1.  Kelly Fogle EDPS 685 2013

2.  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.  San Francisco Unified School District was integrated in 1971  2,856 non-English speaking Chinese students in the school system o 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.  1,800 Chinese-American students o 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.  Alan H. Nichols o President of the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District  Did not have resources to provide bilingual education o Lack of budget and teachers

6.  “English-only” policy denies non-English speaking students equal protection of the laws o 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 learning o Grade retention o Placement in special education classes  Lau and colleagues’ suggestions (Crawford, 1996; Sugarman & Widess, 1974)

7.  Case was first heard by the District Court for the Northern District of California o 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 o 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.  Consequences of a decision in favor of the plaintiffs: o Substantial positive changes in the education of non-English- speaking children o 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)

9.  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

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

11.  Lau Remedies were not formalized (Reagan administration) o Office of Civil Rights cut back enforcement o 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 14 th Amendment o Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) Only applies to instruction, not high stakes testing (Moran, 2005)

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

13.  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)

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

15. 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.