Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974

Last updated

Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn act to establish a comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, or national origin
Acronyms (colloquial)EEOA
EffectiveAugust 21, 1974
Citations
Statutes at Large 20 USC Sec. 1701-1758
Codification
Acts amended Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Titles amended 20 U.S.C.: Education
U.S.C. sections amended 20 U.S.C. ch. 70
Legislative history
United States Supreme Court cases

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974 is a federal law of the United States of America. It prohibits discrimination against faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requires school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation. It is one of a number of laws affecting educational institutions including the Rehabilitation Act (1973), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Contents

Background

Origins

The civil rights movement brought about controversies on busing, language rights, desegregation, and the idea of “equal education". [1] The groundwork for the creation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act first came about with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination and racial segregation against African Americans and women.[ citation needed ] In 1968 the U.S. Department of Education, formerly the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, issued a statement saying that school officials are responsible for providing equal educational opportunities for all, regardless of one’s nationality, race, or color. [2] A 1970 memorandum was then passed, clarifying the responsibilities of school officials. [2] In addition to requiring separate classes to be created for students less than proficient in the English language, communication between students’ parents and the school was to be required to be conducted in a language understood by the parents.

President Nixon's proposals

On March 6, 1972, President Richard Nixon clarified the definition of “equal educational opportunity” and also called for the judiciary to create a more uniform set of standards off which to judge future cases related with educational opportunity, prioritize equal education, and create alternatives to busing. [2] He set forth two specific proposals on this day: one to effectively eliminate busing entitled "The Student Transportation Moratorium Act" and another entitled the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. [2]

Although the Equal Educational Opportunities Act was not passed at that time, Nixon declared that “[t]his act would require that every State or locality grant equal educational opportunity to every person, regardless of race, color, or national origin”. [1] In the 1974 Lau v. Nichols , students unable to speak English fluently were denied additional education, resulting in renewed interest in Nixon’s 1972 proposals. This led to the official passage of the act on August 21, 1974. [3]

Legislative history

Congress passed the EEOA as a house bill amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The only legislative history available for reference is from a similar bill passed in 1972. The House Committee on Education and Labor noted that the bill was significant in that it contained the first "illustrative definition of a denial of equal educational opportunity", and that this lent clarity to schools, governmental authorities, and students as to what, precisely, their rights were. [1]

Contents of the act

Provisions

The act states that no U.S. state can deny equal educational opportunity to any person on the basis of gender, race, color, or nationality through intentional segregation by an educational institution; neglecting to resolve intentional segregation; by forced assignment of a student to a school, other than the one closest to their place of residence, that promotes further segregation; by discrimination in determining faculty and staff; by purposely transferring a student to another school to increase segregation; or by failing to remove language barriers preventing students from being able to equally participating in English classes. [4]

The act also states that lawsuits may also be filed should individuals believe themselves to be denied equal education from their peers. The U.S. attorney general is also allowed to initiate civil action on behalf of students should he deem it necessary.

Defining "Appropriate Action"

The act remains vague in its statutory language. The EEOA states that no state can deny students the right to equal education by "failure by an educational agency to take 'appropriate action' to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs". [3] For example, although the act bears no mention of bilingual education, but instead uses the term "appropriate action" to describe measures Congress may take to enforce the EEOA, Congress has interpreted bilingual education as an action a school district must take to help teach non-English-speaking students how to speak English.

Notable court cases

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

This case was a landmark case during which the U.S Supreme Court made one of its first interpretations of the term "appropriate action". In 1974 the court ruled that a school district based in San Francisco had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying students of Chinese descent opportunities to participate in classes. [5] The court decided that just providing the students with the same textbooks, desks, and teachers was not sufficient, and measures, such as instruction in both Chinese and English, needed to be taken to make sure that English was taught to non-English speaking students.

Castañeda v. Pickard (1981)

In 1981 the U.S Fifth Circuit of Appeals created a three-prong test to be used to determine whether or not school officials denied students not proficient in English the right to enjoy equal educational opportunities. [6] Under this test, an acceptable program for English-language learners is as follows: [6]

The court ruled that students learning English as their second language should be able to receive the rest of the school’s educational opportunities regardless of any language barriers.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In 1982 the court ruled that public school districts could not deny immigrant students from receiving a free public education. [7] The court also ruled that not only do undocumented children have the right to receive the same public education, but that they are also required, like U.S. citizens and permanent residents, to attend school until they are of age as laid down by the state law.

Public schools and school personnel are also not allowed to adopt measures that would prevent students from receiving access to public education based on their citizenship status. For example, the court ruled that school officials cannot legally ask students to present proof of citizenship such as green cards. Instead, they can only ask the student to provide proof that they reside within the boundaries of the school district. [7]

Keyes v. School District 1 (1983)

In 1983 the three-part test created in the Castañeda v. Pickard was used to decide that a school district in Denver, Colorado, had participated in intentionally separating white students from Mexican-American students. [8] The court ordered for desegregation.

United States v. State of Texas (1982)

In 1982 the Court ruled that the state of Texas had failed to provide opportunities for English learners, mainly of Latino descent, to overcome language barriers under the EEOA. [9] State education agencies adopted bilingual services to be provided for those learning how to speak English.

Idaho Migrant Council v. Board of Education (1981)

In 1981 the U.S. Ninth Circuit ruled that state education departments needed to enforce federal mandates in local school districts. [10]

Flores v. Arizona (2000)

This case was first filed in 1992 from parents accusing schools for failing to provide adequate enough educational services for English language learners and in 2000, the court ruled that educational programs were not properly funded nor were enough teachers provided. As a result, the court ruled for sufficient educational resources to be implemented as of January 31, 2002, and in 2009, the Court ruled that the EEOA was officially violated. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal". The Court's unanimous decision in Brown, and its related cases, paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement, and a model for many future impact litigation cases.

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974), was a significant United States Supreme Court case dealing with the planned desegregation busing of public school students across district lines among 53 school districts in metropolitan Detroit. It concerned the plans to integrate public schools in the United States following the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision.

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which nominally guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elementary and Secondary Education Act</span> 1965 US law, part of Johnsons War on Poverty

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized and reinvented by its modern, revised No Child Left Behind Act.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that since non-English speakers were denied a meaningful education, the disparate impact caused by the school policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the school district was demanded to provide students with "appropriate relief".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bilingual Education Act</span> Language education law of the United States

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA), also known as the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, was the first United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of limited English speaking ability (LESA) students. The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough and was both approved by the 90th United States Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968. While some states, such as California and Texas, and numerous local school districts around the country already had policies and programs designed to meet the special educational needs of elementary and secondary school students not fluent in the English language, this act signaled that the federal government now also recognized the need for and value of bilingual education programs in U.S. public education. In 1969 there was a 50% drop out rate among Mexican American students who struggled to keep up with their English-speaking peers in school; Representative Tony Abril argued that the Bilingual Education Act would reduce this number. Passed on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, its purpose was to provide school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fred Gray (attorney)</span> American attorney and activist

Fred David Gray is an American civil rights attorney, preacher, activist, and state legislator from Alabama. He handled many prominent civil rights cases, such as Browder v. Gayle, and was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 1970, along with Thomas Reed, both from Tuskegee. They were the first black state legislators in Alabama in the 20th century. He served as the president of the National Bar Association in 1985, and in 2001 was elected as the first African-American President of the Alabama State Bar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act - formerly known as the Bilingual Education Act - is a federal grant program described in Title III Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and again as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. This section is specifically targeted to benefit Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. The statute states that LEP students must not only attain English proficiency but simultaneously meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas. Federal funding is provided to assist State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in meeting these requirements. In 2011, ESEA Title III awards were granted to 56 SEAs and the average award given to an individual SEA was $12,158,046.

<i>Castañeda v. Pickard</i> 1981 court case regarding language education in the United States

The case of Castañeda v. Pickard was tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1978. This case was filed against the Raymondville Independent School District (RISD) in Texas by Roy Castañeda, the father of two Mexican-American children. Castañeda claimed that the RISD was discriminating against his children because of their ethnicity. He argued that the classroom his children were being taught in was segregated, using a grouping system for classrooms based on criteria that were both ethnically and racially discriminating.

Constitutional colorblindness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Prior to this, the Supreme Court considered skin color as a determining factor in many landmark cases. Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color-conscious" is presumptively unconstitutional regardless of whether its intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy racial discrimination. The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed at overcoming such discrimination, such as affirmative action.

Desegregation of the Baltimore City Public Schools took place in 1956 after the United States Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, that segregation in schools went against constitutional law. Desegregation of U.S. schools was part of the civil rights movement. The events that followed desegregation in Baltimore, were important to the civil rights movement across America. Recent scholarship has identified Baltimore's desegregation as an important precursor to the Greensboro sit-ins.

Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to determine whether Arizona's general education funding budget supports Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA)-compliant English Language Learner (ELL) programming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School segregation in the United States</span> Racial separation in schools

School segregation in the United States was the segregation of students based on their ethnicity. While they were not prohibited from schools and denied an education, various minorities were barred from schools for whites. Segregation laws were dismantled in the late 1960s by the U.S. Supreme Court. Segregation was practiced in the north and segregation continued longstanding exclusionary policies in much of the South after the Civil War. School integration in the United States took place at different times in different areas and often met resistance. Jim Crow laws codified segregation. These laws were influenced by the history of slavery and discrimination in the US. Secondary schools for African Americans in the South were called training schools instead of high schools in order to appease racist whites and focused on vocational education. After the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregated school laws, school segregation took de facto form. School segregation declined rapidly during the late 1960s and early 1970s as the government became strict on schools' plans to combat segregation more effectively as a result of Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. Voluntary segregation by income appears to have increased since 1990. Racial segregation has either increased or stayed constant since 1990, depending on which definition of segregation is used. In general, definitions based on the amount of interaction between black and white students show increased racial segregation, while definitions based on the proportion of black and white students in different schools show racial segregation remaining approximately constant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School integration in the United States</span> Racial desegregation process

In the United States, school integration is the process of ending race-based segregation within American public and private schools. Racial segregation in schools existed throughout most of American history and remains an issue in contemporary education. During the Civil Rights Movement school integration became a priority, but since then de facto segregation has again become prevalent.

This is a timeline of the civil rights movement in the United States, a nonviolent mid-20th century freedom movement to gain legal equality and the enforcement of constitutional rights for people of color. The goals of the movement included securing equal protection under the law, ending legally institutionalized racial discrimination, and gaining equal access to public facilities, education reform, fair housing, and the ability to vote.

The following is a timeline of Latino civil rights in the United States.

Tallulah Morgan was the main plaintiff in the historical case Morgan v. Hennigan, which led to the desegregation of the Boston school system in the 1970s.

The federal government of the United States has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 3 ""Appropriate Action," Inappropriately Defined: Amending the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974" (PDF). Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Nixon's Message to Congress about Education". Presidency.ucsb.edu. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  3. 1 2 "Full Text of Act". Archived from the original on September 15, 2012. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  4. "20 USC § 1701 from Cornell Law School". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  5. "Lau v. Nichols". Mc3edsupport.org. Archived from the original on November 1, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  6. 1 2 "Casteneda v. Pickard". Mc3edsupport.org. Archived from the original on November 1, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  7. 1 2 "Plyler v. Doe". Mc3edsupport.org. Archived from the original on November 1, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  8. "Keyes v. School District 1". American-education.org. July 7, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  9. "United States v. State of Texas". Civilrights.org. Archived from the original on September 18, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  10. "Idaho v. Board of Education". Lawhighereducation.com. December 21, 2010. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  11. "Flores v. Arizona". Lawhighereducation.com. December 21, 2010. Retrieved March 23, 2012.