Lau v. Nichols

Kelly FogleEDPS 685

2013

Importance of Lau v. Nichols

Included with Brown v. Board of Education as one of the cases with the greatest impact on the field of education in the past 60 years

(Zirkel, 2001)

Expanded on Brown v. Board of Education by seeking a ruling on exclusionary practices – intentional or not

(Moran, 2005)

Lau v. Nichols Background

San Francisco Unified School District was integrated in 1971

2,856 non-English speaking Chinese students in the school systemo 1,800 did not receive any supplemental English

instruction and were immersed in the regular curriculum full-time

Non-English speaking students felt they were denied a meaningful public education

(Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

Plaintiffs

1,800 Chinese-American studentso Kam Wai Lau, mother of one of the students

(Kinney Kinmon Lau)

Education is not ‘meaningful’ if students are taught in a language they are not able to understand (Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

Photo credit: Historical photo collection of San Francisco Public

Library’s San Francisco History Center

Defendants

Alan H. Nichols o President of the Board of Education of the San Francisco

Unified School District

Did not have resources to provide bilingual educationo Lack of budget and teachers

Claims

“English-only” policy denies non-English speaking students equal protection of the lawso Education is not ‘meaningful’ if students are taught in a

language they are not able to understand

Consequences of a “sink or swim?” approach:o Slower-paced learningo Grade retentiono Placement in special education classes

Lau and colleagues’ suggestions

(Crawford, 1996; Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

Progression of the case:

Case was first heard by the District Court for the Northern District of Californiao RULING: School district offered “the same education” to the

plaintiffs as it did to other students in the district• Plaintiffs denied relief

Decision appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuito Plaintiffs denied relief

• Reasoning: “every student brings to the starting line of his educational career, different advantages and disadvantages” which may impact his education “apart from any contribution by the school system”

U.S. Supreme Court(Moran, 2005; Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

Controversial Case

Consequences of a decision in favor of the plaintiffs:o Substantial positive changes in the education of non-

English-speaking childreno Could be viewed as judicial intrusion into local education

policies

Consequences of a decision in favor of the defendants:o Could be viewed as a lack of commitment to equal

educational opportunity for minority children• Consider time period – integration of San Francisco schools

was relatively recent

(Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

January 21, 1974 --- Decision was unanimously reversed

San Francisco school system denied students a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program

o Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

o Students have the right to a meaningful education under the school’s program• Calls for more than just English language development classes

o Left remedy for the problem up to local governments

• ESL classes + access to general curriculum

(Lucas & Katz, 1994; Moran, 2005; Sugarman & Widess, 1974) Warren Burger Supreme

Court

Impact of Lau v. Nichols

Californiao Bilingual education plan

(Crawford, 1996) The “Lau Remedies”

o Identify student’s primary/home languageo Diagnostic/prescriptive approacho Educational program selectiono Required and elective courseso Instructional personnel requirementso Evaluation

(Baker & deKanter, 1983; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1976)

Decisions since Lau v. Nichols

Lau Remedies were not formalized (Reagan administration)o Office of Civil Rights cut back enforcemento Funding cuts for ELL programs

• LEP population increased by 40%, funding decreased by 40%• “Additive bilingualism” – L2 development does not need to be at the expense of L1

(Crawford, 1996)

Lau decision being “undone” by law:o Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission

• “Title VI authorizes compensatory relief only for purposeful wrongs, not actions with adverse effects.”

o Alexander v. Sandoval• Private plaintiffs can only file lawsuits for intentional discrimination

• 14th Amendment

o Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)• Only applies to instruction, not high stakes testing

(Moran, 2005)

Continued Problems Insufficient resources and staff for ELL programs

o Lack of evidence-based materials, assessments, etc.

Politicso Inconsistent support for programs based on voter

attitudes• Anti-immigrant bias

(Crawford, 1996)

Indiana Office of English Learning and Migrant Education

o Title III of NCLB• Seeks to help Limited English Proficient (LEP) students become

proficient in English and meet the same academic standards as their peers

o Procedures:• Home Language Survey• LAS Links Placement test• Identification as LEP• Annual Parent Notification• Individual Learning Plan

• Annual LAS Links assessment• English development services until student receives two Level 5 scores

• Non-English Speaking Program (NESP)• State funded for eligible school corporations

(Indiana Department of Education, 2011)

Implications for Education and School Psychology

Learning another language takes time(Collier, 1989)

Programs for LEP studentso Bilingual Educationo Special Alternative Instructional Programs (SAIPs)

• generally English-only instruction• Partial bilingual programs

• E.g., Group work in native language

(Baker & deKanter, 1983; Lucas & Katz, 1994)

Challenges for School Psychologists?o RTIo Comprehensive assessment

• Tests with high language and cultural loadings

(Lopez et al., 1996; Orosco & Klingner, 2010).

ReferencesBaker, K.A. & de Kanter, A.A. (1983). Bilingual Education: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531.

Commission on Civil Rights (1997). Equal educational opportunity and nondiscrimination for students with limited English proficiency: Federal enforcement of Title VI and “Lau v. Nichols”. Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, 3, 1-248.

Crawford, J. (1996). Summing up the Lau decision: Justice is never simple. Revisiting the Lau Decision – 20 Years After: Proceedings of a National Commemorative Symposium. San Francisco, CA: ARC Associates.

Indiana Department of Education (2011). English learning and migrant education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/elme

Lopez, E. C., Lamar, D., & Scully-Demartini, D. (1997). The cognitive assessment of limited-English-proficient children: Current problems and practical recommendations. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 3, 117-130.

Lucas, T. & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 537-561.

Moran, R. F. (2005). Undone by law: The uncertain legacy of Lau v. Nichols. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 16, 1-10.

Orosco, M. J. & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: “Referring into RTI”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269-288.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (1976). Findings specifying remedies for eliminating past educational practices ruled unlawful under LAU v. Nichols. Proceedings of National Conferences on Research & Policy Implications: Lau Task Force Report. 1-315.

Sugarman, S. D. & Widess, E. G. (1974). Equal protection for non-English-speaking school children: Lau v. Nichols. California Law Review,62: 157-182.

Watson, T. S. (2004). Lau v. Nichols. In T. S. Watson & C. H. Skinner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of School Psychology, (pp. 174-176). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Zirkel, P. A. (2001). Decisions that have shaped U.S. education. Educational Leadership, 6-12.