Download Title VII ESEA and Lau v. Nichols Compliance: Towards an Articulated Approach and more Study notes Remedies in PDF only on Docsity!
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 189 730 EA 012 877 AUTHORTITLE Gonzalez,Title VII JosueESEA andM. "Lau v. Nichols" Compliance: PU8 DATE (^) AugTowards an Articulated Approach. Draft. 78 NOTE (^) the17p.: Education of. Hispanics, sponsored by the U.S. Paper presented at the National Conference on (Alexandria, VA,Department of Health, Education and Welfare August 21-23,. 1978). Not available in paper coPy due to broken print of original 'document. EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS (^) ' !íF01 Plus Postage.*Bilingual Education: Civil Rights: Court Litigation: PC Not Available from ED$S. EqualEducational Policy: Elementary Secondary Education; (^) Education: Federal Aid: Federal Legislation: IDENTIFIERS (^) BilingualFederal^ Programs: Education^ *Federal Act 1968:^ Regulation *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title VII': *Lau v Nichols ABSTRACT The Supreme Court's decision in "Lau v. Nichols," related federal legislation are all directed toward promotion ofTitle VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and other equal educationalnot English. These efforts are not well-coordinated by the federal opportunity for children whose primary language is agencies charged with overseeingprograms, which ere rarely either well-defined or well-monitored. bilingual educational opportunity A coordinatedappropriate agencies before the effort must be structured and jurisdiction assigned to final details of. an articulated
shouldprogram becf connected^ cooperation under^ can a^ be worked out. First, funding sourcessingle official, so,that the various efforts areSecond, funding eligibility criteria nó longer seen as mere additions to other programs. relating to the "Lau" decision should be developed for districts seeking Title VII funds. Third,some requirements for receiving funds should be placed on the states. Fourth, federallyclosely regulated fundedand coordinated. Finally, clear, definitive bilingual resource centers should be more
accountgniaelines types of assistance available,^ for compliance with^ the^ "Lau" should^ decision, be established^ taking^ into and resources for monitoring and enforcement provided_ (Author/PGD)
Title VII ESEA and Lau v. Nichols Compliance: Towards an Articulated Approach
Associate^ Josue Professor of Education^ M.^ Gonzalez Coordinator, Bilingual Chicano Studies Southern MethodistDallas, Texas University '
National Conference^ Paper on^ prepared the Education^ for of Hispanics Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare Office ofAlexandria, Hispanic Concerns, USÓE Virginia August .21- 23, 1978
Two key issues motivate this analysis. First, therè Is no Lira policy within DREW regarding the funda- bility of Title VII projects in school districts whidh are potentially or patently non-cómpliant with Lau at the time that their funding proposals are considered by USOE. This may occur in^ those cases where OCR/DREW either has not reviewed a district for Lau compliance or where a review has been conducted which reveals that compliance has not yet been achieved. The second issue is a corollary to the first: an, ill-defined coordination between OCR/DIW (which' determines Lau compliance), and the entities within HEW which fund local projects. This shortcoming is puzzling since the programs funded by these offices are/could be central to an LEA's total compliance posture. The poten-
tial therofoce exists, for one arm of DHEW to chastise
school districts for not conducting programs which are con- cordant with the intent of Lau, while another arm awards grants for programs which purport to exemplify the responses called for in the decision. Similary, the lack of coordi- nation could result in the removal of funds, say by Title VII, which a district is using to achieve a compliance capability.
Roots of the problem: the legislation The legislative history.of Title VII, ESEA (and its subsequent renewals in 1974 and ( 1978), reveals a broad spectrum of views regarding the roles and functions which Title VII grants Might be expected to carry out. Over the years since the first hearings were held in 1967, witnesses and other interested parties have advocated one or another (or more than one) of several possible uses of Title VII funds: 1, for developing pilot and demonstration programs where the education community may observe viable educational approaches for bringing about linguistic compatibility bétween schools and students; .2. capacity building grants to increase the capabilities of schools and teachers to instruct language- minority children with greater effectiveness and efficiency;
- development of support services and materials to provide greater quality to the programs in LEA's; 4.. formula-grant entitlements which would be given to states and local education agencies for the design and operation of their own particular' types of programmatic responses;
Titte VII, ESEA to prevent the fundimg (^) of recalcitrant I II
- or impecunious districts., neither clona the legislation encourage a'funding policy of this type. In other federally 'únded'programs, notably E$AA, a district must be "cleared"' by-OCR before a grant is awarded. Because the Title VII., ESEA legislatión is silent on this point, the remedies must come from the administrative structure and policies of DREW which are most directly involved with'enforcement and program development. Moots of the problem: DHEW structures and policies in the present USOE/DHEWW structure, the enforcemeaZ. of non-discrimination laws and compliance regulations rests with the Office for Civil Rights of DREW (OCR/DHEW). The Office of Bilingual Education (OBE3 within USOE is is turn, the largest of severil offices which disburse funds for the development and operation Of programs through which school districts may improve services to,Lau-type children. Under the terms of the 1974 amendme9ts to ESEA legislation,
a consolidatiân of bilingual education efforts is mandated. "It should be remembered, however; that not all of the funds
which are available for special language programs flow through OBE or even D}EW, Other'entities include: 1). The Equal Educational Opportunity Program which administers programs under the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA), and Title II/ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, In bilingual education, thé (^) most important of these are the nine (9) Lau Centers (formally General Assistance Centers-Type B), and.the.ESAA bilingual set-aside;
- The Title I office'which administers funds for the education of the disadvantaged, many of whom are from language-minority groups;
*Section 731 of the 1974, ESEA amendment states: "There shall be in the Office of Education an Office of Bilingual Education...through which the Comissionar shall carry out bilingt~zl education. The office his shallfunctions be headed relating by ato Director of Bilingual Education appointed by the commissioner to 'whom the Commissioner shall delegate .all db legable func-tions relating to bilingual'cducation. The office shall be organized as. the Director determines to be appropriate in crderponsibilitics to enable effcctively." (20 U.S.C. WW1 him to carry out his functions) et. seg.) and^ res-
bilingual oducation functions within USOE will most probably occur in the near future. In this restructuring, the Office of Bilingual Education, should emerge as the ' focal point of bilingual education activities within DHEW. For purposes of this paper, the most crucial issue related to struçture and policy within DHEW may well be the absehce of a clear interpretation by OCR/DHEW as to what constitutes operational compliance with Lau both generically and in the different settings in which the law
applies. To date, the dne^ definition^ which^ has^ been^ attempted
by OCR took the form of "guidelines" issued in 1973. This effort;commonly referred^ to as the "Lau Remedies", has not been vigorously enforced. There are several reasons for this (NABE, 1978). One of these could be the high degree
of specificity whichthe document contains. This specificity
makes the "Lau Remedies" somewhat awkward to monitor effi- ciently and restricts^ their adaptability to local situations
*Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office for Civil Rights. Task Force Findings Specifying Remedies Available for Eliminating PastUnlawful Under Lau v. Nichols. EducationalSummer, 1975 Practices.^ Ruled
which may have been unforeseen at the time the guidelines were drafted. While it iu not within the province of this paps; to analyze'the "Lau•Remedies" in detail, the existence of a viable policy statement of this type is basic to our purposes. In Lau, the Supreme Court reaffirmed. that the government has the right "to fix the terms on which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed." It also noted that in its clarifying guidelines of 1970 (35 (^) Fed. Reg. 11595), the Department of HEW did not surpass thé limits of that power. In that document, OCR specified that notices to parents "in order to be adequate may have to be provided in a language other than English." One implication of this is that OCR may have the power to specify certain conditions under, which instruction in the home language may be proper and/or necessary., A similar right of prescription is provided by the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 which makes unlawful the denial of benefits
on ground of national origin. (42 U.S.C. 20003, 2000d-1) This notwithstanding, there is some uncertainty about one point; tike degree to which OCR/DREW may prescribe bilingual education as a solo and sufficient remedy. Two factors would act against such a proscription: one, that it may not be^ a^ si:r"^ ic.^ cnr.l~•
the two offices since a, clear and workable precedent exists.
A suggested approach to the problem.
The difficulties and needs outlined above suggest that the goal of articulation and cooperation between the several offices may. involve a long and complicated process. And while it is not our purpose to suggest the
exact configuration of the final outcome, several pre-
liminary s*teps'may be easily envisioned. These in turn,
wild lead the way for resolving more complex issuss of
structure, jurisdiction, and perhaps changes in applicable
legislation. - Initially, the ,following^ steps^ settm^ plausible and necessaiy:
A. A workable structure for connecting OBE, OCR, and
other funding sources should be expeditiously established.
To delay this step would exacerbate existing disjunctures
even more. Because^ the level of decision and^ policymaking
is of a high nature, the Department of FEW should designate
a high-ranking official to orchestrate all of the programs which
axle designed to serve language minority populations. The
coordination of policy would be more probable once a locus (^) Of accountability is established. The magnitude of the task indicates the need for a task-specific structure rather than the addition of this function to an existing instru- mentality. The entire articulation activity should be, undertaken with a view to incorporating the revised struc- tures into the recently proposed (cabinet-level) U.S. Department of Education. When the new department is formed, it is not unrealistic to conceive of an Assistant secretary for Language Minority policies and Programs. B. Immediate steps should^ be^ undertaken^ to,^ at^ a minimum, develop funding eligibility criteria 'relating to Lau, for those districts seeking Title VII funds. A reasonable posture in this regard would be that renewal grants under Title VII be contingent upon a clearly demonstrable movement towards Lau compliance-which is undertaken through local and state funds. C. Because state departments of education bear great responsibility for local programs, some requirements for receiving federal bilingual funds should be placed on states, particularly, those having large concentrations of
account the types of assistance which hay be made available
by the different sources of funding, e.g., ,desegregation
and bilingual education. In addition, adequate resources
for the monitoring and correction of local Lau efforts should be made available. Finally, the priority which OCR gives to Lau enforcement activities should become more assertive and visible in order to make more cónvincing
the resolve of the^ federal^ government^ to^ carry^ out'its^ own
responsibilities under Lau.
References
Bilingual Education Act of. 1974 (20 U.S.C. 880b ep. seq.) Civil Right: Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d, 2000d-1)
Department of DREW, Office for Civil Rights. Task Force
Finding3 Soeciîvinq RemediesPast Educational Practicas Ruled Unlawful Under Lau v. Available for Eliminating Nichols. Summer, 1975. Lau v. Nichols (414 U.S. 563, 1974)
"NABE (^) AssociationTalks to OCR for About Bilingual Lau." Education,Journal of Vol the I_I, National No. 1, January, 1978.
References cont'd
U.S.. Congress. House. Committee on EducationPart 3( Bilingual Education, Hearings Before the and^ Labor.
Education on H.R. 15,^ Subcommittee on^ Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational 95th Congress, First Session,'1977.
U.S. Office P.L.93-380. of^ " ,Education Marchn Region VI, "Bilingual Education in 13, 1975 (Mimeo)..
35 Fed. Reg. 11595
