In the early 1970s, non-English speaking Chinese-American students sued the San Francisco Unified School District, alleging that the district's failure to help them learn English violated their civil rights.
Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court. Known as the "Asian-American Brown v. Board of Education," Lau v. Nichols has transformed bilingual education.
Chinese-Speaking Students Taught Only In English
In 1971, approximately 3,700 Chinese-speaking students were enrolled in the San Francisco Unified School District, but only about a third of those received instruction in English in addition to their regular studies. Eight-year-old Kenny Lau was among the Chinese-speaking students taught only in English; the school district reasoned that by providing an education in English to Kenny and others, it had fulfilled its responsibility. Kenny's parents and their lawyers disagreed, and filed suit, arguing that Kenny and other non-English speaking students could not be expected to have equal access to the education the school district was offering, because of their lack of English skills. This, the plaintiffs argued, violates the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Initially, lower courts ruled against the Chinese-speaking plaintiffs, reasoning that each student "brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages" that are "created and continued completely apart" from the educational system.
Supreme Court Finds Students Have a Right to English Language Instruction
In January 1974, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts in a majority opinion written by Justice William O. Douglas. In that opinion, Justice Douglas wrote that the state of California's requirement that all students should demonstrate mastery of English in order to receive a High School diploma, as well as its authorization that schools could offer bilingual education, meant that "students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education." As a result, the Justice wrote, "there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum."
The Court did not, however, find that the district's failure to offer native-language instruction to students violated their rights under the equal protection clause. Instead, the Justices said, the district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because it imposed barriers to non-English speaking students that essentially discriminated against them on the basis of race and national origin.
Far-reaching Effects of the Lau Case
For the San Francisco Unified School District, the Court's decision has led to a consent decree which requires the school district to annually prove its commitment to providing non-English speaking students (also called English Language Learners or ELLs) with a specified number of minutes of English language instruction each day.
More broadly, however, the decision has required school districts to re-think the way they educate English Learner students. The Lau decision did not specify a particular kind or amount of instruction, simply requiring schools to be sure they were providing non-English speakers with opportunities and resources that would help them become fully proficient in English.
Some districts created bilingual classrooms, where students are taught in English as well as their native language, while others adopted pullout approaches, where English Learner students are given daily intensive English language instruction in small groups. A third approach is dual-language immersion, which combines equal numbers of English Learners, fully-bilingual students and native English speakers in one classroom, gradually increasing the amount of English language so that all children emerge fully bilingual after a number of years.
Research on Outcomes is Mixed
The efficacy of various approaches -- bilingual education, dual-language immersion, or intensive English instruction -- is hotly debated. Some researchers argue that bilingual classrooms are best, because they allow English Learners the ability to gain content knowledge in their native language as they gradually learn English. Others disagree, saying that bilingual classrooms isolate students culturally and linguistically. Proponents of dual-language immersion believe their approach is the best of both worlds, offering students content knowledge in their native language while also scaffolding and supporting their English language development through peer models.
Studies can be found to support each point of view. In 1997, the National Research Council found ithat all approaches can be beneficial or ineffective, depending on how well and how faithfully they are implemented.
References:
1. " Lau v. Nichols," Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Accessed February 2, 2011.
2. "Teaching English Language Learners: What Does the Research Say?" Education Issues Policy Brief, American Federation of Teachers, February 2002. Accessed February 2, 2011.
Join the Conversation