History Of Bilingual Court Cases Report

History Of Bilingual Court Cases Report This report is a critical summary of research conducted on three legal cases pertaining to bilingual education in U.S. Public Schools. This paper will include a complete description and analysis of Lau et. al vs. Nichols (1974), Castaneda v. Pickard case (1981), and LULAC vs. Florida Department of Education (1990). The objective is to focus on the adequacy and implications of these cases on the rights of English Language Learners (ELL) to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The findings will consider both primary legal findings and secondary information from professional journals to explain how knowledge of each of these cases may help teachers better meet the need and requirements of mainstreamed (ELL) students. The basis for current provisions to assure the rights of bilingual or limited English proficiency students in public education starts with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several Supreme Court opinions, case law precedents, and legislation provide the legal background, which directly influences national school district policy and reaches into the classroom to insure English language learners receive an equitable public education appropriate to their linguistic and academic needs. The three cases presented here are legal milestones that display the continuing efforts toward school district policy and to achieve good teaching practices in the classroom to accommodate limited English proficiency students right to a free appropriate public education. Lau et al. vs. Nichols et al. is a lawsuit filed on behalf of Chinese American students in 1970 against the San Francisco Unified School Board. A lower court judgment and resultant appeals placed the case before the Supreme Court in December 1973. The U.S. Supreme Court Case Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, (1974) was the consequence of a lack of English language instruction provided to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who did not read, speak, write, or comprehend English in the San Francisco Unified School District. The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 provided the plaintiffs in Lau vs. Nichols with inspiration to pursue their rights to a quality education. In the legal case, defendants (the San Francisco Unified School District) argued that education is not a right. There was nothing in the Constitution that mentioned education as a basic right for all citizens. Individual states chose to establish schools to provide the basic needs of all citizens, and in this case, the Chinese-speaking children clearly needed special help. Even so, the defendants argued that the students had no Constitutional right to demand that the school district provide a remedy for their problem (McPherson, 2000, p. 64). Citing the Fourteenth Amendment clause, the attorney for the defendant, Burk Delventhal, pointed out that the provisions did not require the state to solve these problems all at once. State lawmakers, in their view, had already done a lot to solve problems for non-English-speaking children. The San Francisco Unified School District had complied within state guidelines as best they could in order to provide services to those in need. Edward Steinman (attorney for the plaintiffs) stated during oral arguments (Lau v. Nichols case summary and oral arguments, 1973) that approximately 1,800 of the 3,000 cited plaintiffs in the class action law suit received no English as a Second Language courses, and only a small number received a 40-minute a day pull-out instructional period. Additionally, a report from the San Francisco Unified School District illustrated how officials were acutely aware of the students lack of access to a quality education and its negative effects. In 1974, Chief Justice William O. Douglas wrote the official opinion; that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act. School districts must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by non-English speakers (Lyons, 1992, p. 8). The ruling set a clear precedent for school districts with a large percentage of non-English speakers, such as San Francisco Unified which counted 83% of its students as non-English speaking in 1974 (Wang, 1975). A well-structured English Language Learner (ELL) plan has to be a whole-school and district-wide initiative created by a multidisciplinary team involving ELL teachers, general education teachers, staff, special education teachers, and other language specialists. The multiple connections between the Lau v. Nichols case and teaching and learning also affect the way curricula is designed to gradually integrate ELL students into the regular school program. In 1975, following the Lau ruling, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) published policies for schools to address Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students, and the Federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) was in charge of overseeing the Lau resolution. The OCR gave instructions to school districts about how students would qualify to receive help learning the English language, what specific measurements to take in order to help them, and the type of training teachers should have. In 1978, this ruling was tested in the case of Castaneda vs. Pickard when a parent (Roy Castaneda), of two Mexican-American students, filed against the Raymondville Independent School District (RISD), in Texas. Mr. Castaneda indicated the school district was in fact discriminating against his children because his children were placed in a group of classrooms based on criteria that was ethnically and racially discriminating. The claim was that RISD had failed to establish policy for bilingual education programs that would help his children overcome an English language barrier, and thus, as students, they could not compete with native English language speakers in the classroom. The Lau v. Nichols Case (1974) was cited as a requirement for school districts in this country to take the necessary actions in order to provide students the ability to overcome the English educational barriers. The Castaneda argument was that there was not real way to measure if the Raymondville Independent Sch ool Districts approach would overcome the English proficiency barrier. On August 17, 1978, a lower federal court initially ruled in favor of the Raymondville Independent School District citing that, in respect to the Castaneda vs. Pickard arguments, the Castaneda childrens constitutional or statutory rights were not violated. Mr. Castaneda felt the Federal Court made a mistake and filed for an appeal. In 1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and ruled in favor of the Castanedas case. As a result, the precedent established a three-part assessment to hold bbilingual education programs responsible and to gauge how they were following the spirit of the ESEA guidelines. The criterion parts must demonstrate that a program has; a practice grounded in sound educational theory; effective implementation of an appropriate program or practice; and results or assurance that the program is working through an evaluation and subsequent program modification to meet this requirement. This Castaneda ruling, along with the Supreme Court decision Lau v. Nichols (1974) and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Lau Remedies, reaffirmed the rights of English Language Learners to accessible public schooling that is adequate to their needs. These guidelines require an appropriate public program and comprehensible academic studies be held to the three level assessments to insure it is developed properly to accommodate the students English proficiency level needs. Such a program has to be aligned to state and local standards as required by statute. In League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. vs. State Board of Education (August 1990), the court examines the ongoing efforts of the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to meet both the letter and spirit of a 1990 Consent Decree between the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Florida Department of Education. On August 14, 1990, a Florida Consent Decree established that Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students receive equal access to programming which is appropriate to his or her level of English proficiency, academic achievement, and special needs (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 1990). The plaintiffs (several groups active in the civil rights/educational community) charged that the State Board of Education had not met the requirements under federal and state law to provide LEP students with equal and comprehensible instruction. On September 10, 2003, the State Board of Education and LULAC signed an agreement, a negotiated modification to the 1990 Consent Decree. The Stipulated Agreement, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno is currently active in all of Floridas school districts. The Stipulated Agreement does not diminish any options for English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) endorsement or coverage in the 1990 Consent Decree. However, it does expand some of the original provisions. First, it provides an additional option through which a certified teacher may obtain ESOL coverage. Second, the amendment requires training, including post-certification hours, for all persons holding administrative and guidance counselor positions. Last, the new 2003 amendment allows the plaintiffs to secure access to the ESOL teacher test in addition, provide input that becomes part of the tests design. According to the Consent Decree, each student must have access to programming appropriate to his or her level of English proficiency, academic achievement, and special needs (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 1990). In order to monitor this directive, each district must submit an LEP plan to the Florida Department of Education (FDOE). The Consent Decree does not mandate a specific methodology for ESOL instruction, but instead permits flexibility to local needs and demographics. The state stipulates that LEP students must receive ESOL instruction in E nglish, however, and that they must have ESOL or home language instruction for reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and computer literacy. In addition to a plan for the district, each student must have an individual Limited English Proficiency Student Plan on file. This document includes information on the date of identification, assessment data, and goals for exiting ESOL programs. Each student is also assigned an LEP Committee composed of the students home teacher, an ESOL teacher, an administrator, in addition, a guidance counselor, or a social worker, if appropriate. Parents are invited to attend committee meetings. LEP committees are generally convened when a pupil is having difficulties, is eligible for reclassification, or is ready to participate in state assessments. Furthermore, each school must form an LEP Parent Leadership Council. According to the Decree, this parental representative body has an active participation in all decision-making processes that impact instruction and issues (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 1990). The LULAC vs. Florida Consent Decree requires each Limited English Proficient (LEP) pupil to receive equal access to programming which is appropriate to his or her level of English proficiency, academic achievement, and special needs (Lopà ©z, A. October 8, 2004). An amendment in 2003 requires an expansion of some of the original provisions. First, it provides an additional option through which a certified teacher may obtain ESOL coverage and specific levels of teacher training, including post-certification hours, for all persons holding administrative and guidance counselor positions. The amendment also allows the plaintiffs to secure access to the ESOL teacher test and provide input that becomes part of the tests design. The Consent Decree does not mandate a specific methodology for English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) instruction, but instead permits flexibility to local needs and demographics. The state stipulates that LEP students must receive ESOL instruction in English, however, and that they must have ESOL or home language instruction for reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and computer literacy. In addition to a plan for the district, each student must have an LEP Student Plan on file. As part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorizations, a large part of Title 1 funding is now redirected by the legislation to be dedicated to a whole school program, which did improve the overall quality of education services. (Hanna 2005). The Lau remedies were to be withdrawn in 1981. Legislators attempted additional efforts to transform ESEA in the 1983 and 1989 reauthorizations under the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. These republican admin ­istrations led a major campaign against bilingual education and were in favor of a back to basics education. The Bilingual Education Act, as amended in 1988, was an effort to re-define education programs with more specific goals, to provide for support centers, and to address capacity-building efforts. In 1993, democrats, lead by the Clinton administration, began a new education reform direction with the early development of standards-based reform through bills like Goals 2000. In 1994, under the Impro ving Amer ­icas Schools Act, the Bilingual Edu ­cation Act was reauthorized. This reauthorization rewrote ESEA with the idea that every state would create a standards-based system applicable to all students, including those who qualified under Title I (Hanna, 2005). For the first time, bilin ­gual education was considered a resource to help immigrants become fluent English speakers, and a po ­tential asset to improve the countrys prospects. A wave of anti-bilingualism policies reached its peak with George W. Bushs No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. The law, which was a another reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), did not officially ban bilingual programs, but it imposed a high-stakes testing system that promoted the adoption and implementation of English-only in ­struction. Title VII, also known as the Bilingual Education Act, was eliminated as part of a larger school reform measure (Crawford, 2002). As such, the references to bilingual education in the previous ESEA documentation were redefined as English Language Learners in the new leg ­islation. The educational rights of school-age English language learners then are the new concerns of these cases and its series of legislative acts and court decisions. Jim Cummins, a noted Pedagogy author, published his thoughts as educational policies created at the national level are negotiated at the state and local school district levels as supports are provided to schools, teachers, and their students. In this way, federal policies affect classroom practice in the micro-interactions that occur between teachers and students (Cummins, 2001). The impact of the many legal cases on teachers meeting the needs and requirements of mainstreamed ELL students appears to result from a combination of policies influenced by immediate social, political, and economic factors. Officially, the United States does not have a national language policy which would directs a specific language practice in public schools, however, individual States have passed language policy legislation which places English ove r other languages. The national direction is on Civil Rights and any appropriate public program for comprehensible academic studies has to be developed to accommodate the students English proficiency level needs. State and local school districts are tasked by stature to align public education programs. Building an Equal Access Plan may generate misunderstandings in the classroom and community local levels based on funding and district training. A policy approved by a local school board will take time to construct so that steps for implementing a sound program can occur when needed. A newly arrived student could be waiting for several weeks under that scenario. A consequence of that approach is inaccessibility to appropriate instruction. A policy reflects a school districts intent to comply with the spirit and provisions of law. It also assures that, because it is policy, no teacher or administrator may veto provisions of that policy. It is possible for provisions in policy to become dated or ineffective. Sometimes improved approaches to instruction merit piloting or implementation. Under these circumstances, schools are advised to revise their policy, consistent with the provisions of statute, and to seek school board approval for the newly revised policy or additions to policy. A teachers creativity and excellence will service the classroom student and should not be limited or compromised by policy.

Essay example --

Interdisciplinary Research Question What are the impacts of mainstreaming ESE students into a general education classroom? The problem most viewed with mainstreaming special education and general education students is that student’s individual needs are sometimes being overlooked. Justification of Interdisciplinary Approach In order to justify my interdisciplinary approach I will show how drawing from the relevant disciplines I have chosen offers different views and perspectives presenting diverse explanations to the problem. Relevant Disciplines Education – accommodations, modifications, training of instructors Sociology – socialization, acceptance, understanding, respect Psychology – self esteem, belonging Analysis of Problem with Evaluation of Insights The insights addressed are the preconceptions of instruction, socialization and behavior issues of mainstreaming ESE students. It is assumed that socialization and behavior can play a positive role with inclusion by offering students a chance to improve their socialization and behaviors skills while breaking down the social stigma of being different. However, this can also have a negative effect on students. By not presenting ESE students with the proper monitoring when socialization and behavior is involved can lead to embarrassment and alienation of peers. It is believed that inclusion can affect all students because instructional needs aren’t being met. With accommodations having to be put in place teachers are spending more time with ESE students and offering less challenging instruction to the general education students. Conflicts Between Disciplines The conflict is whether socialization and behavior play an intricate part in the educational needs of the ESE s... ...ght out, and if the decision is to mainstream the student then it should be decided whether the student will benefit from full or partial inclusion. If they are mainstreamed then they will need to be carefully monitored and ensure that all of their needs are met in order to be successful in the general education setting. The pros and cons of inclusion will need to be looked over repeatedly to be sure that the plan is working in the best interest of the student and does not affect the academic goals of either the special needs student or the general education student. As more and more students with special needs are placed into general education classrooms the general idea is that this is the best placement for them based on their needs. However, in order to make this successful the students, parents, and teachers involved will have to work hard and work together.

Promote Positive Behaviour Essay

Understand how legislation, frameworks, codes of practice and policies relate to positive behaviour support. 1.1 Explain how legislation, frameworks, codes of practice and policies related to positive behaviour support are applied to own working practice. All aspects of my job role are regulated by policies and current legislation. The mandatory training that we attend has been designed to cover all aspects of legislation such as the Children’s Act, which provides a Code of Practice to enable us provide the best possible care and support for children and young people. We also have inspections from OFSTED who ensure we are meeting, not only care standards, but also those relating to behaviour and how we encourage positive behaviour is evaluated. As a staff member I have the responsibility of recording all incidents of behaviour support and these include both positive and challenging behaviour. There are several policies and procedures in my work place relating to positive behav iour: Bullying Rewards and sanctions House rules The code of conduct forms part of a behaviour policy. It will state what is expected from staff as well as young people. It can provide guidence to staff when dealing with innappropriate behaviour presented by a child/young person. It states how to encourage positive behaviour, the importance of being fair and consistent, 1.2 Define what is meant by restrictive interventions. There are a range of different restrictive interventions. When some people think of restrictive interventions they automatically think of phyhsical interventions, however a physical intervention is not always neccessary. Sometimes you can intervene using simple techniques such as language, including body language and facial expressions, this is known as social intervention. Another is mechanical intervention, this is useful with children in their early years, using things such as high chairs and safety gates to contain the child in one place for whatever reason. Physcial intervention is a restrictive intervention that should only be use if there is clear justification for why this type of intervention is being used. Planned intervention can be used if through observation or care plans for example, you expect that a child may present challenging behaviours in certain situations, then you ensure you are already prepared for this as it may be that just having a carer sitting by their si de and placing a hand on their shoulder is all they need to sit back and think about their actions before displaying negative behaviour. The aim of a restrictive intervention is not to take away the young persons right to freedom and movement, it is to give them the opportunity to think about their actions and change their behaviour. 1.3 Explain when restrictive interventions may and may not be used. Physical intervention is a last resort and all staff avoid having to do this however if deescalating techniques such as ‘planned ignoring’, ‘hurdle help’, ‘walking away’ etc. doesn’t seem to work, then restrictive interventions have to be used when young people are displaying certain behaviours such as committing a criminal offence, causing harm to themselves or others, causing damage to property or engaging in any behaviour that is prejudicial to maintain the good order and discipline within the home. 1.4 Explain who needs to be informed of any incidents where restrictive interventions have been used. Where restrictive interventions have been used, staff must follow policies and procedures in place such as ‘recording and reporting’. Firstly staff on shift at the time of the incident must complete an incident report and inform management of the incident. The young person’s parents and social workers should be informed and if necessary other professionals involved in the young person’s life such as YOT and CAMHS (this all depends on the nature of the incident). Once the incident report is complete management will add their observations then send this to the safeguarding officer to do the same. Ofsted are always informed after any incident. If the young person or staff involved have sustained any injuries during the incident this is recorded on the incident report and on a body map as well as the accident book and RIDDOR guidelines will be followed. 1.5 Explain why the least restrictive interventions should be used when dealing with incidents of challenging behaviour. As explained before physical intervention should not be used unless it can be clearly justified why it was used, it is not always neccessary. When dealing with challenging behaviour you can use restrictive intervention such as language which may result in the young person changing their behaviour before it even leads to an incident. For example there is a young person in my care who we have observed that responds well to humour, so if he is beginning to display negative/challenging behaviour we try to make jokes with him and sometimes tickle him. This turns his mood around and prevents an incident even taking place. It is important to use the least restrictive interventions where possible as if you didnt it could lead to further dilemmas such as verbal abuse, physical abuse, damage to property etc. 1.6 Describe safeguards that must be in place if restrictive physical interventions are being used. It is important to ensure that the young people and staff are all safeguarded. Any staff that will be using physical interventions should have attended the mandatory training, risk assessments should be in place and staff should follow guidelines to ensure they have tried all possible alternatives before using physical interventions. In circumstances where physical interventions are being used, staff should assess the situation first to ensure it is safe to do so, is there enough staff? Is the environment they’re in safe and appropriate for the use of physical interventions? Staff must always disengage throughout the physical intervention to give the young person opportunity to calm and take back control. 2. Understand the context and use of proactive and reactive strategies. 2.1 Explain the difference between proactive and reactive strategies. Proactive strategies are strategies that everyone may use to deal with behavioural problems, they are strategies that are written in policies and procedures, risk assessments, care plans etc. These are guidelines that are in place to be followed when a child/young person is presenting challenging behaviour even if these strategies are not proven to work as well as others for this particular child/young person. Examples of proactive strategies are having rules and boundaries in place, this is a way of letting the child/young person know the way they should be behaving, give praise to the child/young person for good behaviour and put sanctions and consequences in place when rules are broken. Reactive strategies are the behaviour management strategies that you use at the time of an incident when a child/young person is presenting challenging behaviour. Even though there are guidelines in place for proactiv strategies that should be used, if you have observed that a child/young person responds well to something else and it diverts their attention to something positive then you may use these reactive strategies to stop the incident escalating any further. When using reactive strategies you should still follow guidelines for proactive behaviour management strategies and put consequences in place for inappropriate behaviour. 2.2 Identify the proactive and reactive strategies that are used within own work role Needs completing 2.3 Explain the importance of identifying patterns of behaviours or triggers to challenging behaviour when establishing proactive or reactive strategies to be used. With every child/young person you should be making observations of every aspect of their life. When they ‘slow time’ before going to school or refuse to attend school, is there a pattern in the days they are behaving like this? Is there a certain lesson on these days they dont like? Are their children in their classes on this day who they are having issues with? There is a reason behing every behaviour. It is important to identify patterns of behaviours and triggers so that you can predict when an incident may take place and use planned intervention to deal with these situations. Also different strategies may work for different incidents and different young people. Staff need to ensure they are making these observations, updating care plans and risk assessments and passing on information to all staff during h andovers and meetings. 2.4 Explain the importance of maintaining a person or child-centred approach when establishing proactive strategies. Each young person is different, they need to be seen as an individual. Young people should all be treat fairly and equally but not the same. Some strategies that work on one child/young person may not work on another. Strategies have to be tried and tested, they wont all work but the ones that do, should be identified and all staff bare these in mind when dealing with further incidents. A young person in my care gets really upset when plans for family contact are changed or if it doesn’t go ahead. Staff ensure they tell the young person with at least 2 members of staff present incase they need to use physical restrictive interventions. The usual type of negative behaviour in instances like this is going to their room and slamming doors etc. Due to the young person not actually causing any damage or harm to property or himself, staff use proactive strategies we have in place which in this case would be ‘backing away’ giving him time to calm, and with this particular young person we would use ‘humour’ once he is calm to keep him distracted. Another young person if he gets bored will display challenging behaviour through verbal abuse. Staff use planned intervention and always try and keep the young person busy to prevent him getting bored or agitated. If this particular young person is being verbally abusive staff use proactive strategies ‘planned ignoring’ as if staff give him attention for displaying negative behaviour, he sees this as an excuse to keep repeating this behaviour as he gets the attention he was after. When the young person is showing positive behaviour, even simple tasks like brushing his teeth and having a wash on a morning, he needs lots of praise to show him that h e gets attention when he is being compliant. 2.5 Explain the importance of reinforcing positive behaviour with individuals. Needs completing 2.6 Evaluate the impact on an individuals well-being of using reactive rather than proactive strategies. Needs completing 3. Be able to promote positive behaviour 3.1 Explain how a range of factors may be associated with challenging behaviour. Needs completing 3.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of proactive strategies on mitigating challenging behaviours Needs completing 4.Be able to respond appropriately to incidents of challenging behaviour. 4.1 Identify types of challenging behaviours Needs completing 4.3 Explain the steps that are taken to maintain the dignity of and respect for an individual when responding to an incident of challenging behaviour. Needs completing 5. Be able to supports others and individuals following an incident of challenging behaviour. 5.2 Describe how an individual can be supported to reflect on an incident. How they were feeling at the time prior to and directly before the incident – Their behaviour – The consequence of their behaviour – How they were feeling after the incident – Needs completing 5.3 Explain the complex feelings that may be experienced by others involved or witnessing an incident of challenging behaviour. Needs completing 5.5 Describe the steps that should be taken to check for injuries following an incident of challenging behaviour. This should be done straight after the incident once the young person has calmed. If the young person directed their anger at a particular member of staff, then a different member of staff, preferably who the young person usually has a good relationship with should approach the child/young person to see if they are ok. Get the young person into an environment with privacy and where they feel comfortable, then have a discussion with them about if they are hurting anywhere and check them for injuries. For example if the young person was restrained during the incident see if they have any marks from where staff held them, check their back thoroughly if you recall them banging it etc. If any marks are noticed, firstly check previous body maps in place for the young person to ensure these marks haven’t already been identified and recorded. If not then record the injuries on the incident report, on the young persons body map and daily observations. If needed offer first aid to the young person or medical attention. The young person should be checked for injuries again at a later time as bruising may show the following day.

Tezcatlipoca Aztec God of Night and Smoking Mirrors

Tezcatlipoca (Tez-ca-tlee-POH-ka), whose name means â€Å"Smoking Mirror†, was the Aztec god of night and sorcery, as well as the patron deity of Aztec kings and young warriors. As with many Aztec gods, he was associated with several aspects of Aztec religion, the sky, and the earth, winds and the north, kingship, divination, and war. For the different aspects he embodied, Tezcatlipoca was also known as the Red Tezcatlipoca of the West, and the Black Tezcatlipoca of the North, associated with death and cold. According to Aztec mythology, Tezcatlipoca was a vengeful god, who could see and punish any evil behavior or action happening on earth. For these qualities, Aztec kings were considered Tezcatlipoca’s representatives on earth; at their election, they had to stand in front of the god’s image and perform several ceremonies in order to legitimize their right to rule. A Supreme Deity Recent research suggests that Tezcatlipoca was one of the most important gods in the Late Postclassic Aztec pantheon. He was an old-style pan-Mesoamerican god, considered the embodiment of the natural world, a frightening figure who was both omnipresent--on earth, in the land of the dead, and in the sky--and omnipotent. He rose to importance during the politically dangerous and unstable times of the Late Postclassic Aztec and early Colonial periods. Tezcatlipoca was known as the Lord of the Smoking Mirror. That name is a reference to obsidian mirrors, circular flat shiny objects made of volcanic glass, as well as a symbolic reference to the smoke of battle and sacrifice. According to ethnographic and historical sources, he was very much a god of light and shadow, of the sound and smoke of bells and battle. He was closely associated with obsidian (itzli in the Aztec language) and jaguars (ocelotl). Black obsidian is of the earth, highly reflective and a vital part of human blood sacrifices. Jaguars were the epitome of hunting, warfare, and sacrifice to the Aztec people, and Tezcatlipoca was the familiar feline spirit of Aztec shamans, priests, and kings. Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl Tezcatlipoca was the son of the god Ometà ©otl, who was the original creator entity. One of Tezcatlipoca’s brothers was Quetzalcoatl. Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca joined forces to create the surface of the earth but later became fierce enemies in the city of Tollan. For this reason, Quetzalcoatl is sometimes known as the White Tezcatlipoca to distinguish him from his brother, the Black Tezcatlipoca. Many Aztec legends hold that Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl were the gods who originated the world, told in the myth of the Legend of the Fifth Sun. According to Aztec mythology, prior to the current times, the world had passed through a series of four cycles, or â€Å"suns†, each one represented by a specific deity, and each one ending in a turbulent way. The Aztecs believed they lived in the fifth and last epoch. Tezcatlipoca ruled the first sun when the world was inhabited by giants. A fight between Tezcatlipoca and the god Quetzalcoatl, who wanted to replace him, put an end to this first world with the giants being devoured by jaguars. Opposing Forces The opposition between Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca is reflected in the legend of the mythical city of Tollan. The legend reports that Quetzalcoatl was a peaceful king and priest of Tollan, but he was deceived by Tezcatlipoca and his followers, who practiced human sacrifice and violence. Ultimately, Quetzalcoatl was forced into exile. Some archaeologists and historians believe that the legend of the fight between Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl refers to historical events such as the clash of different ethnic groups from the North and Central Mexico. Tezcatlipoca’s Festivities To Tezcatlipoca was dedicated one of the most ostentatious and imposing ceremonies of the Aztec religious calendar year. This was the Toxcatl or One Drought sacrifice, which was celebrated at the height of the dry season in May and involved the sacrifice of a boy. A young man was chosen at the festival among the most physically perfect prisoners. For the next year, the young man personified Tezcatlipoca, traveling through the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan attended by servants, fed with delicious food, wearing the finest clothing, and being trained in music and religion. About 20 days before the final ceremony he was married to four virgins who entertained him with songs and dances; together they wandered Tenochtitlans streets. The final sacrifice took place at Toxcatls May celebrations. The young man and his entourage traveled to the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan, and as he walked up the stairs of the temple he played music with four flutes that represented the worlds directions; he would destroy the four flutes on his way up the stairs. When he reached the top, a group of priests carried out his sacrifice. As soon as this happened, a new boy was chosen for the following year. Tezcatlipoca’s Images In his human form, Tezcatlipoca is easily recognizable in codex images by the black stripes painted on his face, depending on the aspect of the god that was represented, and by an obsidian mirror on his chest, through which he could see all human thoughts and actions. Symbolically, Tezcatlipoca is also often represented by an obsidian knife. Tezcatlipoca is sometimes illustrated as the jaguar deity Tepeyollotl (Heart of the Mountain). Jaguars are the patron of sorcerers and closely associated with the moon, Jupiter, and Ursa Major. In some images, a smoking mirror replaces Tezcatlipocas lower leg or foot. The earliest recognized representations of the pan-Mesoamerican god Tezcatlipoca are associated with Toltec architecture at the Temple of Warriors at Chichà ©n Itzà ¡, dated to AD 700-900. There is also at least one image of Tezcatlipoca at Tula; the Aztecs clearly associated Tezcatlipoca with the Toltecs. But images and contextual references to the god became much more abundant during the Late Postclassic period, at Tenochtitlan and Tlaxcallan sites such as Tizatlan. There are a few Late Postclassic images outside the Aztec empire including one at Tomb 7 at the Zapotec capital of Monte Alban in Oaxaca, which may represent a continuing cult.   Sources Berdan FF. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Klein CF. 2014. Gender Ambiguity and the Toxcatl Sacrifice. In: Baquedano E, editor. Tezcatlipoca: Trickster and Supreme Deity. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. p 135-162.Saunders NJ, and Baquedano E. 2014. Introduction: Symbolizing Tezcatlipoca. In: Baquedano E, editor. Tezcatlipoca: Trickster and Supreme Deity. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. p 1-6.Smith ME. 2013. The Aztecs. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Smith ME. 2014. The Archaeology of Tezcatlipoca. In: Baquedano E, editor. Tezcatlipoca: Trickster and Supreme Deity. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. p 7-39.Taube KA. 1993. Aztec and Maya Myths. Fourth Edition. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Van Tuerenhout DR. 2005 The Aztecs. New Perspectives. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Inc.