ELL515

The San Francisco school system failed to provide adequate English language instructional procedures to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who don’t speak English. They violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination based on the ground of race, color, or national origin, in any program that receives Federal financial assistance. The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Lau.

I was not alive when this case was judged by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Castañeda v. Pickard was a trail in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1978, filed against the Raymondville Independent School District (RISD) in Texas by Roy Castañeda. The plaintiff’s case was that the RISD was discriminating against his Mexican American children because they didn’t speak English. The main argument was that segregating the classroom was racially discriminating and that the RISD failed to provide adequate bilingual education. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Castañedas in 1981. The decision created an assessment for determining responsibility for how bilingual education programs meet the requirements of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.

I was only 3-years-old when this case was heard and was not in school quite yet.

Plyler v. Doe was a United States Supreme Court case about state-provided funding for local school districts. The issue was whether it violated the Constitution to withhold state funding from school districts that educated children living in the country illegally. In a 5-4 decision issued in 1982, the court held that withholding state funds for local school districts that educated children residing in the country without legal permission was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I was not in school yet.

In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act by the U.S. Act of Congress, which included Title I provisions for disadvantaged students. The premise was that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals would improve education. The Act stated to receive federal school funding, states had to give basic skill assessments to all students. NCLB emphasized on annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, and teacher qualifications, as well as changes in funding. Although, by 2015, criticism accumulated, and Congress took away the No Child Left Behind and replaced it with the Every Student Succeeds Act.

By the time the NCLB Act was passed, I had already graduated high school. I was working full-time and had not yet attended college. At the time the act passed, I was too far removed for it to have an impact on me.

Williams v. California was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the State of California. The lawsuit was filed because of the conditions of many of its public schools were horrible, especially those schools in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The argument was that the State failed to provide the bare minimum necessities required for education. Williams won the settlement in that all students get books and all schools are clean and safe.

By the time this case was settled, I had already graduated high school. This case would not affect me because the high school I attended was not in a low-income area.

Every Student Succeeds Act was passed into United States law in 2015 and it oversees the K-12 public education policy. The ESSA superseded the No Child Left Behind Act because of the amount of criticism it accumulated. Just like the NCLB Act, the ESSA act is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965, which increased the federal government's role in public education.

I feel this act will affect my future in teaching. Especially if I work in a low-income school district.