Implications of equal protection for English Language Learners
English Language Learners (ELL) is a universally accepted term in the K-12 system; it refers to national-origin-minority students who are not currently proficient in English. The foreign population of America has been increasing over the years, consequently leading to diversity in the population of students. This group of students is complex: the students differ in their cultural backgrounds, proficiency in English, academic performance, immigration status, socioeconomic status, assimilation, and other aspects (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).
Depending on their proficiency in English, ELLs are divided into five standards, from the least to the most proficient level: Starting, Emerging, Developing, Expanding, and Bridging (Wright, 2010). These standards were developed by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in 2006. They meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, and address the teaching of science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts to ELLs.
The first step in the identification of ELLs is to conduct a Home Language Survey, HLS, for each student before they are enrolled in the school district. The next procedure is the confirmation of the HLS, where the students’ English proficiency is tested using the WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT), and after that, identified as Limited English Proficient or Non-English Proficient. The third step is the placement process, in which instructional and program placement decisions are made. After this, the teacher notifies the parents of the test results and the program placement of the student.
Case laws have had a great impact on various policies for ELLs. Lau v. Nichols is a case that was brought forward by Chinese American students who were being placed in mainstream classes without any measures to address their lack of proficiency in English. The court directed districts to develop and implement bilingual programs for ELLs (U.S Department of Education, 2020). The Lau remedies were developed as a result; they addressed the identification, instruction, and placement of ELLs.
Plyler v. Doe was a landmark decision that was brought forward by a group of Mexican students protesting a state policy to deny immigrant students a free public education. In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the school district had no basis for denying students education due to their immigrant status, and that doing so was a hindrance to the nation’s progress (American Immigration Council, 2006). Meyers v. Nebraska was a Supreme Court case addressing the rights of communities to teach their native languages to their children. The court ruled that states were barred from passing laws that prohibited communities from offering language classes in their native languages (U.S Supreme Court, n.d). This case is important because it showed that the law also protected minority groups.
Providing equal protection to English Language Learners involves taking measures that ensure they receive a proper education, and that their rights are protected. An example of such measures is prohibiting discrimination of students based on their ELL status. School districts are also required by law to rectify language deficiencies if they would result in the exclusion of minority groups from participation in the educational program. Additionally, the law directs states to overcome educational barriers faced by ELLs, identify ELLs through valid testing, use instructional programs that are based on sound theory, use qualified ESL personnel to implement educational programs, include ELLs in Title I programs, and conduct academic assessments that are aligned with state standards.