Lau Decision

In 1974, a group of non–English-speaking Chinese students sued the San Francisco Unified School District. The case represented 2,856 Chinese-speaking students in the area who were receiving classroom instruction solely in English. In contrast, the same educational system provided language support to Spanish-speaking students. The plaintiffs contended that classes in public schools could be done in English or in Chinese while they were learning English. Being forced to participate in an environment that solely favored the English-speaking student limited their abilities to learn. From a historical perspective, this represented a systematic isolation of the group of people from mainstream American life.

The plaintiffs maintained that the public school system denied them access to quality and meaningful education simply because of their limited proficiency in the English language. They based their argument on the wording of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. From their perspective, the San Francisco Unified School District violated this provision, although Title VI did not specifically address the needs of linguistic minorities.

Igniting this debate was the California Education Code §71, which stated, “English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools.” That section permits a school district to ascertain when and under what circumstances bilingual instruction may be necessary. As a result, bilingual instruction was authorized on the condition that it did not interfere with the “systematic, sequential, and regular instruction of all pupils in the English language.” Furthermore, §8573 of the Education Code provided that no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from Grade 12 who had not met the standards of proficiency in English, as well as other prescribed subjects.

In the case Lau v. Nichols, the decision of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice William O. Douglas on January 21, 1974, favored the plaintiffs while at the same time opening a channel for public policy. Where the decision of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas of 1954 established the principle of equal access to educational services, the state standards did not guarantee students with limited English proficiency access to a fair and equitable education. With Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court stipulated that all children should have an opportunity to a “meaningful education” regardless their language, in that language becomes an identifier for race, ethnicity, or national origin. As with native English speakers, students of limited proficiency in English should be ensured access to the same curriculum; therefore, public schools have the responsibility for overcoming language barriers. Despite the significance of this case, the Supreme Court did not prescribe pedagogy to solve the problem; that task was left as the responsibility of the school systems. As a result, the public education system began refining and integrating bilingual and English as a second language (ESL) classes as a part of the instructional delivery system when appropriate.