Lau v. Nichols

1. Lau v. Nichols Kelly Fogle EDPS 685 2013

2. 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)

3. Lau v. Nichols Background • San Francisco Unified School District was integrated in 1971 • 2,856 non-English speaking Chinese students in the school system • 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)

4. Plaintiffs • 1,800 Chinese-American students • 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

5. Defendants • Alan H. Nichols • President of the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District • Did not have resources to provide bilingual education • Lack of budget and teachers

6. Claims • “English-only” policy denies non-English speaking students equal protection of the laws • Education is not ‘meaningful’ if students are taught in a language they are not able to understand • Consequences of a “sink or swim?” approach: • Slower-paced learning • Grade retention • Placement in special education classes • Lau and colleagues’ suggestions (Crawford, 1996; Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

7. Progression of the case: • Case was first heard by the District Court for the Northern District of California • 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 Circuit • 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)

8. Controversial Case • Consequences of a decision in favor of the plaintiffs: • Substantial positive changes in the education of non-English-speaking children • Could be viewed as judicial intrusion into local education policies • Consequences of a decision in favor of the defendants: • 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)

9. 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 • Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Students have the right to a meaningful education under the school’s program • Calls for more than just English language development classes • 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

10. Impact of Lau v. Nichols • California • Bilingual education plan (Crawford, 1996) • The “Lau Remedies” • Identify student’s primary/home language • Diagnostic/prescriptive approach • Educational program selection • Required and elective courses • Instructional personnel requirements • Evaluation (Baker & deKanter, 1983; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1976)

11. Decisions since Lau v. Nichols • Lau Remedies were not formalized (Reagan administration) • Office of Civil Rights cut back enforcement • 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: • Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission • “Title VI authorizes compensatory relief only for purposeful wrongs, not actions with adverse effects.” • Alexander v. Sandoval • Private plaintiffs can only file lawsuits for intentional discrimination • 14th Amendment • Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) • Only applies to instruction, not high stakes testing (Moran, 2005)

12. Continued Problems • Insufficient resources and staff for ELL programs • Lack of evidence-based materials, assessments, etc. • Politics • Inconsistent support for programs based on voter attitudes • Anti-immigrant bias (Crawford, 1996)

13. Indiana • Office of English Learning and Migrant Education • 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 • 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)

14. Implications for Education and School Psychology • Learning another language takes time (Collier, 1989) • Programs for LEP students • Bilingual Education • 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? • RTI • Comprehensive assessment • Tests with high language and cultural loadings (Lopez et al., 1996; Orosco & Klingner, 2010).

15. References Baker, 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.