Living up to Lau? Let’s consider
Happy 49th anniversary to Lau v. Nichols, the seminal Supreme Court case from January 21, 1974, in which the justices ruled that students who do not speak English as their primary language must be provided with additional educational assistance to receive equal educational opportunities. The case was brought by Lau, representing a group of 2,856 Chinese American students in San Francisco who argued that they were being denied equal educational opportunities because they were unable to understand their lessons due to a lack of language support in their schools.
According to the Court, the omission to offer supports to non-English speaking students infringed on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding.
Court wrote,
“There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the education program, [he] must already have acquired those basic skills, is to make a mockery of public education.”
The Court's decision in Lau v. Nichols had a profound impact on teachers since it mandated that non-English speaking pupils receive language assistance to ensure that they had an equal opportunity to learn. However, in reality, it really wasn’t equal. In fact, the Lau decision gave implicit permission to segregate students by language.
Although the Lau v. Nichols ruling encouraged many schools to start English as a Second Language (ESL) programs and hire instructors skilled in teaching English to non-native speakers, the case also sparked the creation of new laws aimed at ensuring non-English speaking students receive an equal education. The Improving Schools Act (1994) attempted to integrate our ML students into regular classes, but it lacked the necessary enforcement powers.
All this legislation spurred on the development of state standards and eventually No Child Left Behind. And while there is plenty that is odious in No Child Left Behind (2002), it required people to be aware of the plight of ML students, and it held educational institutions to account if progress wasn’t made. The separation of Title I and Title III funding in No Child Left Behind damaged the integration of learning English from learning content which makes for a strange and bewildering experience for ML students. And in the process of complying with the law, the work of the ELL specialist and interventionists were viewed as fixing students’ deficiencies in reading rather than taking an integrated and asset-driving approach that supported and expanded their linguistic and cultural talents.
It wasn’t until the Common Core (which wasn’t a law but was tied to national funding) that we saw an effort for genuine guidance through standards for integrating language and content.
It’s important periodically to reflect on whether our work in schools is meeting the goals of the Lau ruling and the intent of all subsequent laws and guidelines that followed. Often, we are moving so fast on limited resources that in our rush to serve our multilingual students (MLS) and get them speaking English as soon as possible, we forget to center our multilingual students’ linguistic and cultural gifts and provide them with the full learning opportunities that schools offer.
What does it exactly mean to ensure that non-English speaking students have an equal opportunity to learn? Think about these practices and reaffirm our commitment to the Lau decision and the subsequent legislation.
Provide adequate language and content support: Schools and teachers should not assume that ML students will automatically acquire English language skills simply by being in a classroom where English is spoken. They must provide appropriate and adequate support to help students learn the language while also learning the content. Often general education teachers don’t see this as their job. But language without content is not providing full equal opportunity to students. As Dr. Jose Medina said, “If you’re not providing linguistic supports for your students, then you’re actively engaging in linguistic oppression.“
Embrace, leverage, and value students' native languages and cultures: Schools and teachers shouldn't discount the importance of students' first languages and cultures since they act as a firm basis for studying English and other academic subjects and for laying the platform for cultural appreciation and understanding. Toward this end, we must all gently and collectively dampen and correct colleague’s narratives that minimize and devalue the linguistic and cultural backgrounds and talents of ML students.
Involve parents and families in the education process and learn from them: Schools and teachers must include parents and families of ML students in the education process. They should also include them in the education process by providing information and resources in a language they can understand, and by creating opportunities for them to be involved in their child's education. And in reciprocation, school systems must learn and change based on the input from their families and community. Parents are partners, and a child’s first and best teacher. Partner up.
Provide a full range of accommodations: Schools and teachers should provide accommodations to ML students as needed to ensure they have an equal opportunity to learn across subject areas. Pulling students out of subject area coursework or repeatedly taking the same course over and over, does not assist students linguistically or culturally. Accommodations may include providing additional time for assessments, providing visual aids, and using alternative assessment methods.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies used: Schools and teachers should implement strategies for ML students and evaluate their effectiveness and make necessary adjustments. Assessments should entail a full range of data points from satellite, map, and street data (Safir & Dugan, 2021). Regularly monitoring and assessing the progress of ML students and the effectiveness of instruction and support is crucial to ensure that they are making progress and achieving academic success.
Engage in professional learning on ML students: The field of education is always advancing, and as it changes, how we work with ML students also evolves. Continuous and collective professional learning through inquiry or action research that addresses linguistically and culturally sustaining practices are essential to ensuring students are constantly centered in the classroom.
Let’s strive to assure a strong legislative legacy and give deep thought to how we and our schools are meeting the needs of our ML students. Let’s be better together.
