META CONSENT DECREE Cecilia Diaz Student # May 27, 2014

META  What does META stand for? M-Multicultural E-Educational T-Training and A-Advocacy, Inc.

WHY META?  In August 1990, a judge of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, signed a Consent Decree giving the court the power to enforce an agreement between the FLDOE and a coalition of eight groups. LULAC v. Florida Department of Education

WHAT IS THE META CONSENT DECREE?  The Meta Consent Decree is: the state of Florida’s framework for compliance with the following federal and state laws and jurisprudence regarding the education of English language learner students: Title VI and VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 Office of Civil Rights Memorandum (Standards for Title VI Compliance ) of May 25, 1970 Requirements based on the the Supreme Court decision in Lau v. Nichols, 1974

WHAT IS THE META CONSENT DECREE? CONTINUED Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 Requirements of the Vocational Education Guidelines, 1979 Requirements based on the Fifth Circuit court decision in Castaneda v. Pickard, 1981 Requirements based on the Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, 1982 Americans with Disabilities Act (PL ) Florida Education Equity Act, 1984 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

META CONSENT DECREE  The Consent Decree addresses the civil rights of ELL students, foremost, among those their right to equal access education programs. In addressing these rights, the Consent Decree provides a structure that ensures the delivery of the comprehensible instruction to which ELL students are entitled.  Florida's authority for the implementation of the Consent Decree is found in Section , F.S, English Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient Students and Rules 6A to 6A , F.A.C., Programs for Limited English Proficient Students. Section , F.S, English Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient Students and Rules 6A to 6A , F.A.C., Programs for Limited English Proficient Students.

META CONSENT DECREE  Section I-Identification & Assessment  Section II- Equal Access to Appropriate Program  Section III-Equal Access to Appropriate Categorical and Other Programs for ELL Students  Section IV-Personnel  Section V-Monitoring Issues  Section VI-Outcome Measures

SCENARIO  Student A has arrived from the country of Thailand. He does not know how to speak the English language. He was placed in a third grade classroom because of the date on his birth certificate which, would have placed him in the third grade. The El Paso, Texas School Board offers student A, a desk, seat, books, a teacher, and the current third grade curriculum. After two weeks of being at the school, the school sent a letter home asking for proof of U.S. residency in order to continue registered at the school. Does this violate the META Consent Decree? Why? Why not?

LANDMARK CASE-1  Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974 ) In Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying non-English speaking students of Chinese ancestry a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program. The decision stated that providing students the same desks, books, teachers, and curriculum did not ensure that they received an equal educational opportunity, particularly if the students did not speak English. If English is the mainstream language of instruction, then measures have to be taken to ensure that English is taught to students who do not speak English or are limited- English proficient in order to provide equal access to educational opportunities.

LANDMARK CASE-2  Castaneda v. Pickard, 648F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981) In Castaneda vs. Pickard, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a three-part test to determine whether a school district takes appropriate actions to overcome language barriers that confront language- minority students. Under this standard, a program for limited-English proficient students is acceptable if:  A program is based on educational theory that is recognized by experts in the field;  The programs or practices used are reasonably calculated to effectively implement the adopted theory; and  The program successfully produces results that indicate that the language barriers are being overcome.

LANDMARK CASE-3  Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that public schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education. The Court stated that undocumented children have the same right to a free public education as U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Undocumented immigrant students are obligated, as are all other students, to attend school until they reach the age mandated by state law.  Public schools and school personnel are prohibited under Plyler from adopting policies or taking actions that would deny students access to education based on their immigration status.

FLORIDA STATUTES NUMBERS  Under Florida’s education accountability system, S (3)(b)7., F.S., requires that all students participate in the statewide testing program, except as otherwise prescribed by the Commissioner. Pursuant to the A+ Education Plan enacted in 1999, schools are now graded on the basis of letter grades (A-F). According to DOE, all students’ test scores are included in a school’s grade, including limited English proficient (LEP) students who have been in an ESOL program for more than two years. LEP students who have been in ESOL programs for less than two years are exempted from the testing requirements.

FLORIDA STATUTES AND RULES  Section 22&2001(2)(c), F.S. -- Educational Equity Act  Section (3)(6)7., F.S. -- Test modification for LEP students  Section , F.S. -- ESOL in-service points  Section , F.S. -- English language instruction for LEP students  Section (1)(c)4., F.S. -- Weighted funding for ESOL students 240,529(2), F.S. - - ESOL requirements for state approved teacher prep programs  Rule 6A , F.A.C. -- Teacher certification in ESOL  Rule 6A , F.A.C. -- Programs/exemptions students specialization for LEP students

EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENT  Please get into six groups of four and discuss the following questions: What do the acronyms ESOL, ELL, and LEP stand for? What is the META Consent Decree? What came about with the META Consent Decree? What does META stand for? When is META applicable? For whom was the META Consent Decree written for?

REFERENCES  The Florida Consent Decree: A Summary. (n.d.).. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from ESOLMETAConsentSummary.pdf  Consent Decree Florida Department of Education. (n.d.).. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from  The Protection of English Language Learners Under the Law. (n.d.).. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from META%20CONSENT%20PRESENTATION% pdf

REFERENCES  Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974 )  Castaneda v. Pickard, 648F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981)  Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)  Council for Lifelong Learning: English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Fact Sheet. (2001, September 1).. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from publications/2002/house/reports/EdFactSheets/fact%20sheets/ English%20for%20Speakers%20of%20Other%20Languages.pdfhttp://

The End. Thank you.