U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report

This entry reviews an important publication of the U.S. government that helped stimulate the dialogue and policy climate for bilingual education nationally. Published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) in 1975, A Better Chance to Learn: Bilingual-Bicultural Education was the first statement of a government agency to link bilingual education and civil rights. It was the first clearly pro-bilingual education message issued by a federal agency after enactment of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1968. The report by the USCCR systematically examines the elements of bilingual education as that concept was understood at the time and explains in an advocacy modality how bilingual-bicultural education increases educational and life opportunities for language minority students. The publication consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the educational conditions for language minorities before the 1970s. Chapter 2 discusses the advantages of bilingual-bicultural education over English as a Second Language (ESL) approaches from the perspectives of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Chapter 3 describes the structures of bilingual-bicultural programs based on four existing successful models, and makes suggestions for program evaluation.

The publication of the report took place during a period of favorable support by the federal government for bilingual education, but it was soon followed by the first critical report on bilingual education. This critique, published by the Institute for Educational Leadership in 1977, was titled Language, Ethnicity and the Schools, authored by Noel Epstein. This juxtaposition of publications, one critical and one favorable, helped fuel the debate about bilingual education among Washington groups involved. Federal funding for bilingual education had increased dramatically since 1968, from zero funding to $75 million annually, within 5 years of enactment. Many advocates took the position that Title VII of ESEA, in combination with [Page 881]the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols, were indications that the schools would be required to make deep changes with respect to the education of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students, the term in use at the time. Others feared that education policy would be changing too fast, and that the society was not prepared to support the deep changes that were on the horizon. Given this context, it is not surprising that the USCCR report would be given great weight by proponents of bilingual education.

Only 4 years earlier, in 1970, the Office for Civil Rights in the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare, had issued its much-anticipated May 25th Memorandum, which was regarded as a precursor of the Lau decision. The combined message to school districts was clear and could not be ignored. The message was that the time had come to focus intently on the problem of language incompatibility between schools and students, and to close the attainment gap between English-speaking students and those who came to school speaking other languages.

When it was first enacted in 1968, Title VII of ESEA was meant to create demonstration and pilot projects that would eventually be funded from local and state resources. The USCCR report was very much in concert with federal efforts to broaden the goals and scope of bilingual education. It covers important themes that lent support to bilingual-education advocates. However, because of a lack of empirical data, and its “transitional” orientation, this historic document left many gaps in the knowledge base of the field.

...