CSET SPANISH SUBTEST IV| 125 Questions with 100% Correct Answers
3 views 0 purchase
Course
CSET
Institution
Liberty University
14th Amendment Correct Answer: to the U.S. Constitution; amendment ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, declares in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, libe...
cset spanish subtest iv| 125 questions with 100 correct answers
Written for
Liberty University
CSET
All documents for this subject (16)
Seller
Follow
Classroom
Reviews received
Content preview
CSET SPANISH SUBTEST IV| 125 Questions
with 100% Correct Answers
14th Amendment Correct Answer: to the U.S. Constitution; amendment ratified in 1868 after the
Civil War, declares in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Many of the cases discussed in this section are
based on the ***due process and the equal protection clauses*** of the # Amendment.
Plessy v. Ferguson Correct Answer: a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court issued in
1896. It upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the
segregated facilities were equal in quality - a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but
equal. Although the decision was related to the segregation of African American students, in
many parts of the country Native American, Asian, and Hispanic students were also routinely
segregated. "
Brown v. Board of Education Correct Answer: REVERSAL of Plessy v. Ferguson; 58 years
later in 1954; Like Plessy, focused on the segregation of African American students. But by
ruling that states are responsible for providing "equal educational opportunities" for all students
made bilingual education for ELLs more feasible.
Independent School District v. Salvatierra, Alvarez v. Lemon Grove, and Méndez v.
Westminster School District Correct Answer: Addresses Segregation A few lesser known lower
level cases concerning the segregation of Hispanic student predate Brown.
Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930) Correct Answer: Mexican American parents in
the small border town of Rio, Texas, brought suit against the school district over segregation.
The court sided with the school district that argued the segregation was necessary to teach the
students English. This argument did not hold, however, for two similar cases in California:
Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931) and Méndez v. Westminster School District (1947). The judge
in Alvarez noted that segregation was not beneficial for the students' English language
development and the success of the Méndezcase helped set the stage for Brown.
Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson and Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District Correct
Answer: Addresses Segregation In some instances, desegregation efforts made it more difficult.
In San Francisco, for example, Chinese Americans fought a desegregation order that would force
students out of neighborhood schools that provided bilingual English Chinese programs for
newcomer Chinese ELL students. The Chinese community took the case to court in 1971 and it
was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School
District. In 1974, the court ruled against the Chinese community, declaring simply Brown applies
to races.
Meyers v. Nebraska Correct Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach Their Native
Languages to Their Children In the early 1900s, German communities typically ran their own
,private schools where students received instruction in both German and English. Then, in 1919,
Nebraska passed the Siman Act, The state court ruled that the act could not prevent schools from
providing German language instruction outside of the hours of regular school study. In response,
the parochial schools taught German during an extended recess period. Language restrictionist
policymakers sought to close the loopholes in the law and fined Robert Meyers $25 fine for
teaching Bible stories to 10 yr old children in German. The case, Meyers v. Nebraska(1923),
went to Supreme Court, which consolidated this case with similar cases from Ohio and Idaho.
Supreme Court struck down the states' restrictive legislation, ruling that whereas state
governments can legislate the language used for instruction in schools, states may not pass laws
that attempt to prevent communities from offering private language classes outside of the regular
school system. Made it clear that the 14th Amendment provides protection for language
minorities, does not endorse it though.
Siman Act 1919 Nebraska Correct Answer: made it illegal for any school, public or private, to
provide any foreign language instruction to students below the 8th grade. Associated with
Meyers vs Nebraska.
Farrington v. Tokushige Correct Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach Their Native
Languages to Their Children Hawaii in 1927, the court offered further protections of after-school
community language programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on
Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs. Case essentially about parents' rights rather
than language rights; still signs of negative attitudes toward the "foreign population." Indeed,
Hawaii tried yet again to limit private foreign language instruction. When the Chinese
communities after World War II sought to restart their private language schools, the state passed
the "Act Regulating the Teaching of Foreign Languages to Children." Part of the state's rationale
was the need to "protect children from the harm of learning a foreign language." The Supreme
Court ruled that prohibiting schools to teach in a language other than English violates
constitutional rights protected under the Fifth Amendment
Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po Correct Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach Their
Native Languages to Their Children (1947), the state court struck down the statute, rejecting the
state's claim and arguing that, at least for "the brightest" students, study of a foreign language can
be beneficial. The case was decided on the basis of Farrington and, once again, had more to do
with parents' rights in directing the education of their children than with language rights. Despite
agreement in the courts about the need for states to Americanize minorities and their right to
control the language used for instruction in public schools, minority communities have a clear
right to offer private language classes in which their children can learn and maintain their home
languages. Thus, the common practice of language-minority communities today in offering
heritage language programs after school and on weekends is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Xenophobia toward German and Japanese Americans during World War I and World War II
Correct Answer: succeeded where attempts at language restrictive legislation failed. When
Germany and later Japan became war enemies of the United States, the number of U.S. schools
that provided instruction in these languages dropped dramatically, largely because of fears by
members of these communities that such instruction would lead others to question their loyalty to
the United States
, Lau v. Nichols Correct Answer: Equal Educational Opportunities for ELLs 1974 Supreme Court
case that resulted in perhaps the most important court decision regarding the education of
language minority students; brought forward by Chinese American students in the San Francisco
Unified School District who were placed in mainstream classrooms despite their lack of
proficiency in English, and left to "sink or swim." The district had argued that it had done
nothing wrong, and that the Chinese American students received treatment equal to that of other
students. the responsibility to over- the responsibility to overcome language barriers that impede
full integration of students falls on the school boards and not on the parents or children;
otherwise, there is no real access for these students to a meaningful
education
Justice William Douglass Correct Answer: Lou vs Nichols 1974, in writing the court's opinion,
strongly disagreed, arguing: Under these state imposed standards there is no equality of treatment
merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for
students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful
education.... We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their
classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.
Influence of Lau on federal Policy Correct Answer: 1974, After the court's decision, the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights created the Lau Remedies. Whereas Title VII
Bilingual Education Act regulations applied only to funded programs, the Lau Remedies applied
to all school districts and functioned as de facto compliance standards. The Office of Civil Rights
used the Lau decision to go after districts that, like San Francisco, were essentially ignoring the
needs of its LEP students. Its impact was codified into federal law though the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA)
Lau Remedies Correct Answer: essentially require districts to implement bilingual education
programs for LEP students; elementary schools were generally required to provide LEP students
special English-as-a-second-language instruction as well as academic subject-matter instruction
through the students' strongest language until the student achieved proficiency in English
sufficient to learn effectively in a monolingual English classroom.
James Lyons (1995) Correct Answer: former president of the National Association for Bilingual
Education, explains further: The Lau Remedies specified proper approaches, methods and
procedures for (1) identifying and evaluating national-origin-minority students' English-language
skills; (2) determining appropriate instructional treatments; (3) deciding when LEP students were
ready for mainstream classes; and (4) determining the professional standards to be met by
teachers of language-minority children.
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) Section 1703(f) Correct Answer:
declares: "No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her
race, color, sex, or national origin by ... (f) the failure of an educational agency to take
appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students
in its instructional programs." // At the time of its passage, this section was viewed as a
declaration of the legal right for students to receive a bilingual education, under the assumption
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Classroom. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R157,14. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
