-
Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964This law prohibited discrimination in federally funded programs. It states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” -
Serna V. Portales
Serna v. PortalesPortales Municipal Schools were not meeting the needs of “Spanish surnamed students”; therefore, they were sued on the basis that they were violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found the school programs inadequate. As a result, Portales Municipal Schools were ordered to implement a bilingual curriculum, hire bilingual personnel, and revise their methods when assessing achievement. -
Lau v. Nichols
Lau v. Nichols This law was the result of a suit filed by the parents of Chinese students, who could not speak English, against the San Francisco Unified School District. The lawsuit alleged that the Chinese students were not being provided with equal educational opportunities; therefore, they were violating their fourteen amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district was in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act 1964. As a result, the Sink or Swim practices were abolished. -
Equal Educational Opportunities Act
EEOAThis federal law required states and school districts to provide equal education opportunities for English language learners. In addition, state and school districts were required to take “appropriation action” in order to overcome language barriers. The EEOA states that “No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.” -
Aspira V, New York
Aspira v. New YorkAspira filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of the City of New York on behalf of Puerto Rican parents and their children. The lawsuit alleged that students who were not proficient in English were being denied equal education because of the language barrier. It resulted in the Aspira Consent Decree, which mandated transitional bilingual programs for students who were not English proficient. -
Lau Remedies
Lau RemediesThis law instructed school districts on how to identify and evaluate children that were not proficient in English. It also gave instructions on how to mainstream students. In addition, it also recommended bilingual education as the best option for elementary students. -
Rios V. Reed
Rios v. Reed Puerto Rican parents sued the school disctirct alleging that the district was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the EEOA. They felt that students were not being provided proper blingual education. The federal court concluded that the Medford School District’s bilingual program was in fact inadequate. -
Castañeda v. Pickard
Castañeda v. Pickard-- This law was the result of a suit filed by Mexican American students and their parents against the Raymondville school district in Texas. The court ruled that the programs for ELLS should be based on “sound educational theory”, they must be “implemented effectively” with adequate resources and personal, and they must be evaluated as effective in helping overcome language barriers. -
Plyler V. Doe
Plyler v. DoeThe Supreme Court ruled that public schools were prohibited from denying any student, regardless of their immigrant status, their right to public education. The Supreme Court ruled that denying students a public education would be violating the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteen amendment. -
Executive Order 13166
Executive Order 13166 This federal law, signed by President Clinton, was a directive to federal agencies to ensure that ELLs received access to programs, services, and benefits.
