Title VII/VIII - Bilingual Education Programs Act

A 1967 amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII (eventually updated to Title VIII) introduced bilingual education requirements to American public schools, primarily to aid Spanish-speaking students. It was championed by Texas Democrat Ralph Yarborough and is now known as Title III Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students.

Policy Overview
In April 9, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as part of his War on Poverty. The ESEA sought to impact education from the training and development of teachers to the curation of school libraries.[1] Title VII on Bilingual Education was added to the ESEA in 1967. Championed by Texas Democrat Ralph Yarborough, the amendment was designed to aid Spanish-speaking students in American public schools, but was later broadened to help all English Language Learners in 1968 when it became the Bilingual Education Act.[2]

Massachusetts was the first state to mandate bilingual programs in public schools. The mandate required that schools with over 20 students of the same language background offer those students some form of bilingual instruction. Within a decade, 11 other states adopted similar mandates. Today, bilingual education is offered in some form in every state in the US, although bilingual education laws are under constant scrutiny and are subject to change.[3]

Evolution Over Time
The Bilingual Education Programs Act has been altered in numerous ways over the course of its existence.

Bilingual Education Act
The Bilingual Education Programs Act was broadened to help all English Language Learners in 1968 when it became the Bilingual Education Act.undefinedUntil 1974, state participation in the act remained voluntary, meaning that many states had opted not to participate. Uproar amongst Civil Rights activists resulted in the bringing of a class action suit against the San Francisco Unified School District.[4 ]

Lau v. Nichols
In Lau v. Nichols, it was determined by the US Supreme Court that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public schools is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5 ]After integrating 1971, the San Francisco Unified School District absorbed over 2800 native Chinese students who had limited English proficiency. Less than half of those students were offered supplemental language education, prompting the class action lawsuit. The suit was dismissed at every level before it was upheld unanimously by the US Supreme Court.[6 ]

The bill has been the subject of many other lawsuits and amendments over the years, mostly predicated on expanding funding and services for bilingual programs.

Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
The Bilingual Education Programs Act was renewed in 2001 when President George W. Bush renewed the act under the new title No Child Left Behind.[7 ] It featured main components:
 * 1) ensure Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students reach english proficiency
 * 2) assist LEP students in core subjects
 * 3) develop high-level language proficiency programs
 * 4) assist state educational agencies enhance aid for LEP students
 * 5) assist state educational agencies in establishing programs to aid LEP students
 * 6) promote parental and community participation in language instruction educational programs
 * 7) streamline language instruction educational programs into a program carried out through formula grants to state and local education agencies
 * 8) to hold state and local education agencies accountable for english proficiency of students[8 ]

Opposition from the English-only Movement
While the Bilingual Education Programs Act has been largely successful, particularly after Jimmy Carter's establishment of the Department in Education in 1980, there are still opponents to the Act, namely the English-only Movement.

California and Arizona, two states who have declared English their official language, have passed acts, both championed by Ron Unz, changed each state's model to one predicated on English-immersion education over bilingual education. The shift resulted in widening proficiency gaps between English-speaking and LEP students in California, as well as decreased standardized test scores.[9 ]