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.
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.
[1] 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.
The BEA was an important shift away from the late 1950s anticommunist sentiment where anything foreign was suspect, which had destroyed many earlier local and state attempts at bilingual education.
Furthermore, this legislation, successfully enacted into law largely thanks to the efforts of Spanish speakers, has become an important part of the "polemic between assimilation and multiculturalism" and has strengthened the role that language education plays in our society.
Many of these changes were in the wording and framing of the act, which ultimately did not recognize the importance of biculturalism or the benefit of bilingualism or even the link between language and culture.
The BEA provided school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.
The act also gave school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education programs without violating segregation laws, but at this time, participation was voluntary.
Because the BEA funding was provided in the form of grants, most of the financial clout lay with local and state education agencies (LEAs and SEAs).
To begin with, from a simple framing standpoint, the original 1968 BEA did not include any mention of instruction in or maintenance of a student's native language, limiting the potential impact of the act.
Because it was meant to redress the dropout issue, the act with this caveat on funding viewed high school students of LESA somewhat of a lost cause.
Lau v. Nichols was a class-action suit brought against the San Francisco Unified School District and alleged that due to their inability to speak English, there were 1,800 Chinese students who were being denied an equal education.
By citing instructional programs as the means through which language barriers were to be broken, it effectively extended the Lau ruling to all students and school districts.
Essentially, even though the act still leaves with state and local educators the ability to choose from instructional methods, "the statement of purpose and accountability requirements make clear that the primary objective is English acquisition.
"As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and federal civil rights officials, these provisions rely on terms like “affirmative steps” and “appropriate action” that give school districts the discretion to use a range of instructional approaches.
As a result, under both Title VI and the EEOA, courts and federal enforcement agencies must decide on a case-by-case basis whether programs are in fact overcoming linguistic barriers to full participation.