Source: http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/STMU_TheScholarStMarysLRev_v12i3p0385_Solak
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:31:39+00:00

Document:
and even from school to school. This Article will discuss the legal bases that govern Texas's delivery of education to LEP students and examine whether the state is meeting its obligation. This article attempts to explain the system that Texas has adopted, how the Texas Education Agency has implemented it, and whether there is a need for improvement.
available at 2009 WLNR 17298221 ("Hispanics are closing in on becoming the majority of Texas schoolchildren."). 3. Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, An Older and More Diverse Population by Midcentury (Aug. 14, 2008), http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/ population/012496.html. By the year 2042, minorities are expected to comprise the majority of the national population. Id. 4. Kathleen Flynn & Jane Hill, English Language Learners: A Growing Population, Pol'y Brief, MID-CONTINENT RES. FOR EDUC. & LEARNING, Dec. 2005, at 1, http:// (citation www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/5052PIPBEnglishLanguageLearners.pdf omitted). 5. See Leah Sullivan, Comment, Press One for English: To Form a More Perfect Union, 50 S.TEx. L. REV. 589, 598-99 (2009) ("The 2000 Census reveals that since 1990, there has been a [fifty-two percent] increase in the number of Americans classified as Limited English proficient." (footnote omitted)); Kathleen Flynn & Jane Hill, English Language Learners: A Growing Population, Pol'y Brief, MID-CONTINENT RES. FOR EDUC. & LEARNING, Dec. 2005, at 1, http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/5052PI-PBEnglishLanguageLearners.pdf ("Projections suggest that 'language minority students' (those who speak a language other than English at home and who have varying levels of proficiency in English) will comprise over [forty] percent of elementary and secondary students by 2030." (citation omitted)). 6. Audio Recording of Oral Argument, United States v. Texas, No. 08-40858 (5th Cir. June 2, 2009), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/08/08-40858_62-2009.wma. 7. Donna Poisl, Assimilation and the Necessity for English, AM. CHRON., Oct. 5, 2006, available at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/14381. 8. See id. (listing the benefits derived from being able to speak English in the U.S.). 9. Andrea Rodriguez, Comment, Revealing the Impurities of Ivory Soap: A Legal Analysis of the Validity of the Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 10 SCHOLAR 75, 93 (2007).
whether the state is meeting its obligation. There is great debate over which method of instruction is best for students to achieve proficiency in English.1 ° Some people feel that an English immersion ("sink or swim") approach is best, whereas others favor a bilingual system in which the child's native language is used as a bridge to learn English."1 This Article will not address which method is best. Rather, it will attempt to explain the system that Texas has adopted, how the Texas Education Agency has implemented it, and whether there is a need for improvement.
10. See Sandra Cortes, Comment, A Good Lesson for Texas: Learning How to Adequately Assist Language-MinoritiesLearn English, 13 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 95, 115-16 (2006) (comparing bilingual education and English immersion methods). 11. Id. at 100-03. 12. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. 13. 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954). 14. Sandra Cortes, Comment, A Good Lesson for Texas: Learning How to Adequately Assist Language-MinoritiesLearn English, 13 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 95, 106 (2006) (citing Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 601, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1994)).
15. Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 601, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2006).
16. Sandra Cortes, Comment, A Good Lesson for Texas: Learning How to Adequately Assist Language-MinoritiesLearn English, 13 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 95,106 (2006) (alteration omitted) (quoting MICHAEL IMBER & TYLL VAN GEEL, A TEACHER'S GUIDE TO EDUCATION LAW 126 (3d ed. 2005)).
prohibit denial of equal access to education because of a language minority student's limited proficiency in English.").
18. Bethany Li, Note, From Bilingual Education to OELALEAALEPS: How the No Child Left Behind Act Has Undermined English Language Learners' Access to a Meaningful Education, 14 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL'Y 539, 549 (2007). 19. Id. 20. Id. at 550. 21. Sandra Cortes, Comment, A Good Lesson for Texas: Learning How to Adequately Assist Language-Minorities Learn English, 13 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 95, 104 (2006). 22. Id. 23. 414 U.S. 563, 566 (1974).
24. Id. at 564. 25. Id. at 566. 26. Id. 27. Id. at 568. It is important to note that although the Court based its decision on a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it relied heavily upon guidelines issued by HEW to reach its conclusion. Id. at 567. The Court recognized that, under Title VI, HEW "is authorized to issue rules, regulations, and orders to make sure that recipients of federal aid under its jurisdiction conduct any federally financed projects consistently with [the statute]." Id. One such order the Court pointed to was, "[w]here the inability to speak and understand the English language excludes 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."' Id. at 568. 28. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1758 (2006). 29. Bethany Li, Note, From Bilingual Education to OELALEAALEPS: How the No Child Left Behind Act Has Undermined English Language Learners' Access to a Meaningfi Education, 14 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL'y 539, 551 (2007). 30. Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 § 204, 20 U.S.C. § 1703 (2006).
31. Id. 32. Id. 33. Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 1009 (5th Cir. 1981). 34. Id. at 1009-10. 35. Id. at 1009. 36. Id. 37. Id. The court noted that this is not to be done with "any eye toward discerning the relative merits of sound but competing bodies of expert educational opinion .... Id. " Instead, it is up to the local educators to choose which theory is appropriate, and courts must then determine whether there is evidence that the program is legitimate. Id. 38. Castaneda, 648 F.2d at 1010. The school system's program to remedy language barriers must also have the potential to succeed. Id. Therefore, this prong of the test is designed to determine if the school system's adopted theory has the "resources and personnel necessary to transform the theory into reality." Id. 39. Id.
40. Id. 41. Bethany Li, Note, From Bilingual Education to OELALEAALEPS: How the No Child Left Behind Act Has Undermined English Language Learners' Access to a Meaningfid Education, 14 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL'Y 539, 549 (2007). 42. See id. (describing the impact of the BEA's reauthorizations). 43. Sandra Cortes, Comment, A Good Lesson for Texas: Learning How to Adequately Assist Language-MinoritiesLearn English, 13 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 95, 105 (2006). 44. Bethany Li, Note, From Bilingual Education to OELALEAALEPS How the No Child Left Behind Act Has Undermined English Language Learners' Access to a Meaningful Education, 14 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL'Y 539, 549 (2007). 45. Pub. L. No 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 20 U.S.C.).
46. Bethany Li, Note, From Bilingual Education to OELALEAALEPS: How the No Child Left Behind Act Has Undermined English Language Learners' Access to a Meaningful Education, 14 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL'Y 539, 554 (2007). 47. James Crawford, OBITUARY: The Bilingual Ed Act, 1968-2002, 16 RETHINKING SCHOOLS ONLINE 4, 2002, http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Bill64.shtml.
48. 49. 50. 51. 52.
SCHOOLS ONLINE 4, 2002, http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Bil164.shtml.
54. Id. While more students are being served under the new automatic formula-based grants, as compared to the Title VII competitive funding scheme, less money is spent per student. Id. Figures from 2001 indicate that $360 of federal money was spent per student, compared to only $135 under Title III funding the following year. Id. 55. Id. 56. Id.
57. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d 726, 767 (E.D. Tex. 2008).
student progress, adequate remedial education, and qualified personnel." Id. at 764 (citation omitted). It is important that both teachers of LEP students and monitors of struggling LEP programs are certified in bilingual ESL education in order to "understand the problems confronted in LEP education and to be able to offer appropriate solutions." Id. at 767. 59. 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2006) (footnote omitted). 60. Id. § 6301(7).
TEXAS, 1836-1981, at 146 (2004). 62. Id. at 65. 63. Id. at 147. 64. Latino Education Policy in Texas, Major Historical Antecedents to Texas Bilingual Legislation, http://www.edb.utexas.edu/latino/bilingual-edu-page.html (last visited Dec. 17, 2009).
programs, and allowed, but did not require, districts to provide bilingual instruction through the sixth grade.6 5 Texas bilingual education programs got another boost in 1971, when the Fifth Circuit, deciding a desegregation case, ordered: [Texas] shall insure that school districts are providing equal educational opportunities in all schools. The [TEA], through its consulting facilities and personnel, shall assist school districts in achieving a comprehensive balance curriculum on all school campuses .... These curricular offerings and programs shall include specific educational programs designed to compensate minority group children for unequal educational opportunities resulting from past or present racial and ethnic isolation, as well as programs and curriculum designed to meet the special educational needs of students whose primary language is other than English.66 In 1973, the Texas legislature recognized this mandate and passed a law that required "bilingual education through the first six grades" in any school district that had twenty or more LEP students. 67 Two years later, however, Texas passed a law that made participation by the upper elementary grades in bilingual education once again optional. 68 Finally, in 1981, the legislature enacted the Bilingual and Special Language Programs Act (S.B. 477), which determined the legal status of bilingual education in Texas for the next two decades.6 9 That law compelled bilingual education through the elementary grades for school districts with twenty or more LEP students in the same grade.7" The bill also authorized the TEA to adopt "'standardized entry-exit criteria"' and compelled the agency to institute certain measures to ensure compliance, including onsite monitoring. 7 ' Although this framework is more than twenty-five years old now, it is still largely reflected in the system that is used today.
1836-1981, at 147 (2004). 66. United States v. Texas, 447 F.2d 441, 448 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1016 (1972). 67. CARLOS KEVIN BLANTON, THE STRANGE CAREER OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN TEXAS, 1836-1981 at 147 (2004). 68. Id. at 150. 69. Id. at 151. 70. United States v. Texas, 680 F.2d 356, 372 (5th Cir. 1982). 71. Id.
Current Texas law requires that a student must be assessed within the first four weeks of school to determine the student's language of "primary proficiency." 7 2 If the determination is made to label the student as a LEP student, the parent must also agree to approve the student's entry into, exit from, or placement in the program.73 When a parent chooses not to allow his or her student entry into the program, the decision is referred to as a "parental denial."7 4 After this determination, the language proficiency assessment committee of a district shall report the number of LEP students on each campus to the district's board of trustees. 75 Any district that has twenty or more LEP students in the same grade level must "offer a bilingual or special language program. ,76 And for any district that is required to offer these programs, the district is required to offer "bilingual education in kindergarten through the elementary grades," "bilingual education, instruction in English as a second language, or other transitional language instruction ... in post-elementary grades through grade [eight]," and "instruction in English as a second language in grades [nine] through [twelve]." 7 7 In practice, LEP students in kindergarten through the sixth grade receive bilingual instruction, and LEP students in seventh through twelfth grade receive ESL instruction, unless they are in special education classes.78 This current system is failing Texas's language minority student population.
committee is to report to the TEA "the number of students of limited English proficiency on each campus and shall classify each student according to the language in which the student possesses primary proficiency." Id. Each committee is made up of "a professional bilingual educator, a professional transitional language educator, a parent of a limited English proficiency student, and a campus administrator." Id. § 29.063(b).
73. Id. § 29.056(a). 74. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d 726, 736 (E.D. Tex. 2008). "In 2005-2006, on a statewide basis, 4.9% of LEP students were reported as receiving parental denials to participate in bilingual and ESL programs." Id. at 737. In that same year, "some school districts reported five times or more the rate of denials than the statewide average." Id. 75. Id. at 735. The TEA is responsible for monitoring the language proficiency assessment committees (LPACs), which, in turn, must categorize the LEP students. Id. If school districts do not follow the correct standards, the TEA has the authority to sanction them. Id. The TEA is also in charge of setting standards for the identification and classification of LEP students, including the circumstances under which LEP students may enter and exit the program. Id. 76. TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 29.053(c) (Vernon 2006). 77. Id. § 29.053(d). 78. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d at 736.
Id. Id. § 29.051. Id. Id. § 29.055(a).
For this reason, in 2003, the TEA replaced the on-site system with a performance-based model: the Performance Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS).9 5 But after the court extensively reviewed the data collected from the PBMAS, it found the system "fatally flawed." 9 6 Among those flaws, the court remarked: PBMAS under-identifies LEP students; the achievement standards used for intervention are arbitrary and not based upon equal education opportunity; monitors are not qualified; the failing achievement of higher grades is masked by passing scores of lower grades; and the failure of individual school campuses is masked by only analyzing data on the larger district level. In a monitoring system such as PBMAS, the reliability of the data on which the system is based should be paramount.97 Since PBMAS is based on seriously flawed data, the court concluded that "PBMAS, in its present form, does not constitute appropriate action to transform the educational theory into reality." 98 99 The court then examined the third (results) prong of Castaneda. On this point, the court recognized "'that the best evidence of a sound and effectively implemented program lies in the results that it achieves.'"' 0 0 The court first reviewed the results of the bilingual program administered to Texas's primary LEP students-those in kindergarten through sixth grade. 10 1 As to those students, the court found the following: The performance of primary LEP students in bilingual education programs is not overwhelming. LEP students in the primary grades are not advancing on pace with their peers: LEP students are retained at significantly higher rates than their all-student peers, and the disparity in retention rates has gradually increased since 1994.
Auditor's Office concluded that "[nionperformance of these monitoring visits reduces the [a]gency's ability to ensure that Bilingual Education Program funds are spent appropriately, that districts are properly classifying students, and that districts are providing equal educational opportunities for bilingual students." Id. 95. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d 726, 736 (E.D. Tex. 2008). Unlike the old system, the new PBMAS involves "a result and data-driven system that evaluates performance in four program areas." Id. These program areas are "bilingual education and ESL, and career and technology education, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ... special education." Id. 96. Id. at 765. 97. Id. (citation omitted). 98. Id. 99. Id. at 772. 100. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d at 772 (quoting Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., 724 F. Supp. 698, 716 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). 101. Id. at 775.
102. Id. (summarizing the mixed results of LEP student primary school education). The court explained that any encouraging data "may not be as impressive as it first appears because, as the long term LEP data indicates, many students will remain in the program for " Id. at 774-75. The fact that only half of sixth-grade LEP more than four years .. students earned passing grades on all of the tests, according to the court, "is not an endorsement of the program's success." Id. 103. "TEA's goal is that all LEP students will leave LEP programs after three years." Id. at 751.
104. Id. at 778 (citation omitted). 105. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d 726, 751 (E.D. Tex. 2008). 106. Id. (citation omitted). Students are given additional chances to retake the TAKS test later on in their junior and senior years of high school. Id. According to the court, "[t]he LEP student failure rate after they retake the eleventh grade TAKS is even more alarming." Id. "[O]nly 53% of LEP students passed all the TAKS subject areas, compared with 78% of students who had completed LEP programs one year previously, 82% of students who had completed LEP programs two years previously, and 90% for non-LEP students." Id. 107. Id. (citation omitted). 108. Press Release, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Major Ruling in Case for Texas English Language Learner Students (July 25, 2008), available at http:/Iwww.maldef.org/news/releases/us-texas_072508. 109. Terrence Stutz, Court Delays Deadlinefor New Bilingual Education Program in Texas, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Feb. 2, 2009, available at 2009 WLNR 1972844. 110. TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 29.051 (Vernon 2006).
111. United States v. Texas, 572 F. Supp. 2d at 736. 112. Id. at 742. 113. CTR. FOR PUB. POL'Y PRIORITIES, TEXAS DROPOUT 114. Id. at 26. 115. Id.
IMPAc-" 22 (2007), http://www.cppp.org/files/10/1-23-07%20-%2OFull%2ODropout%20 Presentation %20- %20FINAL.ppt.
116. The Cost of Underpaying Texas Teachers, http://www.window.state.tx.us/ specialrpt/teachersalary06/ (last visited Dec. 31, 2009). 117. Katherine Leal Unmuth, Students Still Rolling In: Officials Expected Drop in Enrollment, but DistrictKeeps Growing,DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Sept. 3, 2009, at 8B, available at 2009 WLNR 17298221. 118. Steven Murdock, Professor of Sociology, Rice Univ., Presentation at Children's Law Symposium in Houston: The Population of the United States, Texas, and Houston: Historical Patterns and Future Trends (Oct. 16, 2009) (power point on file with The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues). 119. Id. 120. Id.
change they exhibit. 121 Moreover, data exists on language minority students. Between 1979 and 2003, the number of English language learners in the United States grew by 124%, and it is projected that by 2030, English language learners will comprise 40% of elementary and secondary students. 122 Texas must be equipped to meet the needs of this evolving population. If the system for "overcoming language barriers" does not improve, that cost of $11.8 billion will certainly increase.1 23 Change lies in the hands of the state. Texas need not wait for a mandate from the court system.
121. Id. 122. Kathleen Flynn & Jane Hill, English Language Learners:A Growing Population, Pol'y Brief, MID-CONTINENT RES. FOR EDUC. & LEARNING, Dec. 2005, at 1, http:// www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/5052PI-PBEnglishLanguageLearners.pdf (citations omitted). 123. The Cost of Underpaying Texas Teachers, http://www.window.state.tx.us/special rpt/teachersalary06/ (last visited Dec. 31, 2009).
Jennifer Michel Solak, “Texas, Why Wait - The Urgent Need to Improve Programming for Limited English Proficient Students,” St. Mary's Law Digital Repository, accessed April 24, 2019, http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/STMU_TheScholarStMarysLRev_v12i3p0385_Solak.

References: v. 
 § 1
 § 601
 § 2000
 § 601
 § 2000
 § 204
 § 1703
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6301
 § 6301
 v. 
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 29
 v.