English Learning Language Legislative Effects

The Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court case

The Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court case from 1974 is one of the U.S. Supreme Court cases involving English Language Learners (ELLs). One of the most significant Supreme Court decisions concerning the education of ELLs or kids from linguistic minority groups may have come from the Lau v. Nichols case (Wang, 1974). Chinese-American students in the San Francisco Unified School District brought the Lau v. Nichols lawsuit, complaining that they were being taught in mainstream classes despite their poor English competence (Sugarman & Widess, 1974). The San Francisco Unified School District, however, claimed that it had not violated any law and that the Chinese-American students got subjected to equal treatment as that of their fellow students (Wang, 1974). In its ruling, the Supreme Court, through Justice William Douglass, strongly disagreed with the school district’s claims, arguing that the mere provision of same textbooks, facilities, curriculum, and teachers to students did not imply equality to students who do lack proficiency in English. Justice Douglass further stated that ELLs found such mainstream classroom experiences entirely incomprehensible and meaningless (Wang, 1974).

Q 1. The Lau v. Nichols case contributed to the academic success of ELLs

The Lau v. Nichols case contributed to the academic success of ELLs by substantially influencing the federal policy on ELLs. After the Supreme Court ruling, the Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education established the Lau Remedies (Wang, 1974). The Lau Remedies applied to every school district and acted as the primary compliance standards as opposed to the regulations of the Title VII Bilingual Education Act, which only applied to various funded programs (Wang, 1974). Additionally, the Office of Civil Rights banked on the Supreme Court ruling on the Lau v. Nichols case in enforcing the correct programs for ELLs in various districts, such as San Francisco, which were essentially disregarding the needs of ELLs. The Lau Remedies required school districts to effectively implement education programs for ELLs (Wang, 1974).

Q 2. The Lau v. Nichols case, through the establishment of the Lau Remedies, will help improve education for ELLs

The Lau v. Nichols case, through the establishment of the Lau Remedies, will help improve education for ELLs by specifying the right methods, approaches, and procedures for determining the most appropriate instructional treatments, as well as identifying and assessing the English language skills of national-origin-minority students (Sugarman & Widess, 1974). Besides, the specified methods, procedures, and approaches will be helpful in determining when ELLs are ready for mainstream classes, as well as deciding the professional standards that the teachers of ELLs should meet. Additionally, the Lau Remedies requires elementary schools to provide ELLs with academic subject-matter Instruction, as well as special English-as-a-second-language instruction using the students’ best language until the learners attain sufficient English proficiency to effectively learn and cope in a monolingual English classroom (Sugarman & Widess, 1974).

Also, the Supreme Court’s decision on the case got codified into federal law through the 1974’s Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). It will, therefore, help improve the education for ELLs by ensuring that no state denies educational opportunities to students on the grounds of their national origin, sex, color, or race (Wang, 1974). In fact, according to the EEOA, all educational agencies shall take appropriate measures in their instructional programs to ensure that they overcome language barriers that hinder the students’ equal participation (Wang, 1974).

Q 3. One of the gaps that still exist in the provision of education to ELLs

One of the gaps that still exist in the provision of education to ELLs is the historical reluctance by most states in various parts of the country in effectively implementing the federal laws, such as the 1974’s Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). Such laws emphasize the provision of equal educational opportunities to ELLs and various minority students in the country (Hakuta, 2014). Another gap that still exists relates to the lack of appropriate means of addressing various conflicts and controversies over the use of other languages other than English in the country’s public schools, a situation which tends to increase the number of lawsuits, thereby deterring the process of shaping the policy climate around the education of ELLs (Hakuta, 2014).

References

Kenji Hakuta. (2014). Assessment of Content and Language in Light of the New Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for English Language Learners. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(4), 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.4.0433

Sugarman, S., & Widess, E. (1974). Equal Protection for Non-English-Speaking School Children: Lau v. Nichols. California Law Review, 62(1), 157. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3479823

Wang, L. (1974). Lau v. Nichols: The Right of Limited-English-speaking Students. Amerasia Journal, 2(2), 16-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.17953/amer.2.2.7102rr5765838713