-
Use Cases
-
Resources
-
Pricing
1971
% complete
The court ordered the district to create a plan and put language programs into place that would help Mexican American students learn English and adjust to American culture. The court listened to José Cardenas and his theory of incompatibilities, which blamed the educational failure of students on the inadequacies of school programs rather than placing the blame on students themselves.
1973
% complete
This court case dealt with inequalities in school funding, the plaintiff charging that predominantly minority schools received less funding than schools that had predominantly White students. The case was argued under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The court stated that there is no fundamental right to an education guarenteed by the constitution. This leaded to their conclusion that if this was true that "there surely isn't a constitutional right to a bilingual education."
1974
% complete
This was the first case to raise the issue of bilingual education outside of the context of desegregation. The case was about a majority white school in New Mexico that failed to meet the needs of Spanish students. The judge stated that "It is incumbent on the school district to reassess and enlarge its program directed to the specialized needs of the Spanish-surnamed students" and to create bilingual programs at other schools where they are needed. This made clear that schools cannot ignore the language and educational needs of ELL students.
1975
% complete
Puerto Rican parents and children took legal action which resulted in the Aspira Consent Decree, which mandates transitional bilingual programs for Spanish-surnamed students found to be more proficient in Spanish than English. The Aspira Consent Decree is still in effect and has been used as a model for school districts.
1978
% complete
The federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the Brentwood School District's proposed bilingual program on grounds that it would violate Lau guidelines by unnecessarily segregating Spanish-speaking students from their English speaking peers in music and art. The court objected to the programs failure to provide for exiting students whose English language proficiency was sufficient for them to understand mainstream English instruction.
1978
% complete
Puerto Rican parents claimed that many so-called bilingual education programs were not bilingual but only based on ESL. The federal court found the district's bilingual programs to be inadequate. The court found lack of trained bilingual teachers and the absence of a clearly defined curriculum, and firm guidelines about how much instruction should be in the native language of the students.
1980
% complete
This case was in Colorado. This case failed in the plaintiffs attempt to obtain a court order for bilingual education. The plaintiffs wanted a plan for the Mexican American students like the testimony of Cardenas that was recommended by the court in United States v. Texas. Even though the area made up a small number of students in the district, and less than 3% could even speak or understand Spanish they wanted to provide this opportunity to those who needed it.
1982
% complete
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the state does not have the right to deny a free public education to undocumented immigrant children. Schools must admit all students, regardless of immigration status. This allows children in the states to receive education even if their parents aren't legal citizens.
1983
% complete
This was another Colorado case in which the court also rejected a plan similar to Cardenas on the basis that Lau did not mandate bilingual education and that in the Rodriguez case that stated there is no constitutional right to education. The court seemed content that the district was simply offering a number of programs for ELLs without looking at the adequacy of these programs.
1987
% complete
This case demonstrated the value of the Castaneda test in legal efforts to rectify inadequate programs. The court declared that school districts have a responsibility to serve ELL students and cannot allow children to just sit in classrooms where they cannot understand instruction.