Please view explanation and answer below.

EQUAL ACCESS TO CURRICULUM

1

Equal access to the curriculum
Student’s name
Institution
Date

EQUAL ACCESS TO CURRICULUM

2

Equal access to the curriculum
Introduction
This report will focus on the persistent struggle of ELL students to access equal education
opportunities. There has been debate over the use of other languages besides English in public
schools and this has ignited several litigations seeking to address the issue (Watson, 2004). I
have discovered that despite the efforts school districts put into providing equal access to
education for all students, ELL students often still face numerous challenges in mainstream
classrooms. I think that failure to cater to the language needs of ELL learners infringes on their
rights. Students placed in a typical classroom even though they lack English proficiency are
often left to "sink" or "swim" and this jeopardizes their education aspirations.
Case laws about learning and linguistic requirements of ELL students have had immense
effect on state and federal guidelines for ELL learners, families, and the public. Starting in the
early 70s, controversies and conflicts have caused problems on what is suitable learning for ELL
students (Watson, 2004). Some court cases support bilingual education while others erode the
support. Some of the cases entail lawsuits filed against bilingual education while others were
filed against anti-bilingual education voter programs.
The three court cases that I found were ruled roughly 45 years ago and they dwell on the
broader aspect of ELL and how ELL students should be able to access equal education like their
peers. Even though the problem is not common now as it was half a century ago, history
provides districts with important insights on how to approach them. I aim at linking the historical
rulings to the current situation of ELL students. The three cases this analysis will focus on are

EQUAL ACCESS TO CURRICULUM

3

Lau V. Nichols (1974), Serna v. Portales (1974), and one case that eroded the support for
bilingual education which is Castañeda v. Pickard (1981).
Lau V. Nichols (1974)
This case was filed by Chinese American learners in San Francisco School District who
were put in a typical classroom despite their lacking English proficiency in 1974. They were left
to "sink or swim" (Watson, 2004). The district stated that it right in its policies and that the
students had been treated equally similar to other students. The Justice strongly disagreed by
stating that:
“Under these state-imposed standards 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.” (Lau V.
Nichols (1974)
This case influenced federal policy because after the ruling, the Department of
Education’s Civil Rights office developed the Lau remedies. Although the Bilingual Education
Act guidelines applied to finance initiatives, the Lau Remedies apply to all school districts and
provided and acted as a template for compliance (Watson, 2004). The essence of this case was
codified into federal law through the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).
Section 1703 (f) of...