1. TERY J. MEDINA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR THE SOUTHEASTERN EQUITY CENTER 800 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 400 Fort Lauderdale, FL Telephone: Cell:

2. for English Language Learners
The Path to Equity
for English Language Learners
Presented by:
Tery J. Medina
Associate Director
Southeastern Equity Center
Presented at:
ESEA Directors Institute
TN Dept. of Education
Franklin, TN
August 26, 2016

3. Equity & Equality EQUITY Something that is being just,
impartial and fair.
Just behavior or treatment.
The administration of law or some other authority according to the principles of just behavior and treatment.
To treat or represent someone “with due fairness.”
EQUALITY
* A state of essential equality or equivalence: “on a par with the best.”
* The quality or state of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status.
* The state of enjoying equal rights as political, economic, and social.
fair, just, justice, justness, non-discrimination
uniformity, uniformly

4. Equity & Equality
EQUAL TREATMENT can result in DISPARATE (entirely dissimilar) IMPACT.
EQUAL ACCESS can be attained via EQUITABLE TREATMENT

5. Guidance from DOE & DOJ 2015 Plyler v. Doe 1981 Lau v. Nichols 1974        
Guidance
from
DOE & DOJ
2015
Plyler v. Doe 1981
Lau v. Nichols
“Castañeda decision 1981”
HEW memo 1970
Civil Rights Act 1964

6. Title VI of the Civil rights Act of 1964 provided that “…no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

7. Civil Rights Act of (1964)
1) Forbade discrimination on account of race, color, age, creed, or national origin in any federally funded activity. 2) Authorized D/HEW to apply compliance procedures and reviews and to withhold funds.

8. Civil Rights Act of (1964) 3) Authorized the Department of
Justice to sue in federal court to
secure the desegregation of public
facilities.
4) Authorized the U.S. Office of Education
to provide financial assistance.

9. D/HEW MEMORANDUM OF MAY 25, 1970:
1) Affirmed the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to language minority children.
2) Identified three main areas of concern:
a) unequal access to participation in school
programs because of language;

10. D/HEW Memorandum (continued)
b) segregation by tracking, ability grouping assignment to special education programs; c) exclusion of parents from school information.

11. D/HEW Memorandum (continued)
3) Instructed the Office for Civil Rights to
implement, review, and enforce compliance
procedures.

12. May 25, 1970 MEMORANDUM
“WHERE INABILITY TO SPEAK AND UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EXLUDES NATIONAL ORIGIN MINORITY GROUP CHILDREN FROM EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM OFFERED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT MUST TAKE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO RECTIFY THE LANGUAGE DEFICIENCY IN ORDER TO OPEN ITS INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM TO THESE STUDENTS.”

13. Lau V Nichols (1974):
1) Found a denial of equal educational opportunity under the Civil Rights Act of
2) Affirmed the authority of D/HEW to enforce the Civil rights Act of 1964 (equal educational opportunity)

14. Lau V Nichols (1974):
3) Affirmed the validity of the May 25th Memorandum extending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to language minority children.
4) Affirmed the authority of D/HEW “to require affirmative remedial efforts to give special attention to linguistically deprived children.” (Lau Remedies)

15. Lau v Nichols (1974)
“UNDER THESE STATE-IMPOSED STANDARDS THERE IS NO EQUALITY OF TREATMENT MERELY BY PROVIDING THE SAME FACILITIES, TEXTBOOKS, TEACHERS, AND CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH EFFECTIVELY.”

16. “BASIC ENGLISH SKILLS ARE AT THE VERY CORE OF WHAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACH. IMPOSITION OF A REQUIREMENT THAT, BEFORE A CHILD CAN EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, HE MUST ALREADY HAVE ACQUIRED THOSE BASIC SKILLS IS TO MAKE A MOCKERY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. WE KNOW THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH ARE CERTAIN TO FIND THEIR CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND IN NO WAY MEANINGFUL.” JUSTICE DOUGLAS DECISION IN LAU V. NICHOLS (1974)

17. Castañeda vs. Pickard (1981)
The program must be based on sound educational theory, or at least a legitimate experimental strategy
The school must effectively implement the program
The program results must demonstrate the program’s effectiveness

18. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of the Nation. (Justice Thurgood Marshall, quoted in Plyler v. Doe, 1982, p.231)

19. Guidance from the Departments of Education and Justice on Equitable Educational Access for English Learner Students

20. Opportunity to Learn
Some ELs are inappropriately identified as having LDs not because they have disabilities, but rather because they have not received an adequate opportunity to learn.
Federal & state special education laws specify that a lack of opportunity to learn must be ruled out (exclusionary factors) before a disability determination can be made
(IDEA 2006)

21. The Departments issued joint guidance to assist SEAs school districts, and all public schools in meeting their legal obligations to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs and services. The guidance provides an outline of the legal obligations of SEAs and school districts to EL students under the civil rights laws.

22. Of Particular Interest…
“Ensuring Meaningful Communication with Limited English Proficient Parents.” pg. 37 “Special Ed. & EL Services…” pg. 24 “Providing Meaningful Access…” pg.17

23. TERY J. MEDINA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR THE SOUTHEASTERN EQUITY CENTER 800 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 400 Fort Lauderdale, FL Telephone: Cell: