This document provides a historical overview of bilingual education in the United States. It outlines several important court cases and legislation that have shaped bilingual education policy over time, including Lau v. Nichols, the Bilingual Education Act, Proposition 227, and No Child Left Behind. The cases and laws established or affirmed the right to bilingual education, mandated bilingual programs, and also later moved toward English immersion models. The document also discusses teacher qualifications under No Child Left Behind.

1. Historical Perspective
Historical Perspective of Bilingual Education
Brown vs. Board of
Education (1953)
Segregation of children in public schools, solely on the
base of race, even though the physical facilities and all
other tangible factors may be equal, deprives children of
minority group of equal educational opportunity. (14th
amendment)
Civil Rights Act 1964 Most important law that had far reaching
and tremendous
long-term impact on our country. It prohibited
discrimination in every form and venue in our country. It
related and included African Americans, women, and
others.
Lau vs Nichols 1974 Ruled that English is the basic language of
instruction. It
ensured that English was to be learned by all pupils.
Schools must have instruction for language deficiency.
Aspira vs. New York Affirmed Lau and decided hwo receives
services in school.
Puerto Rico Legal Defense Fund Argued landmark cases
that had profound implications for Latinos throughout the
U.S. especially in New York.
Keys vs. Denver First ruling on school segregation in the North

2. and the
West. Specified that L1 be required. Intentional
segregation was stopped, especially for Latinos as well as
African Americans as students.
1976 14 states mandate Bilingual Education.
California AB 1329
Chacon-Moscone
Bilingual Bicultural
Education Act
Explicitly proclaimed bilingual education as a right.
AB 507, California
Bilingual Education
Improvement and
Reform Act- 1980
Updated and strengthened AB 1329. This act mandated
that districts provide instruction for every LEP student in
California.
Sunset AB 507- 1987 Federal Government intervened on AB
507. Despite the
Acts’ Sunsetting, many of their “general purposes”
remained operative and districts were required to follow
these purposes in their programs. Districts use of
students’ primary language remained operative.
Prop 227 - 1998 California public instruction required to be in
English.
Provided money for children ($50 million yearly) to
become fluent in English through intensive immersion
special classes, English only classes. The vote was

3. passed 3.3 million to 2.1 million.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110),
often
abbreviated in print as NCLB, is a controversial United States
federal law (Act of Congress) that reauthorized a number of
federal
programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary
and
secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability
for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing
parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their
children
will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on
reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act was passed in the
House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001[1], United States Senate on
June
14, 2001[2] and signed into law on January 8, 2002.
NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000)
which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform,
formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on
the belief that setting high expectations and establishing
measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education.
The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to
be
given to all students in certain grades, if those states ar e to
receive
federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national
achievement standard; standards are set by each individual
state,
in line with the principle of local control of schools and in order

4. to
comply with the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which specifies that powers not granted to the
federal government or forbidden to state governments are
reserved powers of the individual states.
Teacher quality based on NCLB Act
The No Child Left Behind act requires that, in order for states
to
receive federal funding, all teachers must be "highly qualified"
as
defined in the law by the end of the 2006-07 school year. A
highly
qualified teacher is one who has (1) fulfilled the state's
certification
and licensing requirements, (2) obtained at least a bachelor's
degree, and (3) demonstrated subject matter expertise. The
procedure for demonstrating subject matter knowledge depends
on a teacher's tenure and level of instruction.
For those who are new to the profession of teaching(less than
one
year of experience):
Elementary teachers must pass a state test demonstrating their
subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading/language arts,
writing, mathematics and other areas of basic elementary school
curricula.
Middle and high school teachers must demonstrate a high level
of
competency in each academic subject area they teach. Such
demonstration can occur either through passage of a rigorous

5. state academic subject test or successful completion of an
undergraduate major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent
to
an undergraduate major, or an advanced certification or
credentialing.
Experienced teachers can satisfy the subject matter requirement
in
the same manner as new teachers or demonstrate subject
knowledge through a state-determined high objective uniform
state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE). These requirements
have
caused some difficulty in implementation especially for special
education teachers and teachers in small rural schools who are
often called upon to teach multiple grades and subjects.
WILLIAMS VS. CALIFORNIA (2005). The Eliezer Williams, et
al., vs.
State of California, et al. (Williams) case was filed as a class
action
in 2000 in San Francisco County Superior Court. The plaintiffs
include nearly 100 San Francisco County students, who filed
suit
against the State of California and state education agencies,
including the California Department of Education (CDE). The
basis
of the lawsuit was that the agencies failed to provide public
school
students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and
decent school facilities, and qualified teachers.
The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state allocating
$138
million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional
materials for schools in the first and second ranks (known as
deciles) determined through the 2003 Academic Performance

6. Index (API) Base. The settlement includes another $50 million
for
implementation costs and other oversight-related activities for
schools in deciles one through three (2003 API Base). These
two
amounts were included in the state budget (Outside Source)
signed
in July 2004 by Governor Schwarzenegger. Another $800
million
will be provided for critical repair of facilities in future years
for
schools in deciles one through three (2003 API Base). The
settlement will be implemented through legislation adopted in
August 2004: Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB)
1550,
AB 2727, AB 3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school
students may benefit from funding from the Williams case
settlement.
As a result of the Williams case, the CDE has proposed changes
to
the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) template that all
schools must update and publish annually. The proposed
changes
will help all schools report the overall condition of their
facilities,
the number of teacher misassignments and vacant teacher
positions, and the availability of textbooks or instructional
materials. The proposed changes were submitted to the State
Board of Education, which approved the changes at its meeting
on
November 9, 2004. The new Williams-related reporting
elements

7. are being amended into the 2003-04 SARC template, which is
expected to be released by December 15, 2004. More
information
is available at the SARC Web page.
Here are the legal documents and legislation passed to fulfill
the
Williams requirements:
* Memorandum to County and District Superintendents:
(Dated
20-Dec-2004), regarding the Notice of Settlement in Williams.
* Notice of Proposed Settlement (Posted 28-Jan-08; DOC;
87MB; 71pp.) | PDF (Posted 26-Oct-2004; 3MB; 76pp.)
Notification
to the parties in Williams of a proposed resolution to the case.
* Settlement Implementation Agreement (Posted 28-Jan-08;
DOC; 33MB; 42 pp.) | PDF (Posted 26-Oct-2004; 2MB; 46pp.)
Outline of how Williams will be resolved.
* SB 6 | SB 550 | AB 1550 | AB 2727 | AB 3001 (Outside
Sources): Legislation enacted to resolve Williams.
* Education Code Section 60119 - Curriculum Frameworks
&
Instructional Material: Text of Education Code Section 60119,
as
revised by Chapter 900, Statutes of 2004.
[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]

8. Requirement
· Describe the differences between the scenarios.
· Explain the source of the difference between the two
scenarios.
· Comment on the impact on the market and economic agents
when the competition is changed from perfect to less-than-
perfect competition.
Write 2pages business brief and provide two references
Business Brief
There are a number of market structures that economist have
categorized to characterize an economy. The four basic
structures are perfect competition, monopolistic (imperfect)
competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. However, in this
assignment, we are asked to look into the data (Appendix) of
two scenarios: a perfect competition market structure and the
less-than-perfect competition market structure.
Perfect Competition Vs. Less-than-perfect Competition
The first scenario displays a perfect competition structure. A
perfect competition is a theoretical concept; it describes a
market with a large number of firms competing against each
other and all the firms are considered to be price takers, as no
single firm has an influence on the price of products, products
which are considered to be undifferentiated (Fernham, 2014).
Whereas the second scenario displays the less-than-perfect
competition structure, and it refers to a market, where firms
have some market power on the prices due to them producing
differentiated products (Fernham, 2014)
Upon studying the data provided in the excel sheet, the marginal

9. revenue in a perfect competition market was a constant $8, and
that is due to the fixed unit price that did not change no matter
how many number of units sold. Whereas, for a less-than-
perfect competition, the marginal revenue continued to decline
as more output was being produced and sold. Both graphs show
the correlation between the marginal revenue and marginal cost
in each scenario. The marginal revenue curve in the first graph
is horizontal, and this is one of the main differences between
the two structures. In a perfect competition structure, the unit
price equals the marginal revenue due to the fact that firm’s
demand curve in this structure is perfectly elastic. Making the
attempt of lowering the prices of their products to sell more
output units to backfire by causing the demand for the product
that the firm is selling to decrease and finally disappear
(Fernham, 2014).
As for a less-than-perfect competition, firms in this market have
some market power from producing differentiated products
(Fernham, 2014). The second graph demonstrates the data of the
second scenario, which indicates a change in the unit price with
the increase in the output. It is known that the demand curve in
a less-than-perfect competition, is not perfectly elastic and that
is due to the market power that firms in that structure have.
Firms in a less-than-perfect competition market are able to
increase their prices without losing all of their customers. The
marginal revenue in the second graph slops downwards and that
may be due to the existence of substitute products in this
scenario’s market, which had a negative impact on the demand.
While as the marginal cost slops upwards, which is expected
since the number of units of production has increased.
The source of the difference between the two scenarios
The source of difference between the two scenarios is the
marginal revenue and in the price’s nature in each market
structure. In the perfect competition scenario, the marginal

10. revenue is constant and does not change with the increase of
output units and it equals the unit price. Whereas, the marginal
revenue in the less-than-perfect competition scenario, decreased
with the increase of output produced. Firms at any market
structure seek to maximize their profits. The graph shows that a
firm in the first scenario reaches its profit maximization (which
is when the marginal revenue equals the marginal cost) at four
units of output, where the marginal revenue and the marginal
cost meet and are the same, $8. The graph in the second
scenario shows that a firm reaches its profit maximization is at
three units sold, where the maximum profit is $16.5.
The impact on the market and economic agents when the
competition is changed from perfect to less-than-perfect
competition.
Changing from a perfect to a less-than-perfect competition has
an impact on the market and the economy. One of the main
changes is the change that will occur to prices. In the perfect
competition, there are many suppliers selling similar products to
the buyers, and firms in this market are price takers, as the price
of a product in an industry is determined by its demand and
supply (Perfect Competition, n.d.). Whereas in a less-than-
perfect competition, there are numerous sellers selling
alternative products, firms in this market structure are price
makers as they set their own prices for their products.
However, for firms changing from a perfect competition to a
less-than-perfect competition they may face some difficulties,
as one of the characteristics of a less-than-perfect competition
is that it has few barriers of entry. Nevertheless, in the long-
run, the demand for goods in a less-than-perfect competition
market structure is highly elastic, as in the price of products is
subject to changes. While in the short-run, the economic profit
in this market structure is positive (Fernham, 2014).

11. References
Farnham, P. (2014). Economics for managers (3rd ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Perfect Competition (n.d). Investopedia. Retrieved 19 August
2017, from
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp

12. Appendix
The First Scenario: Perfect Competition (Unit price = $8)
Number of Units Sold
Total Revenue
Marginal Revenue
Marginal Cost
Total Cost
0
$0
$0
1
$8
$8

13. $6.5
$6.5
2
$16
$8
$7
$13.5
3
$24
$8
$7.5
$21
4
$32
$8
$8
$29
5
$40
$8
$8.5
$37.5
6
$48
$8
$9
$46.5
Second Scenario: Less-Than-Perfect Competition

14. Number of Units Sold
Total Revenue
Marginal Revenue
Marginal Cost
Total Cost
Unit Price
0
$0
$0
1
$17.5
$17.5
$6.5
$7
17.5
2
$30
$12.5
$7
$14
15
3
$37.5
$7.5
$7.5
$21
12.5
4
$40
$2.5
$8
$29
10

15. 5
$37.5
($2.5)
$8.5
$38
7.5
6
$30
($7.5)
$9
$47
5
Marginal Revenue 8 8 8 8 8 8 #REF! 1
Marginal Cost 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 Marginal
Revenue 17.5 12.5 7.5 2.5 -2.5 -7.5 #REF! 1
Marginal Cost 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Sheet1Perfect CompetitionPrice =$7.00TC = 6.25 Q + .25
Q2Number of Units SoldTotal RevenueMarginal
RevenueMarginal CostTotal CostTR - TC = Profit
0$0.00$0.001$7.00$7.00$6.50$6.50$0.502$14.00$7.00$7.00$13
.50$0.503$21.00$7.00$7.50$21.00$0.004$28.00$7.00$8.00$29.
00-$1.005$35.00$7.00$8.50$37.50-
$2.506$42.00$7.00$9.00$46.50-$4.50)P = 20 - 2.50QLess-than-
Perfect CompetitionTC = 6.25 Q + .25 Q2Number of Units
SoldTotal RevenueMarginal RevenueMarginal CostTotal
CostTR - TC = Profit
0$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.001$17.50$17.50$6.50$6.50$11.002$30.00
$12.50$7.00$13.50$16.503$37.50$7.50$7.50$21.00$16.504$40.
00$2.50$8.00$29.00$11.005$37.50($2.50)$8.50$37.50$0.006$3
0.00($7.50)$9.00$46.50-$16.50
Marginal Revenue 7 7 7 7 7 7 #REF! 1

16. Marginal Cost 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 Marginal
Revenue 17.5 12.5 7.5 2.5 -2.5 -7.5 #REF! 1
Marginal Cost 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Sheet2
Historical Perspective of Bilingual Education
Colonial EraThe first Bilingual Education schools prior to 1800
were chiefly parochial institutions.German, French and
Scandinavian immigrants opened bilingual schools.Many of
these schools were not bilingual, they were non-English
speaking schools where English was taught as a subject.
1855 California Bureau of Instruction mandated that all schools
teach only English.
With new wave of immigrants arriving in the United States, the
issue of language instruction was pushed to the front burner.
1917 The United States entered into WWI and anti-German
sentiment prompted many schools to end German-English
instruction.
1923 Meyer vs. State of Nebraska: Based on Nebraska act
passed in 1919, this court case reaffirmed the Nebraska policy
that no person should teach any subject to any person in any
language besides English.

17. No foreign language may be taught (except for dead
languages) to any student before he has passed the 8th grade.
English should be the mother tongue of all children reared
in Nebraska.
Brown vs Board of Education: In December of 1952, the U.S.
Supreme Court had on its docket cases from Kansas, Delaware,
the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Virginia, all of
which challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in
public schools. The Court consolidated these five cases under
one name, Oliver Brown et al. v. the Board of Education of
Topeka, Kansas.
Led by Thurgood Marshall, it dismantled the legal basis for
racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.
By declaring that racial segregation violates the 14th
amendment to the constitution, the ground was laid for shaping
future national and international policies regarding human
rights.
1964 Civil Rights Act Landmark legislation that outlawed
segregation in the US schools and other public placesFirst
conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended to
protect women in courts, and explicitly included white people
for the first time.It also started the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.It prohibits discrimination in public
facilities, in government, and invalidates Jim Crow laws in the

18. South.
Lau v. Nichols1974 Major precedent regarding the educational
rights of language minority students
Issue: Do schools provide equal educational opportunity by
treating all students the same, or must they offer special help to
students unable to understand English.
Lau v. Nichols
continued
This was a class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese
students in the San Francisco Unified School District. Probabl y
the most famous case related to bilingual education. The courts
said that there is not equal education being provided if students
did not speak the language that it was being delivered in. The
schools needed to provide equal access to the curriculum to
students who do not speak English.
This brought about the so called “Lau Remedies”
Lau RemediesMore than 20 students with the same L1 (primary
language) means that a program needs to be
established.Requirements for identification were
establishedCurriculum requirements were established.Training
guidelines recommended for staff were established.Parents to be
notified in L1 about school events.A school plan for addressing
the needs of L1 students needed to be reviewed peeriodically.

19. Other Court CasesAspira vs. New York—Decides who shall
receive services (addressed Puerto Rican immigrants).Keys vs
Denver—Specified that L1 be required. 1976—14 states
mandated Bilingual Education.
AB 507
Bilingual Improvement Act
This act gave the goal of developing fluency in L2 (second
language), as effectively and efficiently as possible to bilingual
programs. It listed programs that are available and variations of
those programs. It listed teacher qualification requirements.
It required bilingual classes at schools where there were more
that 10 students in the same grade that spoke the same L1.
1987 this program was allowed to sunset, which meant that
bilingual programs in California were no longer required.
Prop 227Known as the Unz InitiativeEliminates bilingual
classes as we know them. (caused some school districts to
change ESL, English as a second language, to ELL, English
language learners).Mandates that all ELL’s be provided with a
Sheltered English Immersion Program.Gives ELL’s one year to
learn English through Sheltered English Immersion before
moving them into mainstream classes.After 30 days parents can
request native language instruction if they get a waiver.Districts
scramble to make changes.

20. No Child Left BehindControversial United States federal law
that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to
improve the performances of U.S. primary and secondary
schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states,
school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more
flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend.
The NCLB act requires that in order for states to receive federal
funding, all teachers must be “highly qualified” as defined by
the law by the end of the 2006-2007 school year.
Williams DecisionThe Williams decision essentially maintained
that equal educational facilities are necessary for educational
equity.The condition of school facilities has an important
impact on student performance.Comfortable classroom
temperatureNoise levelResearch has shown that students
attending schools in better conditions outperform students
attending schools in substandard building.School building
influence teacher effectiveness.School overcrowding makes it
harder for students to learn.
AssignmentChoose one of the previous topics (ie Brown v
Board of Education, Williams Decision, Civil Rights Act, etc)
to write a reflection.Use the internet to research more detail
about your chosen topic and then write a response per my
directives to its implications for the California public school, or
your own school. This will be added to your Portfolio.
Bilingual Education and the U.S. Legal System.
In review of this week's reading about Bilingual Education I
was surprised that dual language instruction has been available

21. in the United States since the beginning of our nation's history.
I was both impressed and discouraged to read how learning a
language has been influenced by politics. What stood out most
was the statement by Sequoyah, "Enlightenment and civilization
of people would progress and develop in proportion as they
were able to express themselves and preserve their ideas upon
the written and printed page, and exchange these ideas, one with
another, by this medium" (Foreman, 1938. p.74). This statement
is so powerful and continues to ring true today. I was equally
impressed with the frankness of the author in discussing the
ambivalence bilingualism in the United States, often viewed
with disfavor. "We consider it a worthwhile accomplishment for
a college graduate from an English-speaking background to
master a second language. But we insist that the children of
immigrant families relinquish their first languages as part of
their "Americanization." Kjolseth (1983) has suggested that we
tend to admire individual bilinguals, such as celebrities,
scholars, and diplomats, and to disparage bilinguals, or
members of ethnic groups. In the popular view, individual
bilingualism is often associated with elevated socioeconomic
status; group bilingualism is generally associated with poverty
and lack of education. Individual bilinguals acquire their second
language through effort and scholarship; group bilinguals
acquire their second language at home" (Judith LessowHurley,
2012, p25). I concur that this prejudice still exists in our
schools and American society. Knowing this, we as educators
must continue to educate our peers and help our students, all
students, not just our EL students. Therefore, instead of
highlighting one case I would like to highlight a few key cases
that shaped the history of our education system.
The Court decisions and powerful historical events that have
had the most impact on my life would be Brown v. Board of
Education (1954), the Civil Right Act (1964), the "Stand at the
School House Door (1963), the "Long Walk" Ruby Bridges
(1963) and Title IX (1972).
The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is considered by many

22. as a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case which ended state laws
allowing separate public schools for black and white students.
The unanimous (9-0) decision ruled that separate education
facilities are unequal. As a result of this case racial segregation
was not allowed under the Equal Protection Clause of The
United States Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. I
truly believe this decision by the court led to the Civil Rights
Act which changed the entire direction of our country and our
educational system.
The Civil Right Act (1964) which outlawed segregation in the
United States schools and other public places, originally to help
African American was amended to protect women and included
white people for the first time. The social implications at the
time were that not everyone accepted the Brown v. Board of
Education decision and it implementation, as segregation beliefs
of separate but equal held strong. As a young student, (9 year
old,) I can remember the 1963 "Stand at the Schoolhouse Door"
incident involving then Governor George Wallace. Governor
Wallace blocked the door at the University of Alabama
preventing the enrollment of two black students. I remember
watching this on television and studying George Wallace's
inaugural address where he stated, "segregation now,
segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." I can remember the
impact of watching Governor Wallace not step aside and how,
(buy order of President John F. Kennedy), Henry Graham, the
General of the Alabama National Guard, said, "Sir, it is my sad
duty to ask you to step aside under the order of the President of
the United States" allowing Vivian Jones and James Hood to
enroll in school. Vivian Jones went on to be the first African
American to graduate from the University of Alabama. The
picture of this event is held in my mind forever and has been
hung in every classroom I have taught in since 1976.
I also remember watching and studying the "Long Walk" of
Ruby Bridges (1963). Ruby Bridges was the first black child to
attend an all white elementary school in New Orleans,
Louisiana. She and I were born in the same year, 1954 and I

23. remember watching this on television and studying this
historical event in school. I remember thinking that she was just
like me and talking with my mom about why she had been
denied attending the elementary school close to her house. This
picture was the first historical event picture I purchased in my
collection and has also hung in every classroom I have taught
in.
Title IX (1972) has had the most direct effect on my education
and teaching career. It stated, "No person in the United States
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance." This had a major impact on athletic programs in the
United States and directly female athletes. I had graduated from
high school in 1972 and had experienced the inadequacies of
sports opportunities for females in high school. Additionally, in
college, I experienced this inequality again as it took time for
Title IX to be fully implemented. The college I attended did not
have women's athletic scholarships until the year I graduated,
1976. It was a law that never mentioned sports but drastically
impacted the landscape of games by forcing schools to provide
equal opportunities for both genders. There has been
monumental advancement in the participation of girls and
women in athletics in the decades since. And even now, 42
years later, many colleges and universities still are not
compliant with the law.
In 2012, after 15 years of being an administrator I returned to
teaching. When I was hired, the Physical Education Department
at Dodson Middle School, (to my surprise), was two separate
departments. Men taught boys and the women taught girls, no
co-ed instruction for the last 10 years. I was the only teacher
who would have 3 classes of all boys and two classes of all
girls, (loosely co-ed). After the first two weeks of school I
spoke with the principal and inquired how and why this was
happening. He, also new, was told that the school had written a
"waiver" that had been in place for years. (Waiver and

24. Inclusion=oxymoron. A good example of when a school district
gets sooo large it is hard to govern). We both read the waiver,
which made no sense and he inquired in a Department Meeting
how this was working. Long story short, over the years with
several changes of department members the two groups were
divided and some arguments had happened. He asked for an
explanation of which way the department should be co-ed or
separate, with an emphasis on defending your position, as he
was being required to explain this to his supervisors. I was the
only one who wrote a response, explaining that we were in
violation of the law, Title IX (1972) and a list of many reasons
why we should be co-ed. He changed the Department to co-ed
this year. This change, along with two additional members to
the department and the development of the "Dodson Way" has
begun to change the face and focus of the P.E. program. I feel
that being co-ed, our focus on "No Tolerance for Bullying" and
the lessons that go with this in our first year as a united group
all working together model inclusion and have begun a positive
shift in the focus of our school.
The Williams Decision (2004) which required that equal
education facilities are necessary for educational equity. This
decision is so true and is a start in a positive direction.
However, its implementation is still ongoing; at least in my
district there is still a long way to go. While I am a believer in
less government, it is important that government be involved
when grave inequities require change. Hopefully, the changes in
education will continue to be in a positive direction that
includes all students and our society as a whole. Lessow -
Hurley, J. (2012). The Foundations of Dual Language
instruction, sixth edition.