not continue,receiving bilingual instruction sifter they have developedEnglish proficiency 63

This 1978 definition may be contrasted, with the.suggestions made by the National Council of La Razawhich sought to add a bicultural element to the bilingualdescription and to broaden the scope and objective of theact beyond a mere improvement of English language abili-ties by extending it to encompass overall cognitive andaffective development. The council recommended chang-ing the statutory direction from 1974's "children of lint-

17

ited English-speaking ability" to "children with linguisti-cally different skills" and changing the goal from "toachieve competence in the English language" to provid-ing "opportunities to expand their conceptual and linguis-tic abilities and potentials in a successful and positivemanner, and enhance cultural and ethnic pride and under-standing. "64

The same thrust was recommended by the NationalAssociation fo: Bilingual Education when it proposedbroadening the legislation from an emphasis on improvement and development of English skill to a more com-prehensive educational processwhich "facilitates themastery 'of two or more languages (one of which is En-glish). " The association recommended changing from"limited English-speaking children" to "children withlinguistically different skills" and providing eligibility forall children rather than limiting eligibility to children oflimited English proficiency."

The 1978 statutory language arose in the Senate em-bracing some of the ideas which were in the original Housebill. In discussing the 1978 amendments, the HouseCommittee broadened the criteria of eligibility to includethose "who cannot read, write, or understand English atthe level appropriate for their age and grade"; entranceinto the program was no longer to be based solely onEnglish speech. Under this broader definition the localschool districts would still have the responsibility formaking determinations of which individuals would par-ticipate in accordance with the other requirements of theact."

Thin, the term "limited English proficiency" refers toindividuals (1) not born in the U.S.; (2) whose nativelanguage is other than English; (3) who come from envi-ronments where languages other than English are domi-nant; and (4) "who are American Indian and AlaskanNative students and who come from environments wherealanguage other than English has had a significant impacton their level of English language proficiency" and, "byreason thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, read,ing, writing, or understanding the English language todeny such individuals the opportunity to learn successfullyin classrooms where the language of instruction is Eng-lish. "67

The 1978 definition broadening the act's scope to reachthose "of limited English proficiency". was reinforced bythe 1978 Senate Report which noted the desire to expand

23

the existing outreach of the program. The act, therefore,c h a r g e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r in t he consideration of a p p l i c a -t i o n s " t o g i v e p r i o r i t y to . . . g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s and . . .to assist children in need that have historically been under-served by programs in bilingual education. "" Specif-ically, it also noted the "potential need for bilingual edu-cation programs among Franco-Americans andPortuguese-Americans in New England and Spanish-speaking persons of Caribbean origin throughout theNortheast," and urged "the office of Bilingual Educationto give appropriate attention to applications designed tomeet this need. "69

19

The expansion of the legislation beyond the needs of the IndianStudentsSpanish - speaking, although related broadly to a number ofethnic groupsthe French, Polish, and Chinese were spe-cifically mentioned in the 1968 House hearingswasparticularly related to Indian education. Statistics werepresented by tribe on achievement, and considerable tes-timony, both by HEW and the Department of Interior, inaddition to Indian groups, focused on the educationalneeds of Indian 'children. To some degree, this was linkedto additional control being transferred by the federal gov-ernment to. the Indian with respect to curriculum andschool staffing." The official executive positionwas notvery supportive; the educational benefits of bilingual edu-cation went desirable, but such a program would be dif-ficult to implement.

If either bill is favorably considered, we urge that it beamended to permit the bilingual assistance program to be extendedto children and teachers in elementary and secondary schoolsoperated by this Department for American Indians: We also rec-ommend that it be amended to permit the program to be extendedto the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been aware of the pos-sibilities of bilingual instruction for some time, having developeda few bilingual teaching materials some 25 years ago only to havethe movement stopped by the advent of World War II. Since thattime such programs have not appeared to be practical due to thedifficulty of developing and planning them while at the same timehaving to operate a full-fledged school system. With the addedsophistication that has evolved in the general field of foreignlanguage teachingUnd learning, it poses an exciting possibility forthe Indian children of America who need the dignity and strengthsuch a program could add to their schools and to their intellectualdevelopment?,

Prior to 1978 the law provided for carrying out pro-grams to serve "individuals on reservations where the

24

school is approved by the Commissioner. "72 Under thesecircumstances, the commissioner could make payments tothe Secretary of the Interior to carry out the purposes of theact.%

The 1978 amendments changed somewhat the provi-sion of bilingual education for Indian children by provid-ing that the commissionermay fund applicants directly tocatty out programs of bilingual education for Indian chil-dren on reservations rather than, as in the pest, to have tomake payments to the Secretary of the Interior to servethese educational needs."

Special The 1978 amendments, in addition, made a special provi-Puerto Rico sion with respect to children in Puerto Rico. The 1974 Actpreen permitted the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, like local

governments in the continental United States, to improvethe English proficiency of children residing in PuertoRico. But the law now also provides that the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico may serve the needs of students withlimited English proficiency in Spanish. The amendment isdesigned to serve those children who return to Puerto Ricofrom the States who are unable to function adequately inSpanish."

Children in The Bilingual Education Act, from the outset, providedPrivateSthools for participation by private schoolchildren in the pro-

grams. Nevertheless, participation by this segment of theschool population was very small. The 1978 amendmentsstrengthened the commissioner's power to withhold ap-proval of an application or to reallocate funds toassure thatchildren of nonpublic schools are included in the pro -gram"

The Committee 'doped this amendment in response to the seriousivoblems of a lack of participation of private school children inbilingual 'education programs. It is the clear intent of Congress thatthere be equitable participation of these children in Title VIIPrograms."

GIMMIld The 1968 Bilingual Education Act was directed at "thePompoms special education needs of the large number of children

with limited English-speaking ability in the UnitedStates."" This broad statement of purpose reflected theCongressional concern for and recognition of the special

25

needs of children coming from homes where the dominantlanguage was other than English. Thus, Senator RalphYarborough (Democrat, Texas), who introduced the fastbilingual education bill in the Senate," stated in Lis open-ing address:

Our educational policies on the teaching of the Spanish-spealtiag have not been among our more enlightened areas ofeducational endeavor. For instance. take our children who speakonly Spanish. If there were only a handful, a few hundred, youcouidn't afford to establish separate methods of instruction, butmillions of children from Spanish-speaking homes come toschools speaking only Spanish.

The tragic results are shown in the dropout rate. Among adults25 and over, Mexican-Americans in 1960 had an average of 7.1years of schooling, as compared to the 12.1 years for Anglos, and

' nine for non-whites. The gap between Anglo. and Mexican-Americans is S years, Of 41 percent."

The dropout rate was to be repeated again and againthroughout the hearings as an indication that matters hadgone wrong. But, although there was agreement on theeffect on the non-English-speaking child of the presenteducational system, the reason was unclear.

To some, the issue was psychological.

Imagine the situation that confronts a certain youngster frommy part of the country. A youngster spends his formative years inthe warm, friendly environment of his fenny and friendsanenvironment in which Spanish is spoken. At the age of 5 or 6 be istaken to school. What a profound shock he encounters the rust daythere, when be is made to know in no uncertain terms that hemayspeak no Spanish at school. He must speak English, a languagewhich be scarcely knows, both in the classroom and on theplayground. If he is caught speaking Spanish, he will be punished.

Expert witnesses who will appear later before this subcommit-tee will comment on the psychological damage which such prac-tices rendered unto millions of children. Even to a layman theinjustice mid harm of such practices are obvious. Unfortunately,this practice has all too often been the rule rather than the excep-tion in the education of children from Spanish-speaking back-grounds."

This idea of strengthening one's self-image reflectedcurrent educational thinking relating one's image of self toboth learning and maturity .0

The four-year-old placed in a relaxed atmosphere with anunstructured program learns language effortlessly. Following put-suits which interest him. be has the need. the desire, and theopportunity to commtmicaie in the new language. Our programhas stressed the explosion of the child's world. We have been

26

111

interested in sensitizing him to the sight and sound and feel ofexperience and in helping him to differentiate it and develop thevocabulary necessary to desaibe it.

These children, by virtue of their language training and theirbroadened experience, are now able to start kindergarten on anequal footing with their peers. They start without the frustrationand the experience of failure.

They are accustomed to the sweet feeling of success-1nd thepattern can continue.

This pattern can be extended. It must be expanded to includenot only the economically deprived, but those who are deprived byvirtue of their language difficuhy."

The educational need was linked also to broader issuesof economic opportunity. Bilingual education, a new ap-proach to education, represented the hope that the tradi-tional avenue in American societyeducation---wouldopen the door to the disadvantaged non-English-speakinggroup.

There is [sic] still disaimination and inadequate job opportu-nities for the impoverished, poorly educated Mexican-American.I am convinced that better education is the key that will open thedoor of equal opportunity to this patient, very worthy ethnicgroup"

According to a report on poverty just completed at TexasA&M University, families with Spanish surnames are much morelikely to be poverty stricken than Anglo-American or Negrofamilies.

The A&M report shows that there is a clear relation betweenpoverty and low education; and the Spanish-Americans arc Texas'least educated major group."

Some related the bill to the immigrant tradition in theUnited States.

Let me conclude in a more general tone. This bill wouldcontribute to increased cultural and social maturity in our society.

Let us show long-range leadership by making it possible toenjoy our cultural diversity. Let us never forget that our greatstrength has stemmed from being a land of immigrants. WhetherIrish, Jew, Scot, Swede, or Mexican, all races acd nationalitieshave [contributed] in years before, and will contribute more to ourunique society. As Americans first, cultural diversity simply ben-efits all of us."

There was a recognition that what was being asked wasnovel, somewhat different from the approach of otherlanguage groups within the United States. Here weregroups requesting assistance to maintain their culturalstrength and language, but this was necessary to assist

23

their children's self-image and permit the learning processto take place.

Our children suffer from a poor self-identity because theyspeak a foreign language. A bilingual educational program canimpan knowledge and pride in their ancestral culture and Ian-Syn"

And the histOrical experience was different. TheSpanish- speaking and Indian groups, the key minoritylanguage groups to be served by the legislation, had be-come part of the United States, it was said, by conquestrather than voluntary migration.

The bilingual approach was also supported by somerepresentatives of other language groups. Thus, the Gen-eral Secretary of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Researchtestified:

America has traditionally been a monolingual country. Im-migrants have been expected to learn English as quickly as possi-ble and quite frequently were encouraged to abandon their ances-tral language and culture with all deliberate speed. The bill, nowbefore the Senate, is important in large measure because it clearlyannounces to bilingual Americans that not only does the UnitedStates Government not expect them to forget their ancestral lan-guage and culture, but it is prepared to support their maintenancewith funds and other resources."

The multipurpose character of the legislation was re-fixted in the statute which remained broad and verygeneral on educational purpose and approach.

Declaration of Policy:

In recognition of the special educational needs of the large num-bers of children of limited English-speaking ability in the UnitedStales. Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the UnitedStates to provide financial assistance to local educational agenciesto develop and carry out new and imaginative ekmentary andsecondary school programs designed to meet these special educa-tional needs. (emphasis supplied)"

The committee reports made clear that the broad,unspecific charges were purposeful.

The purpose of this new tide is to provide a solution to theproblems of those children who are educationally disadvantagedbecause of their inability to speak Englisb.

The solution to this problem lies in the ability of our localeducational agencies with high concentrations of children of Um-

28

Sped ScPurposes'

iced English-speaking ability: to develop and operate bilingualprograms of iranuction."

Because of the need for extensive research, pilot projects anddemonstrations, the proposed legislation does not intend to pre-scribe the types of programs or projects that are needed. Suchmatters are left to the discretion and judgment of the local schooldistricts to encourage both varied approaches to the problem andalso special solutions for a particular problem of a given school.The legislation enumerates types of programs as being illustrativeof possible solutions''

Bilingual education was to accomplish three purposes; (1)increase English language skills, (2) maintain and perhaps.increase mother tongue skills, and (3) support the culturalheritage of the student.

The threefold purpose and the interrelationship was setforth by the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner in histestimony urging the passage of the Bilingual EducationAct of 1968.

The solution, however, is not so easy, for at the same time '14must produce fluency in the English language. I wish to stress thatI realize the importance of learning English by Puerto Ricans andother minority groups living in the States. 'concur fully in SenatorYarborough's statement that "it is essential in a pluralistic landsuch as ours that we have a common language and means ofcommunication in order to live and work together." But I do notfeel that our educational abilities are so limited and our educa-tional vision so shortsighted that we must teach one language at theexpense of another, that we must sacrifice the academic potentialof thousands of youngsters in order to promote the learning ofEnglish, that we must jettison and reject ways of life that are notour own.

The essence of my legislative proposal is simple in conceptand structure: I propose the establishment of programs which (a)will utilize two languages, English and the non-English mothertongue, in the teaching of the various school subjects, (b) willconcentrate on teaching both English and the non-English mothertongue, and (c) will endeavor to preserve and enrich the cultureand heritage of the non-English-speaking student."

The multipurpose role of bilingual education was reit-erated during the passage of the 1974 Bilingual EducationAmendments.

. . . bilingual education involves the use of two languages,one of which is English, as mediums of instruction to assistchildren of limited English-speaking ability. Both languages areused for the same student populationnot as an isolated effort,but as a key component of a program embracing the total cur-riculum.

29,

25

Rather than an objective in itself, bilingual education is part ofa much larger goal: encouraging a child of limited English -speaking ability to develop fully his individualskills and talents. Itis the use of the child's native language and respect for his culturalbackvotmd that best distinguished bilingual education from pro-grams more narrowly focused, such as ESL and remedial read-ing."

The act tread carefully between the issues of languagemaintenance v. transition, cultural pluralism v. utilizationof the mother tongue solely to assist in learning English.The manual for project applicants andgrantees which wasissued by HEW shortly after the act's passage reaffirmedboth approaches.

It is intended that children participating in this program willdevelop greatercompetence in English, become more proficient intheir dominant language, and profit from increased educationalopportunity. Though the Title vn. ESEA program affirms theprimary importance of English, it also recognizes that the use ofthe children's mother tongue in school can have a beneficial effectupon their education. Instructional use of the mother tongue canhelp to prevent retardation in school performance until sufficientcommand of English is attained. Moreover, the development ofliteracy in the mother tongue as well as in English should result inmore broadly educated adults."

Increasingly, Congress has emphasized the English lan- To Increaseguage purpose. Thus, in passing the 1974 law, Congress Eng'ishstated: Language

SkillsThe goal or the proptin in the Committee bill is to permit a

limited English-speaking child to develop the proficiency in En-glish that permits the child to lam as effectively in English as in thechild's native languagea vital requirement to compete effec-tively in society."

The primary importance of English is underscored alsoin the 1978 declaration of policy which is to "demonstrateeffective ways of providing for children of limited Englishproficiency, instruction designed to enable them, whileusing their native language to achieve competence in theEnglish language. "96 The 1978 law requires the commis-sioner to develop models to evaluate bilingual educationprograms to determine the "progress made by participantstherein attaining English language skills."' This latterrequirement and the changed definition of the populationto be served assured a response to the AmericanInstitutes

30

for Research's evaluation study which found that Title VIIstudents were doing no better than non-Title VII studentsin English learning.

In general, across grades, when total Title VII and Non-TitleVII comparisons were made, the Title VII students in the Studywere performing in English worse than the Non-Title VII students.In Mathematics, across grades, they were performing at about thesame level as Non-Title VII students.

Generally, less than a thhd of the students in the Title VIIclassrooms were there because of their need for English instruc-tion (limited proficiency in English) as judged by the classroomteacher.

As part of the data collection efforts, each project director wasasked, "After the Spanish-dominant child is able to function inschool in English, what happens to the child?" Eighty-six percentreported that the student remains in the bilingual project.

These findings reflect Title VII project activities which runcounter to the "transition" approach strongly implied by theESEA Title VII legislation. (Transition in this sense implies thatthe native language of the student with limited English-speakingability is used temporarily as a bridge to help the student gaincompetence in English. Under this approach, when a student isable to function in a regular English instruction classroom, he orshe is transferred out of the bilingual project classroom.) In fact,project goals were more consistent with a maintenance approachto bilingual education."

The changed definition of the population to be servedto those of limited English proficiency also reflected inpart the concern of the Congress that a segregated minoritygroup was being created. A number of witnesses noted thisduring the hearings.

There is nothing in the research to suggest that children caneffectively learn English without continuous interaction with chil-dren who are native English speakers, yet the Federal money hassupported programs with only about one-tenth Anglos in theaverage class. In a society where Spanish-surname children arenow more segregated than blacks, according to some measures,and where the Supreme Court has found such segregation uncon-stitutional, a program that tends to increase separation, raises veryserious questions. In a number of cities, officials in bilingualprograms have attacked desegration orders and asked that His-panic schools be exempted for educational reasons.

When the bilingual education title is revised I would stronglyrecommend that Congress require integrated bilingual studentbodies wherever possible.99

Another reality that we are facing is the effect that desegrega-tion plans are having on bilingual education. We believe that theissue is not so much a conflict in goals as it is the need for resourcesto expand the program in order to provide more multiculturalsettings for bilingual education.'"

31

The 1978 law addressed the issue in two ways: byaiming the program at children with limited English lan-guage proficiency, it permitted flexibility of classroomplacement. In addition, it specifically provided for up toforty percent English-speaking students in the classrooms.

In order to prevent the segregation of children on the basis ofnational origin in programs assisted under this title, and in order tobroaden the understanding of children about languages and cul-tural heritages other than their own, a program of bilingual instruc-tion may include the participation of children whose language isEnglish, but in no event shall the percentage of such childrenexceed 40 per resin. The objective of the program shall be toassist children of limited English proficiency to improve theirEnglish language skills and the participation of other children inthe program must be for the principal purpose of contributing tothe achievement of that objective .m

The Senate committee elaborated on the requirement:

The issue of the extent to which English-speaking childrenshould be pennksed in Title VII projects was addressed by theCommittee in the following manner. The bill allows the participa-tion< of English-speaking children but adds that they shall notexceed 40 percent. It was felt that the presence of English-speaking children would provide peer models for children withlimited English proficiency. This is an important aspect of thesechildren learning English. It was also felt that the presence ofEnglish speakers would reduce the segregation of children withlimited English proficiency and provide positive experiences forEnglish speakers by exposing them to other languages and cul-tures. The 40 percent maximum allows a wide range of flexibilityfor adaptation to local situations.02

The other goals of bilingual education, use of the nativetongue and support for the cultural heritage of the minoritylanguage student, were retained in the 1978 law, but werespecifically subordinated to the English language empha-sis. Thus, bilingual education is defined as a programdesigned for children with limited English language skillsin which there is "instruction . . . in English and, to theextent necessary to allow a child to achieve competence inthe English language, the native language of the childrenof limited English proficiency. . . . " (emphasissupplied)16

The House Report attempted to deal with the transitionv. maintenance argument by its reaffirmation of the nativelanguage role:

32

27

To Mink&and Increase

Mother TongueSkills

Since the inception of the Act. debate has raged unresolvedover the extent to which native languages should be taught and atwhat stage students are ready to move out of the bilingual pro-Pam.

Controversies over so-called maintenance or transitionalproaches Send to confuse the issue, since these terms mean differ-ent things to different people and since there is general agreementthat some instruction in the native language is necessary to helpstudents strengthen language skills and develop in other academicsubjects.'

The Hoise also saw the broadened outreach assupportive of native language maintenance.

The Committee bill deals, to a certain degree, with this issueby broadening the definition of children who can participate inprograms to include those with an adequate English-speakingability but who have difficulty reading, writing or understandingEnglish. Under this broadened definition, though, the local schooldistrict would still have the responsibility for making determina-tions of which individuals would participate in accordance withthe other requirements of the Act.'"

The 1976 General Accounting Office (GAO) report,which examined the bilingual educational program, hadfound as one of the factors adversely affecting academicachievement of limited English-speaking children, 'thefact that "the dominant language of the limited English-speaking children 'might not have been used enough forclassroom instruction. "I" The 1978 legislation did notfollow up on this comment.

To Support Although Congress did not adopt the specific mention ofthe Chan bicultural along with bilingual as suggested by the U.S.

Cultwal Commission on Civil Rights"07 in 1975 and the NationalHattage Council of La Razal" in 1977, it continued its support of

the cultural heritage goal in the 1978 law.The 1974 law had included in its statement, of policy

the following language which is still in the statute:

Sec. 702 (a). Recognizing . . . (2) that many . . . children havea cultural heritage which differs from that of English-speakingpersons; (3) that a primary means by which a child lentos isthrough the use of such child's language and cultural heri-tage; . . (5) that . . . children . . . benefit through the fullestutilization of multiple language and cultural resources. . . .

In 1978 even very strong transition program advocatessupported the cultural continuance aspect of the program.

33

ML MEMEL (D. Hawaii): The children with the assistance ofvohmteer instructors within the system develop self-appreciationprograms for their own cultures. I have attended their programsand it is apparent this need exists.. .

Ma. Maims: I would agree that the ability to speak, to writeEnglish, is very important. I think the key to this is the sensitivitywith which we build their English proficiency. The sensitivityissue and the bicultural issue comes (sic] in so that as childrencome in, it must not be done at the expense of their own culture.,W

But again there was a modification of the bilingualeducation law in the 1978 amendments (shown in theitalicized portion below) toward integrating and balancingthis cultural requirement with the cultural interests ofEnglish-speaking students. Bilingual instruction for chil-dren of limited English proficiency is to be given "withappreciation for the cultural heritage of such children, andof other children in American Society. . . ." (emphasissupplied).! t0

The House of Representatives 1978 Report explainedthe amendment as follows:

Heguding the question of whether bilingual programs shouldhave a cultural compment, the Committee bill amends the presentlaw to require that, if instruction is included on the culturalheritage of the children with limited English language skills,instruction must be also included on the cultural heritage of otherchildren. In addition, the bill requires that researchbe conductedon the degree to which the inclusion of cultural heritage instructionin a bilingual education program serves to assist children in learn-ing English)"

The legislation envisions the funds will beused for instruc- Provost

Ameri-can society. . . .""2 Bilingual education is to range overthe entire curriculum; "to the eltvt necessary, . . . in all

There appears to have been general agreement from the Instructionoutset on the definition of bilingual education as the use ofEnglish and another language as instructional mediums inan educational program. The legislation calls for the "in-struction . . . in, and study of, English and, to the extentnecessary, to allow a child to achieve competence in theEnglish language, the native language . . . and such in-struction [shall be] given with appreciation for the culturalheritage of such children, and of other children in Ameri-

and evaluation.lion, teacher training, curriculum development, research, Design

courses or subjects of study which will allow a child toprogress effectively through the educational sys-tem. .99113

The 1968 definition of limited English-speaking abil-ity as "children who come from environments where thedominant language is other than English" made no dis-tinction in levels of proficiency not 'aid it speak to theparticipation of minority ,language children in the inte-grated classroom. In a number of cases, school systemsinstalled bilingual programs and concentrated on teachingEnglish-dominant minority children, placing such chil-dren in remedial bilii.gual programs with minimal use ofthe non-English language.

Therefore, the present legislation is concerned withintegrating the students of limited English proficiencywith the rest of the school children both on educational andethnic grounds. Thus, in "such courses or subjects ofstudy as art, music, and physical education," the statuterequires bilingual education programs to provide for par-ticipation "in regular classes."'" The same rationale liesbehind the legislative charge that children in bilingualeducation programs "be placed to the extent practicable,in classes with children of approximately the same age andlevel of educational ittairinient. "Hs If children of "vary-ing ages or levels of educational attainment are placed inthe same class," instruction should be appropriate fortheir level of ittainment.116 Although teacher training andcurriculum development may be centralized, the programshall serve children "in the. school which they normallyattend.'""

There was considerable discussion of when and how toinclude English-speaking students in bilingual educationprograms. The original 1968 law made no provision forthe participation of the English-speaking student in thebilingual program. The 1978 Senate bill allowed the par-ticipation of English-speaking children in the bilingual'program provided the number did not exceed forty per-cent. This was a slight reduction from the 50/50 ratio usedin Colorado which Congress was advised had workedrather well'' s but still permitted flexibility.19 The purposeof this provision was to reduce the possibility of segrega-tion in the program and to provide peer models for childrenwith limited English proficiency.

The House bill handled the question somewhat differ-ently, adopting separate rules for programs which re-move the children from regular classroom activities,

35

so-called "pull-out" programs. For thoseprograms wherethe children have the benefit of teaching specialists, onlychildren with limited English proficiency would be eligi-b:e. All regular classroom instruction would permit amia.120 This approach, perhaps, reflected the GAO criti-cism: "[T]here often seemed to be too many English-speaking children in the project classrooms, thereby dilut-ing program services for the limited English-speakingchildren. "In The final law adopted the Senate lan-guage. In

The 1975 study conducted by OE's Office of Plan-ning, Budget, and Evaluation identified four exemplarybasic classrooin bilingual projects that could serve asreplicable models for districts contemplating similar pro-grams. The descriptions of these programs were packagedand distributed to interested applicants as Project Informa-tion Packages.In They were also described to the Con-gress by the administration, without, however, anysuggestion that these would be the only models utilized oreven the preferred ones. The structure of the models var-ies; for example, one project uses English primarily, withone-third of the day in French, while another beginsprimarily in Spanish and introduces English as the studentdemonstrates readiness and understanding. In 1978 theCongress required the development of other models aswell.

From the outset the need was recognized for specialized Trainingtraining to create the teaching corps and ancillary person-nel to serve the program. Thus, the 1968 Bilingual Educa-tion Act provided for "pre-service training, designed toprepare persons to participate in bilingual education. "124The GAO and the American Institutes for Research in theirevaluations, the administration in its presentation, andCongress after reviewing the program have all agreed onthe need for additional qualified teachers.12-5 The issue isone of both quality and quantity.

The 1974 amendments expanded the training compo-nent of the existing legislation requiring a fifteen percentset-aside of local bilingual education funding for inservicetrain in -.126g The 1978 legislation removed the fifteen per-cent inservice training requirement127 of the statute.

Regarding in-service training, the mandatory 15% set-asidefor that purpose is very crucial for some local programs. Forothers, the need may have been fulfilled and therefore the funds

36

31V,

may be better used for other purposes. The Committee bill, there-fore, removes the requirements in present law that each localproject must expend at least 15% of ill funds on in-service teachertraining. Risher, the tftisioa on the exact degree of such funding .would be left with the local school district, with the expectationthat in-service training is an important component of these pro-puns. However, k must be noted that this set -aside funds in-service training programs that are non-degree in nanny and there-fore may not completely solve the need for highly qualifiedteachers.ns

The commissioner may provide a wide range of train-ing through grants, contracts, and fellowships (includingstipends and allowances for dependents) to meet specificneeds and to promote general career development.'" Thetraining may be given to teachers, administrators, coun-selors, paraprofessionals, teacher aides, and parents.'"Fellowship assistance must be repaid by the trainee eitherin cash or by an equivalent period of work in bilingualeducation training. The commission may waive repay-ment "in extraordinary circumstances."'"

HEW requires grantees to give priority to persons whoare bilingual and who demonstrate a high degree of inter-est in bilingual education.'" A grantee which providestraining leading to an undergraduate degree or a teachingcertificate or training of personnel at an institute of highereducation "shall require that all participants in its trainingprogram demonstrate proficiency in English and in thetarget language as a condition of successful completion ofthe program'"

Training may be conducted by: (1) local educationalagencies, (2) state educational agencies, and (3) institu-tions of higher education (including junior colleges andcommunity colleges). Private nonprofit organizationsmay also provide training if they apply after consultationwith, or jointly with, local educational agencies or thestate education agency.'" (The requirement of consulta-lion may be contruted with the program grant require-ments in which a joint application with the local educationagency is required.) The commissioner must give priorityto applicants with "demonstrated competence and experi-ence in the field of bilingual education. "1"

CW7ialluM As the federal bilingual education program has expandedDevelopment (there are now over 70 languages serving 302,000 chil-

dren) the need for materials has expanded also. The pro-

,( 37

gram has not been able to meet this need especially in theless frequently used languages in the United States.

A recent study of the state of bilingual materials,published after the 1978 legislation hadpassed Congress,reaffirmed this shortage.'34 The study was optimistic inbelieving that "with growing numbers of bilingual. pro-grams and students, bilingual materials development inthe U.S: will increase in the years ahead, particularly forthe major languages. "13'

In 1975 the Office of Bilingual Education began tofund a network of institutions (materials developmentcenters, dissemination and assessment centers, and train-ing resource centers) pursuant to the statutory mandatethat the commissioner and the directors of the NationalInstitute of Education "shall, through competitive con-tracts with appropriate public agencies and private institu-tions and organizations, develop and disseminate instruc-tional materials and equipment suitable for bilingual edu-cation programs. "13$ At present there are thirty -three cen-ters serving more than 500 local education agencies inthirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rim,and the territories of the United States. Each center hasspecific territorial and linguistic responsibilities.

This program has had considerable impact but thecontinuing shortages in some areas and weakness in othersled to the 1978 amendment requiring the bilingual materi-als to be equal in quality to those developed for regularEnglish instruction.1"

Despise the propeu of the materials development censers, aneed still exists for high quality materials, especially in some ofthe Naive American, Asian and Pacific. and Indo-European lan-guages. Some Native American projects experience penicebrproblems with languages that do not have a mitten onhopiphy;local teachers and diremon must spend coasiderable time develop-ing materials in these instances, a task for which few havealarm training.

Existing materials are often unsatisfactory. The GAO reportfound that 60 percent of project director and teachers surveyedfelt their materiels were inadequate. Much ofthe materiel sent tothe dissemination centers is found to be unsuitable. One disenim-don center diet-oar estimated that only 10 to 15 'Y of math*received is suitable for dissemination."'

The availability of materials already in existencemustbe considered, and "special attention shall be given tolanguage groups for whom private organizations are un-!ably to develop such materials."'

3841,

$$

Reetech The failure to prove the effectiveness of bilingual educa-tion and the devastating evaluations by GAO and theAmerican Institutes of Research disturbed the Congress,and it responded by increasing the amount available forresearch fourfold to $20 million for 1979.143

The House Committee Report commented:

Based on the lack of maim' data regarding other types ofTitle VII programs, the lack of national evaluations of otherapproaches to English instruction, the evidence of pins in indi-vidual projects, and the support for the bilingual approach frominvolved teachers and students, and language group organiza-tions, the Committee feels the need for program champ as well asfor further research, demonstration and evaluation to determinewhat constitutes a good program of bilingual education.

The Commissioner's Report on the Condition of BilingualEducation 011977 found that "there is little to guide educators indesigning and implementing effective bilingual projects." TheNatiOitid Association for Bilingual Education testified that only asmall mamba of program models have been identified to date.

Consequently, the Committee bill increases the authorizationof appropriations for research and development in bilingual educa-tion from $5 million a year to $20 million a year."'

The commissioner is charged to carry out a researchprogram through competitive contracts with institutions ofhigher education, private and nonprofit organizations,state educational agencies, and individuals.

The research activities to be funded are set forth in thestatute and are wide-ranging. Almost all arose in 1978 atSenate initiative:

1. Studies to determine and evaluate effective models forbilingual bicultural programs;

2. studies to determinea. language acquisition characteristics andb. the most effective method of teaching English

within the context of a bilingual bicultural pro-gram;

3. a five-year longitudinal study to measure the effectof bilingual education on students who have non-English language proficiencies;

4. studies to identify the most effective and reliablemethod of identifying students entitled to bilingualeducation services;

5. the operation of a clearinghouse of information forbilingual education;

39

Pt

6. studies to determine the most effective methods ofteaching reading to children and adults who havelanguage proficiencies other than English;

7. studies to determine the effectiveness of teacher train-ing preservice and inservice programs funded underthis title;

8. Studies to determine the critical cultural characteris-tics of selected groups of individuals in order to teachabout culture in the program."'

Like research, evaluation gained strong support from the EvaluationCongress in the 1978 legislation primarily because of theGAO report.

The House Committee commented:

At the local level. a GAO report on bilingual education notedthat evaluations for individual projects "have been inadequate formeasuring programs' effect on student achievement and . . . havebeen inadequate for identifying projects worthy of replication."Poor self-evaluation designs proliferated even among the bestprojects. GAO continued.140,

The need for local evaluation is also noted in theSenate Report.

The bill also requires that the Commissioner developguidelines for local evaluations. It is hoped that these guidelineswill provide scientifically valid information as well as describe theunique katures of each project in order that local kvel projects canbe validly compared.'

The statute also provides that any child enrolled morethan two years in the program shall have an individualevaluation."8 Although designed primarily to transfer re-sponsibility of the program to the ',tales, the provision alsoassures additional educational data.

Although the bilingual education program is a discretion- Theay grant program, the legislation itself and the legislative Altecetleshistory impose a structure on the allocation of funds. From Processthe outset, in 1968, there were three general standardsimposed:

1. The geographic distribution of children of limitedEnglish proficiency in the nation;

2. the capability of local educational agencies to carryout the programs; and

4'J_

GeographicDktribution

3. the relative number of persons from low-incomefamilies to be benefited by such programs."

The requirement to consider the location of children oflimited English proficiency in the distribution of bilingualeducation funds parallels the approach of formula grantprograms. The Office of Education has not published dataor statistics setting forth the placement of numbdrs ofstudents with limited English proficiency. The NationalCenter for Education Statistics has tabulated and displayedstates with children 4-13 years old with a household lan-guage other than English.ls°

There are two other geographical requirements whichare to receive priority treatment by the commissioner:

1. Areas having the greatest need for programs; "1 and

2. applications from local educational agencies whichare located in various geographical regions of thenation and which propose to assist children of limitedEnglish proficiency who have historically been under-served by programs of bilingual education.'"

The 1978 House Report elaborated on the first stan-dard:

"Areas of greatest need" should be defined as including thosewhich, within the immediately five preceding years, have had asignificantly above-average influx of individual- of limited En-glish language skills.'"

The second "priority" is weakened considerably bythe statutory condition "taking into consideration therela-tive numbers of such children in the schools for such localeducational agencies and the relative need of such pro-grams. "'s' Its basic purpose was, given the limitedamount of bilingual education funds, "to utilize scarcefunds for demonstration programs and projects with aview toward stimulating interest and initiatives amongState and local educational agencies throughout the Nationwhich ultimately would lead to successful non-Federalprograms."'"

Local The regulations setting forth criteria for evaluating indi-Educadon vidual applications require the application to discuss

Agency methods of administration, financial management proce-Capability dures, coordination of funded and nonfunded activities

41

under the program, and a plan for continuing the programafter federal funding is completed.'

The 1978 amendments require the commissioner todetermine that the assistance

will contribute toward building the capacity of the applicant toprovide a program of bilingual education on a regular bads . . . ofsufficient size, scope, and quality to promise sipificant im-provement in the education of children of limited English profi-ciency and that the applicant wig have the sources and commit-ment to continue the program when assistance udder the Tide isreduced or no longer available.'"

The low-income criterion originated in the 1968 Senate Low /namebill which had required the commissioner to allot fundsbased on the number of Spanish-speaking students in thestates and the per capita income of the states "in suchmanner as he determines will best carry out the purpose ofthis title."'"

The 1968 House bills focused more closely on thelow-income question, perhaps reinforced by the experi-ences of Head Start and other poverty programs which hadexperimented with bilingual education. Thus, one Housebill spoke of projects providing "reasonableassurances ofmaking a substantive impact in meeting the special educa-tional needs of persons who come from non-English-speaking low-income families."'" Another required the

-commissioner to "develop criteria and procedures to as-sure that funds will go to areas of greatest needs," takinginto consideration the number of children from non-English-speaking backgrounds and the per capita incomefrom each state."°

The 1968 act was a compromise granting the commis-sioner some discretion while at the same time emphasizingthe poverty criteria both in the geographical distribution ofthe program and in funding specific applications. Thecommissioner was charged with giving "highest priorityto States and areas within States having the greatest needfor programs . . . taking into consideration the number ofchildren with limited English speaking ability between theages of three and eighteen within each State, "1" andapproving those applications "designed to meet the spe-cial educational needs of children of limited Englishspeaking abilities in schools having a high concentrationof such children from families (a) with income below$3,000 per year, or (b) [receiving payments from State-approved AFDC programs]. "1"

44 .

_ .,

TheAppicadoeProcess for

ProgramaGraffito

Elig lbeY

Content ofGrant

Applications

The present law as a result of the 1974 amendmentssoftens somewhat the low-income requirements. It man-dates the commissioner "to the extent feasible (to) allocatefunds appropriated in proportion to the geographical dis-tribution of children of limited English proficiencythroughout the Nation with due regard for the relativeability of particular local educational agencies to carry outsuch programs and the relative number's of persons fromlow-income families sought to be benefited by such pro-grams (emphasis supplied). ""

Low income is defined in the regulations issued by theOffice of Education as an annual family income that doesnot exceed the poverty level determined under Section111(cX2) of Title I of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965 as amended."'

To receive bilingual education program grants, one ormore local educational agencies or an institution of highereducation (including junior and community colleges), inconjunction with one or more local educational agencies,IWO' apply.

State education agencies may apply for funds to'pro-vide technical assistance and coordination of bilingualprograms within the state. These funds must supplementnot supplant other funds available to the state." The stateagency may only receive up to five percent of the total thatschool districts in that state receive for the program."This statutory limitation has caused administrative dif-ficulties in some of the states with smaller bilingual educa-tion prognuns.'"

Each grant application must set forth a description of theactivities to be funded and provide evidence that the ac-tivities "will make substantial progress toward makingprograms of bilingual education available to children hav-ing need thereof in the area served by the applicant. "I"

By regulation, the commissioner has requested evi-dence assuring applicant supervision and information onthe method of administration." Similarly the applicantmust set forth the description of fiscal control and thebudget justification.

The applicant must indicate (a) the total number andpercentage of children of limited English-speaking abilityenrolled in the schools of the applicant and the number andpercentage to be served by the proposed program; (b)when and how the applicant identified the children; (c) the

4a

35

number of low-income persons sought to be benefited andhow they will benefit; (d) provisions for involving qual-ified personnel with experience in the educational prob-lems of children of limited English-speaking ability andthe use of cultural and educational resources in the area tobe served; and (e) the evaluation design of the proposedprogram including, provisions for comparing perfor-mance of participating children on tests of reading skills inEnglish and the other language with an estimate of per-formance in the absence of the program or with nonpar-ticipating childrenr° the instruments of measurement;and provisions for reporting pretest andposttest scores.' 71

The 1978 amendments provide for increased parentalparticipation. An application for a program of bilingualeducation shall be developed in consultation with an advi-sory council, a majority of which shall be parents andother representatives of children of limited English profi-ciency. The application must contain documentation ofthe advisory council's consultation and comments on theproject.'72

Finally, the application must assure that, after ap-proval, the applicant will provide for continuing consulta-tion and participation by a committee ofparents, teachers,and other interested individuals. It would appear that thepostapproval consultative group need not be the same asthe advisory council. On the committee parents of childrenparticipating in the program must predominate, and amajority must be parents of children with limited Englishproficiency.'" All parents of participating children mustbe informed of the institutional goals of the program andthe progress of their children.'74

In 1978, as in 1974, the duration of project funding was an Durationissue discussed at some length by both the administrationand Congress. The Carter administration proposed a fiveyear funding limitation, a position which was supportedby the ouse bill.

The Committee bill proposes a general rule that assistanceunder the Act be limited to no more than 5 years for any particularschool or group of schools. However, a waiver of this rule ismandated whenever the school district showsa clear fiscal inabil-ity to carry on the program; shows adequate progress in theprogram; and either has a continuing presence of a substantialnumber of students with limited English-speaking skills in suchschool or schools, has experienced a recent substantial increase inthe number of such students, or is under an obligation to providebilingual education pursuant to a order or a Title VI plan."'

The Senate opposed such a limitation; although itrecognized that state and local commitment is importantfor the success of the program, the educational needs ofthe children, in their view, predominated.

Many local districts are hard pressed for funds at present, andbilingual education for minority students may be a low priority.Without federal funding many children will not receive the helpthey need. There is no educational base.for such a limitation. Inmost areas with high concentrations of children with limitedEnglish proficiency, there are children continually entering theschool systemsome because of local births and some because ofmigration. The presence of children needing bilingual educationwill not disappear after five years. The Committee also noted thatno other program in ESEA has such a limitation."

The issue of duration reflected more than budgetaryconcerns. A firm time limit in Title VII program grantswas consistent with a limited federal commitment to bilin-gual education as a research and development programand a transitional programl"; open-ended grants sug-gested a broader federal involvement, a service program,and a maintenance effort.'"

The 1978 law permits initial funding of one to threeyears and limits the ability of the commissioner to termi-nate the program. The commissioner's decision regardingthe length of initial funding depends upon (a) the severityof the problem to be addressed, (b) the nature of the ac-tivities proposed, (c) the likely duration of the problemsaddressed by the application, and (d) other criteria thecommissioner may establish to assure the effective use ofthe funds.'" In addition the commissioner must determinethat federal assistance will contribute toward buildinglocal capacity to provide a self-sustaining bilingual educa-tion program.' a'

Termination provisions are very formal. The commis-sioner, after reviewing program operations, may, uponfmding that a school does not have a long-term need forcontinued assistance, issue an order to the local educa-tional agency to prepare and submit within one year arevised application setting forth a schedule for terminationof federal funding "in the fifth year following the issuanceof such an order. "181 The commissioner's finding may notbe issued without notice and opportunity for hearing. Thereduction schedule shall be in accordance with criteriaestablished by the commissioner. designed to, ensuregradual assumption of the cost by the applicant.112

45

The commissioner may not issue an "order to submitan application in preparation for termination of assistance. . . to any local educational agency" which showsadequate progress in meeting the goals of the program anda "fiscal inability" to carry on a program without thefederal assistance. Further, to prevent termination theremust also be either a continuing presence of a substantialnumber of students of limited English proficiency in bilin-gual education programs under Title VII; a recent, sub-stantial increase in the number of students of limitedEnglish proficiency who have enrolled in such a program;or a state or federal court order or plan approved by t!lesecretary under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964affecting services for more children.m Once a terminationorder is issued, the commissioner is further charged toannually review the conditions to see if the order should bewithdrawn or suspended.'"

41

The law establishes an Office of Bilingual Education run Programa .by a director "to whom the Commissioner shall delegate Mimbistradosall of his delegable functions relating to bilingual educa-tion." Under the 1978 amendments "the director shallalso be assigned responsibility for coordinating the bilin-gual education aspects of other programs administered bythe Commissioner."'"

The statute requires the secretary to establish a Na-tional Advisory Council on Bilingual Education com-posed of fifteen members." At least eight shall be per-sons experienced in "dealing with the educational prob-lems of children and other persons who are of limitedEnglish proficiency." At least one of these eight shallrepresent persons serving on boards of education operat-ing bilingual education. The group shall consist ofat leasttwo experienced teacher trainers, two persons with gen-eral experience in elementary and secondary education,two classroom teachers who have utilized bilingualmethods and techniques, two parents of students whoselanguage is other than English, one representative of astate educational agency, and one at-large member.

The council shall generally represent the geographicalareas and population of persons with limited English pro-ficiency. The secretary shall designate the chairperson and

k. provide staff assistance and information necessary to the'council's activities.

°

4111

The council's function is to advise the commissionerin the preparation of general regulations and administra-tive and operational policy matters including approvalcriteria for applications. Each year by March 31, thecouncil shall submit a report to the Congress and thepresident on the condition of bilingual education in thenation and on the administration and operations of TitleVII.

. 7

ge,

43

Future Directions

The bilingual education program as originally formulated, Sinksand as presently authorized, is a research and demonstra- Rather Thaation program. Congress acted on an intuitive judgment Deesoastradosthat teaching children in the language they understand waslikely to be helpful. Testimony in 1967 had focused onneed with a conscious awareness that solutions as yet wereuncertain. The declaration of policy in the 1968 act articu-lated this perception by looking to local educational agen-cies "to develop and carry out new and imaginativeelementary and secondary school programs. "1"

This language was reinforced in subsequent sectionsof the act which spoke of "the development of programs. . . including research projects, pilot projects . . . de-signed to test the effectiveness. . . ." (emphasissupplied). Congress, in addition, envisioned "the devel-opment and dissemination of special instructional materi-als. "t' In subsequent years as the program has expanded,this initial experimental thrust has become diluted, and theprogram has moved toward a service emphasis.

Both the 1978 law and congressional reports empha-sized once more the research and demonstration characterof the program, stressing the need for additional studyevaluation of the approaches. The 1978 amendmentscifically added in the statement of policy a subsectinote this direction: "Recognizing . . . (7) researchevaluation capabilities in the field of bilingual educationneed to be strengthened. "

The Committee bin . . . provides increased authorizations forWain activities,

M66

restarcitaad ell:anon and greats. . . . The

committee is pleased to note that its faith in the efficacy ofbilingual education is being affirmed in a growing number ofStates which have adopted sound bilingual programs to meetspecific needs. It may be that a more direct Federal contribution tosuch State and local activities is appropriate for the future; but littleprogress toward such a service orientation can be made untilFederal officials charged with carrying out the Title VII programdo the job so clearly theirs under the law.'

The reaffirmation of the demonstration nature of theprogram resulted from two congressional concerns: (1) theabsence of documentation and statistics which had beenrequested in 1974 and (2) the damaging reports of GA01"and the American Institutes for Research:" The AIRstudy concluded that "there is no compelling evidence inthe current data of the Impact Study that Title VII bilingualeducation as presently implemented is the most appropri-ate approach for these students." This latter, most recentevaluation troubled the Congress and, although chal-lenged by NIE and others, affected the 1978 legislation,reinforcing the committee's feeling that the appropriateapproach and utility of bilingual education needed to bedemonstrated.

The first national evaluation of bilingual education supportedby the Office of Education and conducted by the American Insti-tutes for Researth tales scititt serious questions aboit the viability 7--of the bilingual approach.

A recent GAO report on bilingual education pointed out thatevaluations for individual projects have been inadequate formeasuring programs' effect on student achievement and . . . havebeen inadequate for identifying projects worthy of replication."

Consequently, the Committee bill increases the authorizationof appropriations for research and development on bilingual edu-cation from S5 million a year to $20 million a year. The bill alsorequires each local project to provide for its own evaluation. It ishoped that these amendments will all lead to greater knowledgewithin the next several years about what is most effective inbilingual education.':

To assure that additional data is available and thatthere is an understanding in the Congress of the overalldirection of the program, the 1978 amendments requirethe individual grant applications to include an evaluationcomponent." In addition, the Commissioner of Educa-tion is required to report annually to the Congress. The1978 law reiterates the 1974 requirements with minormodifications. The commissioner, in consultation withthe National Advisory Council, shall submit:

49

1. A national assessment of the educational needs ofchildren and other persons with limited English profi-ciency

2. A report on the degree to which these needs are beingmet by federal, state, and local efforts

3. A plan, including cost estimates, forextending bilin-gual education to serve preschool and elementarychildren and other persons of limited English prai-ciency, including a phased plan for training of neces-sary teachers and other educational personnel

4. An evaluation of the bilingual program

S. A description of the staffing of the program by HEW

6. An assessment of the number of teachers and otherpersonnel needed to carry out a program of bilingualeducation for persons of limited English proficiency

7. An estimate of the number of teacher training fellow-ships for bilingual education which will be necessaryfor the two succeeding fiscal years"

Most importantly, the secretary is charged with addi-tional actions and reports which elaborate upon theserequirements. By September 30, 1980, the secretary is todevelop (a) methods to identify children oflimited Englishproficiency who are in need of bilingual education pro-grams; (b) "evaluation and data gathering models, whichtake into account linuistic and cultural differences of thechild, which consid#:: me availability andthe operations ofState programs for such children, and shall include allow-ances for variables which are applicable" to bilingualeducation programs "such as pupil-teacher ratios, teacherqualifications, length of the program, hours of instruction,percentage of children in the classroom who are Englishdominant and the percentage who have limited Englishproficiency. "1"

As part of this developmental effort, the commissionerwas to publish within six months of the date ofpassage ofthe Education Amendments of 1978 "(1) models for pro-grams of bilingual education which may include suggestedteacher-pupil ratios, teacher qualifications, and other fac-tors affecting the quality of instruction offered, and whichshall represent a variety of types of such programs, and (2)models for the evaluation of such programs as to the

5 0.

45

progress made by participmds therein attaining Englishskills."'" The House of Representatives repotted the fol-lowing explanation of this mandate:

The Commissioner's Report on the Condition of Bilingual Educa-tion of 1977 found that "there is little to guide educators indesigning and implementing effective bilingual projects." TheNational Association for Bilingual Education testified that only asmall number of program models have been identified to date.'"

Although the committee's reports reflected the skepti-cism and concern with the evaluations to date, the lack ofdata on student needs and ter,.-..her availability, and theabsence of clear instruction models, the act looked towarddeveloping a service program on a broad level throughoutthe United States, one models had been developed andproved. The steady increase in appropriations from $7.5million in fiscal year 1969 to $158.6 million in fiscal year1979,1" indicates both a desire and possible capacity toeffect such a conversion. Such a modification envisionschrnging, as well, the method of distributing funds from adiscretionary grant program to formula distribution.

(f) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and tothe Congress not laser than December 31, 1981, a report settingforth recommendations on the methods of converting, not laterthan July 1,1984, the bilingual education program from a &sae-tionuy grant program to a formula gram program to serve studentsof limited English proficiency and recommendations on whetheror not such conversion would best serve the needs of such stu-dents. The study required by this subsection shall consider thefindings of other studies required to be made under this section,and shall include cost estimates for the phasing in of the formulagrant program.'"

The discussion to convert from a research and demon-stration program to a service program is likely to center notonly on measurable success but also on cost. The generalcharge to utilize funds to initiate bilingual programs hascontinued, but the 1978 House Report specifically notedthe cost question in its lengthy discussion of demonstra-tion v. service. It hoped that once a program was estab-lished, costs would decrease and local districts wouldcontinue the program."' One can conjecture that if thedemonstrations prove favorable, if the costs of continuinga program are shown to be substantially less than initiatinga program, and if local districts are unable to meet theentire financial burden, Congress will support a bilingualeducation service program.

51.

Bilingual education programs are funded not only underTitle VII but also under a number of other programs inHEW.2°1 The increased power granted to the director ofthe Title VII office over these other programs and thetransfer of Section 708(c) of the Emergency School AidAct to Title VI12°2 foreshadow a centralized administrationand, perhaps, an overall, cohesive, educational concernwith minority language children.

The Emergency School Aid Act bilingual set-asidefunds, curriculum development, teacher training, and in-terethnic understanding programs help provide equal edu-cational opportunity for children with language difficul-ties. The funds may be utilized to assist school districts tomeet Lau remedy court orders.

The House Committee commented on the provision:"The Committee was disturbed to find little coordinationbetween this program and Title VII . . . this transfer willachieve a greater coordination between the two pro -grams. "203

Further evidence of this centralized direction is seen inthe new legislation establishing a Department of Educa-tion. This legislation establishes an Office of BilingualEducation and Minority Languages Affairs headed by adirector who "shall coordinate the administration of bilin-gual education programs by the Department and shallconsult with the Secretary concerning policy decisionsaffecting bilingual education and minority language af-fairs. "2(14 The Senate bill called for an Office of BilingualEducation and Minority Affairs. In adopting the Housenomenclature, the final law singled out the problems oflanguage and language minority individuals from personsdesignated for special treatment by race, color, sex, orincome. The role of the director is not confined to bilin-gual education. He is given a broader consultative role inminority language affairs as well.

The director gains additional stature under the reor-ganization. He/she reports directly to the secretary203 andis expected to be established at a GS-18, the top level ofthe Civil Service. The Senate bill specified a GS-18 ratingfor the director while the House stated no specific gradelevel. The grade was omitted in the final law with thecomment in the committee report that "the conferees wishto indicate their intentions that this official should be soclassified by the Office of Personnel Management. "206

52

47

Coschision

Over the last ten years since the Bilingual Education Actwas first passed, Title VII programs have expanded con-siderably in numbers, and funding has continually in-creased. As this has occurred, Congress has sought greaterformalization of the program, clarification of its goals anddirection, and development of standards of success.

k appears likely that the future of thepogram dependsupon establishing clear evaluative criteria and a record ofsuccess. The new law seeks local capacity building toassure continuity, but is less clear on the long-range fed-eral commitment.

With the bonder stature of the director of bilingualeducation in the new Department of Education, there isincreased opportunity to bring together minority languageeducation programs. One of the major challenges facingthe director will be the coordination of the various minor-ity language programs outside of Title VII.

Selected Legislative HistoryDocuments

Bilingual Education Act:P.L. 90.247, (Jan. 2, 1968), 81 Stat. 816, 20 U.S.C.A.880 (b)

Rules and Regulations:39 Fed.-Reg. 17963 (May 22, 1974)

Congressional Reports:U.S. Sen., Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of1967, Report No. 90-726 (90th Cong., 1st Sess.)

House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor,Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of1967, Report No. 90-1049 (90th Cong.. 1st Sess.)

Congressional Hearings:U.S. Sen., Bilingual Education, Hearings before the Spe-cial Subcommittee on Bilingual Educationof the Commit-tee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 428 (2 vols.) (90thCong., 1st Sess.)

House of Rep., Bilingual Education Programs, Hearingsbefore the General Subcommittee on Education of the

. Committee on Education and Labor on H.R. 9840 andH.R. 10224 (90th Cong., 1st Sess.)

54

1%$

SS

1974 Bilingual Education Act:P.L. 93-380, (Aug. 21, 1974), 88 Stat. 503

Rules and Regulations:45 C.F.R. 581, Part 123 Bilingual Education

Congressional Reports:U.S. Sen., Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,Education Amendments of 1974, Report No. 93-763(93rd Cong., 2nd Sess.)

House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor, Edu-cation Amendments of 1974, Report No. 93-1211 (93rdCong., 2nd Sess.)

House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor, Edu-cation Amendments of 1974, Report No. 93-805 (93rdCong., 2nd Sess.)

Congressional Hearings:U.S. Sen., Education Legislation, 1973, Hearings beforethe Subcommittee on Education of the Committee onLabor and Public Welfare on S. 1539 (93rd Cong., 1stSess.), Part 7

House of Rep., Elementary and Secondary EducationAmendments of 1973, Hearings before the General Sub-committee on Education of the Committee on Educationand Labor on H.R. 16, H.R. 69, H.R. 5163, and H.R.5823 (93rd Cong., 1st Sess.)

1978 Bilingual Education Act:P.L. 95-561, (Nov. 1, 1978), 92 Stat. 2270

Rules and Regulations (Proposed):44 Fed. Reg. 38415 (June 29, 1979)

Rules and Regulations (Final):45 Fed. Reg. 23208 (April 4, 1980)

Congressional Reports:U.S. Sen., Committee on Human Resources, EducationalAmendments of 1978, Report No. 95-856 (95th Cong.,2nd Sess.)

House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor, Edu-cation Amendments of 1978, Report No. 95-1137 (95thCong., 2nd Sess.)

55

House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor, Edu-cation Amendments of 1978, Report No. 95-1753 (95thCong., 2nd Sess.) (Conference Report)

Congressional Hearings:U.S. Sen., Education Amendments of 1978, Hearingsbefore the Subcommittee on Education of the Committeeon Human Resources on S. 1753 (95th Cong., 1st Sess.)

House" of Rep., Bilingual Education, Hearings before theSubcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and VocationalEducation of the Committee on Education and Labor onH.R. 15 (95th Cong., 1st Sess.)

56

SS

N

57

55

7

1. To a degree, of course, there is some implicit recognition ofEnglish since the Constitution is written in that language.

2. See generally, B. McWhinney, Federal Constitution- Making fora Multi-National World (1966); R. Bowie and C. Friedrich,Stud es in Federation (1954). The bilingual experience of Canadais detailed in Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilin-gualism, A Preliminary Report 33 (1965).

3. R. Fitzgibbon, The Constitutions of theAmericas ns, 323, 398,448, 356, 605 (1948) cites the following constitutions in theWestern Hemisphere that designate official languages: Cuba, arti-cle 6; Ecuador, article 7; Guatemala, article 4; Haiti, article 29;Nicaragua, article 7; and Panama, article 7.

4. The Federalist Papers, No. II (1788).

5. H. Manuel, Spanish-Speaking Childrenof the Southwest (1956).6. T. Fehrenbach, Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans 167

(1968).

7. D. Ferris, Judge Marvin and the Founding of the CalVorniaPublic School System 92 (1962).

8. Calif. Stat. Ch. 556, Sec. 55 (1870).

9. L. Pitt, The Decline of the Cal fornios 226 (1966).10. In 1884 the law required "Each of thevoting precincts of a county

shall be and constitute a school district in which shallbe . . . taught reading, writing . . . in either English or Spanishor both, as the directors may determine. " H. Moss, The AmericanBilingual Tradition 134 (1977).

11.3. Forbes, "Mexican-Americans: A Handbook for Educators," inHearings before the House General Subcommittee on Educationof the Committee on Education and Labor on H.R. 9840 and H.10224, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 508 (1967).

12.1Goss 134-135 (1977).

13. N. Gonzales, "The Spanish Americans of New Mexico: A Dis-tinctive Heritage" in University of California, Mexican-AmericanStudy Project 36-38 (1967); W. Keleher, The Fabulous Frontier90 (1945).

14. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 234 (1942).15. Ibid., 240.

16. One treaty did, however, include a reference to the language to beemployed. This notable exception appears in the Treaty of May 6,182$, with the Cherokee Nation. Article 5 reads in part: "It isfurther agreed by the U.S. to pay $1,000 . . . towards the pur-chase of a Printing Press and Types to aid towards the Cherokeesin the progress of education, and to benefit and enlighten them aspeople, in their own language" (emphasis supplied).

17. The Education of American IndkOu, A Survey of the Literature,prepared for the Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Educa-tion of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 91st Cong.,1st Sess., 11 (1969).

18. 'The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of thesoil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their consent, or by

58

.a c,, '''.

rights of conquest in cue of a just war. To dispossess them on anyother principle would be a great violation of the fundamental lawsof nature. ' Statement of Henry Knox quoted in D. McNickle, TheIndian Tribes of the United States: Ethnic and Cultural Survival32 (1962). See alsoJohnson v. Macintosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543(1823); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) I (1831);and Worchester v. Georgia 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

19. Quoted in Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education ofthe Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Indian Education: ANational Tragedy-A National Challenge, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.,143 (1969) (hereinafter cited as Indian Education).

20. The Dawes Severalty Act, which ushered in the allotment periodof Indian history, was passed in 1884. Its essential features were:(1) tribal lands were to be divided and the president was authorizedto assign or allot 160 acres to each Indian family bead; (2) eachIndian would make his selection, but if he failed or refused, agovernment agent would make the selection; (3) title to the landwas placed in trust for twenty-five years; (4) citizenship wasconferred upon all allottees and upon other Indians who aban-doned their tribes and adopted "the habits of civilized life"; (5)surplus tribal lands remaining after allotment might be sold to theUnited States. McNickle 48-49. The allotment law and sub-sequent statutes set up procedures which resulted in the transfer ofsome ninety million acres from Indian to white owners in the nextforty-five years. Indian Education, pp. 150-151; Blackfeet et al.Nation v. United States, 81 Ct. Cls. 101, 115, 140 (1935).

21. A. Josephy, Jr., The Indian Heritage of America 339 (1947).

22. Superintendent of Indian Schools, Sixth Annual Report 10(1887).

23. A. Faust, The German Element in the United States 204 (1969).

24. For example, Missouri in 1817; Illinois in 1825; Michigan in1835; and Iowa in 1841. H. Kloss, The Bilingual Tradition in theUnited States 200 (1970).

25. Faust 151.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., 152.

28. L Jorgensen, The Founding of Public Education in Wisconsin 146(1956).

29. M. Jones, American Immigration' 103 (1960).

30. The text has limited itself to immigration from Europe. Similarpressures arose against the Chinese and Japanese migrant in thewestern states and in Hawaii culminating in a series of laws aimedat restricting immigration, ownership of land, and, subsequently,in pressure to close the private Japanese foreign language schools.See Farrington v. Tokushige 273 U.S. 284 (1927). See generallyM. Konvitz, The Alien and Asiatic in American Law (1946) and R.Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movementin California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion (1969).

31. D. Eaton, The Government of Municipalities 123-126 (1899).

32. The detailing of these political and economic requirements andtheir original purpose is set forth' in A. Leibowitz, "English

59

Literacy: Legal Sanction for `Discrimination," 45 Notre DameLawyer 7 (1969).

33. A. Leibowitz, Educational Policy and Political Acceptance: TheImposition of English as the Language of Instruction In AmericanSchools (1971).

34. Alyea v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

35. Lassiter v. Northhampton Election Board 360 U: S. 45 (1959); butsee Cardona v. Power 384 U.S. 672 (1966) and Puerto RicanOrganization for Political Actioi v. Kusper 490 F. 2nd 575 (7thCir. 1975).

36. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. P.L. 88-452, 78 Stat. 508.

37. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. P.L. 89-10, 79Stat. 27.

38. The 1930 Census identified "Mexicans" (persons of Spanishcolonial descent) as a racial classification. In 1940, on the basis ofa. five percent sample, the Census counted persons speakingSpanish as the mother tongue. The 1950 and 1960 Censuses, onthe basis of a twenty and twenty-five percent sample, respectively ,identified the Spanish-surnamed populace in the five southwest-ern states, These states had accounted for more than eighty percentof all persons with Spanish as the mother tongue. The 1970 Censusused four different means of identifying persons of Spanish ances-try: (1) birthplace, (2) Spanish surname, (3) mother tongue, and(4) Spanish origin based on self-identification.

39. The precise figures of 1960 for these three states are: Arizona.194,356 Spanish-surnamed, out of a total population of1,302,161; New Mexico-269,122 out of a total population of951,023; and Colorado-157,173 out of a total population of1,753,050.

40. Hearings before the Senate Special Subcommittee on BilingualEducation of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90thCong., 1st Sess., 75 (1967) (hereinafter cited as 1967 SenateHearings, Bilingual Education).

41. The Nixon administration expanded its jurisdiction and renamed itthe Cabinet Committee on Opportunity for the Spanish-Speaking.

42. Upheld by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach383 U.S. 301 (1966). In extending the Voting Rights Act in 1970and 1975, Congress suspended and then banned the English liter-acy test.

43. The provision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v.Morgan 384 U.S.; 641 (1966) reversing 247 F. Supp. 196 (DDC1965).

44. New York City Board of Education, Puerto Rican Study 1953 -1957 (1958).

45. Colorado Commisiion on Spanish Citizens, The Status ofSpanish-Surnamed Citizens in Colorado (1967).

46. For example, H.R., Con. Res. 108 (83rd Cong., 1st Sess.).

47. Bilingualism in education, off-reservation boarding schools, andtermination were nornecestarilyat odds although in practice theywere seen that way. The moat notable experiment in bilingual

59

education in an off-reservation boarding school (which in practicewas linked to relocation) was the special Navajo education pro-gram which began in 1946 at the Sherman Institute in Riverside,California, I.. Coombs, Doorway toward the Light (1962).

48. Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education of the Commit-tee on Labor and Public Welfare, Indian Education: A NationalTragedy-A National Challenge, 91st Cong., lit Seas., 19 (1969).The point in the text is well taken. However, it should be nosed thatthe Cherokees were far from typical. They were the only NorthAmerican tribe which had developed an indigenous written lan-guage.

49. H.R., Doc. 272 (90th Cong., 2nd Sess.), 5. President Johnson'smessage on Indian affairs, the most liberal statement of Indianpolicy ever made, although it stressed Indian education and itscontrol by Indians, did not mention the subject of language.Message from the President, of the United States transmittingIndian Policy. H.R. Doc. NO. 91-363 (91st Cong., 2nd Sess.).

50. Statement of Dr. Joshua Fishman, Research Professor of SocialSciences, Yeshiva University, 1967 Senate Hearings, BilingualEducation, pp. 133-134.

51. See the testimony of various officials in 1967 Senate Hearings,Bilingual Education; and House of Representatives, BilingualEducation Programs, Hearings before the General Subcommitteeon Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, 90thCong., 1st Seas. (1967) (hereinafter cited as 1967 House Herr-ings, Bilingual Programs).

52. The literature is vast and rarely are distinctions made betweenbilingual and other language programs. Good reviews_of theliterature only slightly dated are P. Engle,The Use of the Vernacu-lar Languages in Education Revisited: A Literature Review pre-pared for the Ford Foundation, Office of Mexico, Central Ameri-can and the Caribbean (1973);1. Rubin and B. Jernudd, Refer-ences for Students of Language Planning (1974). See also thelisting Office of Education,Publications on Comparative Educa-tion (March 1,1975). For more substantive material seethe papersfrom the Section on Language Planning submitted to the VIIIWorld Congress of Sociology (Toronto, 1974); the InternationalConference on Language Planning (Skokloster, Sweden, 1973);and J. Fishman, ed., Readings in the Sociology of Language(1965).

53. House Report 95-1137, Education Amendments of 1978 (9,5thCong., 2nd Seas.) 84 (hereinafter cited as 1978 House Report).

54. S. 428 (90th Cong, 1st Sess., 1967), 1702.

55. Statement of Senator Yarborough, 1967 Senate Hearings, Biling-ual Education, p. 37.

56. S. 428 (90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1967), 1703(b).

57. Statement of Schmuel Lapin, General Secretary, YIVO Instituteof Jewish Research, 1967 Senate Hearings, Bilingual Education,p. 602.

58. Statement of Honorable Henry B. Gonzilez (Democrat, Texas),1967 Senate Hearingi, Bilingual Education, p. 600.

61'

39.1967 House Heariap, Bilingual Programs.

60.20 U.S.C. 880(b) (1968), P.L. 90-247, Title VII, 1702, 81 Stat.816.

61.1967 Senate Hewing., Bilingual Education, pp. 33-34.

62. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1703(aX1).

63. Senate Report 95456, Education Amendments of 1978 (95thCong., 2nd Sess.) 69 (hereinafter cited as 1978 Senate Report).

64. Howe of Representatives, Bilingual Education, Hearinp beforethe Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and VocationalEducation of the Committee on Education and Labor, 95th Cong.,1st Sess., Part 3, 306-308 (1977) (hereinafter cited as 1977 HouseHearing, Bilingual Education).

65.1bid., 332-333.

66. 1978 House Report, p. 87.

67. P.L. 95-561 (95th Cong., 2nd Sess.), Education Amendments of1978, 92 Stat. 2143 (hereinafter "Bilingual Education Act asamended"), 1703(aX I).

68.1978 Senate Report, p. 70.

69. Rid. The regulations judge groups of children to be "historicallyundenervcd" by "comparing the number and distribution, bylanguage group, of children of limited English proficiency whowe in need of bilingual education with the number and distribu-tion, by language group, of children of limited English proficiencywho are being served by programs of bilingual education." 45CFR 1234.30.

70. Statement of Bruce Gautier, Chief, Modern Language Section,U.S. Office of Education, 1967 House Hearing, Bilingual Pro-grams, pp. 351-357.

71.1bid., 399.

72. Bilingual Education Act of 1968,1706(a). The section referredtoin this footnote is as a result of a 1970 amendment, P.L. 91-230,April 13, 1970; 84 Stat. 151.

73.1bid., see 1706(b).

74. Bilingual Education Act u amended, 11722(b); cf., BilingualEducation Act of 1968, 1706(10.

75. 1978 Senate Report, p. 78.

76. Bilingual Education Act as amended, *721(f). See also 45 CFR123a.21.

77. 1978 House Report, p. 86.

78. Bilingual Education Act of 1968, 81 Stat. 816,1702.

79. S. 428, (90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1967).

80. 1967 Senate &whip, Bilingual Educadon, p. 410.

81. Statement of Senator Ralph Yarborough, ibid., p. 1.

82. C. Lavatelli, Plaget's Theory Applied to an Early ChildhoodEducation 42 (1973).

62

41

83. Statement of Leonard Pacheco, Project Director, Project HeadStart, Alhambra, California, 1967 Senate Hearings, BilingualEducation, p. 422.

84. Statement of Honorable Ernest D. Dabs, Supervisor, Los AngelesCounty, ibid.. p. 432.

85. Statement of Robert S. Randall, Associate Director, Research andEvaluation, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory,Austin, Texas, ibid., p: 608.

86. Statement of Professor Juliin Nan, Member-Elect, Los AngelesCity Board of Education, ibid., p. 436.

87. Statement of Luis Alvarez, Coordinator, Federated Puerto RicanParents, ibid., p. 567.

88. Statement of Schram! Lapin, General Secretary, YIVO Institutefor Jewish Research, ibid., p. 602.

89. P.L. 90-247, Jan. 2, 1968, Stat. 816, f 702..

90. Senate Report 90-726, Elementary and Secondary Education ActAmendments of 1967 (90th Cong., 1st Sess.) 49.

91. Ibid., 50.

92. 1967 House Hearings, Bilingual Programs, pp. 44-45.

93. Senate Report 93-763, Education Amendments of 1974 (93rdCong., 2nd Sem.) 42 (hereinafter cited as 1974 Senate Report).

94. Quoted in T. Andersson, "Bilingual Eduction: The AmericanExperience," paper presented at the Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education Conference on Bilingual Education, Toronto,Canada, March 13, 1971, p. 14, ED 048 581.

95. 1914 Senate Report, p. 45.

96. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1702(aX7XB).

97. Ibid., 1731(cX3).

98. American Institutes for Research, Evaluation of the Impact ofESEA Title VII, Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program:Overview of Study and Findings 14,,10-11 (1978).

99. Statement of Gary Wield, Department of Political Science, Uni-versity of Illinois at Urbana, 1977 House Hearings, BilingualEducation, pp. 336-337.,

100. Statement of Maria Swanson, President, National Association forBilingual Education, ibid., p. 333.

101. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1703(aX4XB).

102. 1978 Senate Report, p. 71.

103. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1703(aX4XAM.

104. 1978 House Report, p. 87.

105. Ibid.

106. Comptroller General of the United States, Bilingual Education:An Unmet Need 45 (1976).

107. U.S. Civil Rights Commission, A Better Chance to Learn: Bilin-gual Bicultural Education (1975).

'Sc63

101.1977 House Hearings, Bilingual Education, pp. 306-321.

109. Ibid., 345.346.

110. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1703(aX4XAXi).

III. 1978 House Report 95-1137. p.

112. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 5703(aX4XA).

113. Ibid.

114. Ibid., 5703(aX4X4

115. Ibid., 1703(aX4XD).

116. Ibid.

117. Ibid., 11703(aX4X11).

118. 1978 House Report, p. 86.

119. 1978 Senate Report, p. 71.

120. 1978 House Report, p. 303.

121. Comptroller GAM' of the United States, Bilingual Education:An Unmet Need (1976).

122. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1703(aX4X11).

123. Office of Education, Project Savior; Project Venceremos. ProjectNueva HOftiZOIllet, Project Adelante.

124. Bilingual Education Act of 1968,1704(6).

125. Comptroller General of the United States, 14. American Institutesfor Research, Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA' ritle VII,Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program (1978). The Houseof Representatives in its 1978 report estimateda national require-ment of 129,000 teachers.

126. Bilingual Education Act of 1974, 1721(bX2XB).

127. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1721(bX2X11).

128. 1978 House Report, p. 89.

129. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1723(aX1X2).

130. Some of the needs of bilingual teachers and their specializedtraining is set forth in H. Casco, Bilingual /Bicultural Educationand Teacher Training (1976).

131. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1723 (aX6); cash repaymentis envisioned over fifteen years at an interest rate of seven percentper annum, 45 CFR 123h.44.

132.45 CFR 123h.30.

133.45 CFR 123e.41.

134. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1723(b).

135. Ibid., 1723(aX4).

136. Development Associates, Inc., A Study of the State of BilingualMaterials Development and the Transition of Materials to theClassroom (3 vols.) 6, vol. 1 (1978).

137. Ibid., p. 25.

138. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1742(e).

139. Ibid.

140.1978 House Report. p. 86.

141. Ibid.

142. 1978 WNW Repot. p. 84. Although not official, perhaps equallyinfluential was the critical review-N. Epstein, Language Ethnic-by and the Schools: Polley Alternatives for Bilingual BiculnualEducation (1977).

143. Bilingual Education Act as amended, *742.

144. 1978 House kapott: p. 85.

145. Bilingual Education Act as amended. *742()). .

146. 1978 House Report. p. 85.

147. 1978 Senate Report, p. 69.

148. Bilingual Education Act as amended. 1721(bX3XF).,

149. Bilingual Education Act as amended, .721(bX4); Bilingual Edu-cation Act of 1968, f705(b)(2). See also Bilingual Education Actas amended *721(bX3XA).

150. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Edam-dos: Statistical Report 37, Chart 1.15 (1978).

151 Bilingual Education Act as amended. *721(c). The final regula-tions deemphasized this criterion when comment on the draftregulations regarded it as unfairly discriminating against schooldistricts which were small, rural. or did not have a heavy concen-tration of children of limited English proficiency. 45 Fed. Reg.23231 (April 4, 1910).

152. Ibid.. .721(bX4).

153. 1978 House Report, p. 91.

154. Bilingual Education Act as amended. f721(bX4).

155. 1978 Seigle Report. p. 70.

156.45 CFR 123a.30.

157. Bilingual Education Act as amended. f721(bX3XE).

158. S. 428 (90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1967), *703(b).

159. H.R. 9840 (90th Cong., 1st Sea.. 1967). f703(b).

160. H.R. 10224 (90th Cong., 1st Sea.. 1967). f703(b).

161. Bilingual Education Act of 1968. f703(b).

162. Ibid., f704(a&c).

163. Bilingual Education Act as amended. *721(bX4) (emphasissupplied).

164.45 CFR 123.01(e); the allocation formula of Title 1 is discussed in1978 House Report. pp. 8-17.

165. Bilingual Education Act as amended. *721(bXSXA).

166. Ibid., f721(bX5X8). t.

167. 1977 House Hearings. Bilingual Education. p. 87. .

168. Bilingual. Education Act as amended. B721(bX1XB).

65

169.43 CFR I23a.30.

170. Ibid.

171. Ibid.

172. Bilingual Education Act as amended. 1703(1)(4XE).173. Ibid., 1703(aX4XEXiiik 45 CFR 123a.44.

174. Ibid.. 1703(aX4)(F).

175. 1978 House Report. p. 88.

176. 1978 Senile Report, p. 71.

177. The time limitation was embodied in the HEW regulation pub-lished in October 1973. 45 Fed. Reg. 123 (Oct. I. 1973).

178. The issue is discussed with respect to the 1974 law in sonic detailin S. Schneider. Revolution. Reaction, or Reform: The 1974Bilingual Education Act 104 (1976).

179. Bilingual Education Act as amended. 4721(e)(1).M. Ibid.. 1721(bX3XE).

181. Ibid.. 1721(bW2X11)

1112. Ibid.

183. Ibid.. 1721(bX2XAXiii).

184. Ibid.. 1721(bX2XC).

185. Ibid.. 6731.

1116. The role of the Council is set forth ibid., 1732.

187. Bilingual Education Act of 1968, 1702.

M. Ibid.. 1704(a).

189. 1978 Senate Report. p. 68. The regulations focus at some lengthon demonstration projects including additional target populations(children of migratory workers, recent immigrants, high schoolstudents preparing to enter the job market, and exceptional chil-dren). exemplary approaches to instruction including use of com-puter assisted instruction. high probability of replication in other:imam school districts, and approaches to obtain community/parental involvement. 45 CFR 123b.10, 45 CFR 123b.30.

190. Comptroller General of the linked States. Bilingual Education:An Owner Need (1976).

191. American Institutes for Research. Evaluation of the !impact ofEWA Title VII. Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program(1978).

192. 1978 House Report. pp. 84-85.

193. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1721(bX3XCXM).

194. Ibid.. 1731(cXI)-(6).

195. Ibid.. 1731(4,,

196. Ibid.. 1731(d).

197. 1978 House Repot. p. 85. ,198. "House-Senate Conference Committee Agreeson Bilingual Edu-

cation Budget," FORUM II(8). September 1979, p. 2.

if

199. Bilingual Education Act as 'weeded, 1731(f).

200. 197S Hasse Report, pp. 17-811.

201. A good listiag is found is HEW, The Condition of BilingssalEstacado* in the Nation: First Report by the U.S. CONNItiaffteroj'Education to the President and the Coneu (1976).

202. Bilingual Education Act as amended, 1731.

203. 197S House Report, p. 90.

204. House Report 96439 to accompany S. 210, Department otEduca-don Orpnization Act (96th Cong., lit Sts., 1979), p. 9.

205. Ibid., pp. 41-42.

206. Ibid., p. 42.

6'7