Non-English Chinese Case Summary

Satisfactory Essays
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.
Get Access