Educating English Language Learners: History of Lau vs. Nichols

Furthermore, the two cases are different in some aspects as well. In Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970), the students involved were Mexican-Americans and the issue being settled was IQ testing in students’ primary language. In Larry P. v. Riles (1984), the students involved were African-Americans and the issue being settled was the racial disproportionate placement in special

George Hall a Californian white man, murdered a Chinese immigrant in front of his peers. Hall was arrested and convicted to murder, following the law. However, Hall appealed claiming that he should be set free since Chinese shouldn’t even be allowed to testify. The case went to the Californian Supreme Court, and overturned his conviction supporting Hall. According to the court Chinese immigrants were “Indians.”

In 1981, the parents of several school aged children of Mexican Origin filed a suit against Superintendent James Plyler, of Tyler, Texas, regarding immigration status. The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) case decision could not have happened prior to 1982, if numerous cases had not paved the way. Some of the significance cases were Vlandis v. Kline (412 U.S. 441 (1973)), which denied an individual an opportunity to present evidence they were a resident entitled to in-state-rates. In Weinberger v. Salfe (422 U.S. 771 (1975)), denied social security benefits to be paid to a mother and child after her husband died. In Toll v. Moreno (441 U.S. 458 (1978)), a student was financially depend upon a person who held a G-4 visa, granted to officers or employees of international organizations. In Elkins v. Moreno (435 U.S. 647 (1978), the student was refused in-state-status, whose parents were lived in Maryland.

In Philippa Strum in Mendez v. Westminster, Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez were farmers who initially had tried to enrol their children in a white school which happened to be a hundred miles north of Mexican border. Upon requesting their enrolment, they were turned away and asked to attend to a nearby Mexican Americans school. In response, Mendez and other distressed parents from the neighbourhood went to federal court in order to challenge the segregation where they did not claim it as racial discrimination since Mexicans were legally considered white. The aggrieved parent rather referred their claims as discrimination based on ancestry, therefore, proposed it as language deficiency which denied their children their 14th Amendment rights to

School trustees in Victoria, British Columbia, tried to take Chinese students out of regular classes and put them in separate schools. The Chinese Canadians protested by their children out of school for an entire year.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students. The court agreed that the student's rights should be protected and that ‘students do not shed their constitutional

In the document “Meyer v. Nebraska and the Meaning of Liberty (1923)”, exhibits a predicament regarding with an anti-immigrant sentiment towards the restriction of teaching in a foreign language by a number of states. However, due to the circumstances, Robert Meyer, a parochial school teacher in Nebraska, was convicted due to “violating a 1919 law that mandated that all instruction be in English.” The logic behind this is that they were concern about immigrants specifically german/catholics because they didn’t want them to learn German as their primary language because it will hinder them be “good Americans/Nebraskans.” Furthermore, the state supreme court upheld his conviction thus, arguing that the law had contravene the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of liberty to all citizenship. Correspondingly, after the dispute, the result was a 7-2 vote, henceforth, declaring the Nebraska law unconstitutional. All things considered, the

Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration. 1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling (qtd. in Stewart, par. 8).

     What culture they had was to be forgotten – a difficult and practically impossible feat. The Chinese-Americans faced a wall of cultural difference that could only be scaled with the support of their parents and local community. The book review of Bone by Nhi Le stated clearly how “ … the first generations’ struggle to survive and the second generations’ efforts to thrive … ” made the transition into American culture possible. Overcoming barriers such as language, education, work ethic, and sex roles was just a beginning to the problems that all Asian – Americans faced.

to creating the Migrant Education Program or MEP with 9 million dollars to begin its operation. In 1968 the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare currently referred to as the U.S. department of Education convened a conference of state education representatives to ensure the M.E.P. would accomplish its goal. The conference signaled the federal government’s commitment to the M.E.P. by promoting collaboration at all levels of government. Certain court rulings like Lau vs. Nichols in 1974, determined that the San Francisco school system did not provide English language instruction to students who did not speak English which denied those students meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational programs. This court ruling clearly indicated that “school districts had to take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open their instructional program” to immigrant students.

When coming through Angel Island which was one of their entry points, they could have been detained anywhere from days to months. This group of immigrants faced such decimation. Americans that traveled such as diplomats and missionaries, described them as a superstitious and devious race. The Asian’s faced discrimination before Pearl Harbor, and after it was unbearable. Toward the end of World War II, the situation started to change for the better for Asian immigration and rights. The Asian’s formed groups in their comminutes and lobbied their government for protection. Not until 1947 where they allowed to enter our schools. Prior to that they were segregated into schools for “Mongolian or Asian descent”. In 1952 the Immigration and Nationality

Non-English Chinese students argued that they were being immersed in all English classes with no support and accommodations to acquire English. The District Court and Court of Appeals denied relief because they stated the district followed the California Code of Education which states that main instructional language is English. Moreover, immersion would help them graduate since the state requires students to be English proficient in order to receive their diploma. Thus, they concluded that the Fourteen Amendment equal protection clause and the 1964 Civil Rights Act are not violated. The plaintiffs then hoped to get justice from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Of my entire Sunday Chinese class I was the only one to get a C. The remainder grades were above 95%. The teacher rounded me up to a 90% for my efforts and disadvantaged conditions. I am a Twinkie - yellow on the outside, American on the inside. I look like everyone else but struggle to differentiate tones of characters. My classmates were all 2nd generation immigrants with both parents speaking Chinese at home. My parents speak full-English and meager Chinese. I am 100% Chinese but a 3rd generation immigrant. My limited language ability has erected a barrier between myself and my ethnically similar peers, which has allowed me to view the world through a different lense.

Thanks to California Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibits state institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity specifically in the areas of public employment and public education, Asian American enrollment rates in the University of California system remained stable at a rate of around 40 percent. In contrast, the percentage of Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard, and other Ivy League schools remains remarkably stable for the past 20 years at around 16 percent despite the increasing Asian American applicants (Washington Post). Apparently, AB 1726 is used as a backdoor way to overturn Proposition 209, which bans the affirmative action. Concerns have been rising among Chinese American communities that AB 1726 will be a threat to Chinese American’s struggle for social and economic equality. Also, AB 1726 is not the first act that attempts to reintroduce affirmative action in California. Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5(SCA 5) was proposed to eliminate Proposition 209’s ban on the use of race, sex, color and ethnicity in college admission in California admission system (California Legislative Information), but was withdrawn because of the fervent opposition from primarily Asian American communities. If SCA 5 is highway robbery, AB1726 is deception and inseparably linked to SCA 5. Instead of supporting overt racial discrimination, supporters who crave

Every year, many international students, particularly those from China come to the United States in pursuit of their higher education. Nonetheless, these international students’ desire and quest for further education and a better future faces many hurdles, especially the hurdle of language barrier. This research paper focuses on the issue of language barrier, and its limits of the potential of Chinese international students studying in America. As will be discussed in this paper, besides limiting their educational potential, language barrier also limits other aspects of these international students’ stay in America, including their communication with the locals and accessing various social places. This paper will also examine the assertion by the other side of the divide including Chinese authorities and education stakeholders in China who claim that presently, language barrier is not an issue for Chinese students. Thus, this research paper seeks to demystify the claims and facts on this matter.