Lau vs. Nichols: English Language Learners
There are three federal court cases that provide the legal foundation for providing equal educational opportunity to students with limited English Proficiency, Lau vs. Nichols 1973, Castaneda vs. Pickard 1981 and Plyler vs. Doe 1982 (The English Language Learners Knowledge Base, 2004).
This research paper will focus on Lau vs. Nichols, a major ruling by the Supreme Court in reference to Title VI of the Civil rights act of 1964. In this research paper I will give the history, outcome and discuss the implications that have affected ELL classroom / learners of the future. This cases main point was that when children arrive in school with little or no English-speaking ability, "sink or swim" instruction is a violation of their civil rights.
In 1974 The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Lau vs. Nichols case set major precedent regarding the educational rights of language minorities, although this fact is grounded in statute (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), rather than in the U.S. Constitution. At issue was whether school administrators may meet their obligation to provide equal educational opportunities merely by treating all students the same, or whether they must offer special help for students unable to understand English. Lower federal courts had absolved the San Francisco school district of any responsibility for minority children's "language deficiency." But a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed. Its ruling opened a new era in federal civil rights enforcement under the so-called "Lau Remedies." The decision was delivered by Justice William O. Douglas on January 21, 1974 (Find Law, 2006).
History
The following are inserts from the case. This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District sought relief against the unequal educational opportunities which were alleged to violate, inter...
More Cases
essays:
Mapp Vs. Ohio
... system of excluding illegally obtained evidence as proven by the federal courts. Discussion: After the Supreme Court reviewed this case, the Court ruled in favor of Ms ...
Case Note on City Link Melbourne Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 57 ATR 316
... competitive right; or a sharing of profits or payments akin to a dividend, or otherwise precluded from deduction as losses or outgoings of capital or of a capital nature. At first instance in the Federal Court, the ...
Marketing Law Case: French Perfume Manufacturer v Green Valley Cosmetics with regards to breach of Trade marks Act, passing off and business secret
... into English. b. Substantially identical or deceptively similar test Therefore, to prove an infringement of Trade Marks Act by Green Valley must be established through substantially identical test. Under the rule of Torpedoes Sportswear Pty Limited v ...
Report of a Court Visit
... poor English language skills and not familia with the court proceeding are more disadvantage for them to defend themselves. I notice legal aid budget cuts by Howard government, the study shows many case without ...
Statue and Case Law: Discrimination Purviews
... special English instruction, the case says this denies the students of the opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ...
Supreme Court Cases - Dred Scott vs Sanford
... his case in a 7 to 2 ruling. If African Americans were U.S. citizens, then they must have all of the rights of other citizens, including the right to sue in a federal court. Therefore ... the Supreme Court went against a national law of the ...
Gideon vs. Wainwright case
... the right to any legal representation, can be very stressful. Forty years ago, on March 1963, the U.S Supreme Court announced one of the most important decisions in its History. The court case Gideon ...
Nixon vs. The United States of America. Explains all aspects of the case and the reasons why the Supreme court decided as they did
... gaps of Watergate related Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes, but Nixon refused and the case moved to the Supreme Court. Decision ...