Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Castañeda Three-Part Test

In the historic Supreme Court case of Lau v. Nichols, decided in 1974, a group of non-English-speaking students and parents of Chinese ancestry filed a class action suit against the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), claiming that they had been denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Title VI banned discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal financial assistance. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of the plaintiffs:

Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public 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)

The ruling did not specify any specific remedy because no specific remedy had been requested by the plaintiffs. The court noted that “no remedy is urged upon us.”

As a result of the Lau v. Nichols decision, Congress took various actions. They passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) in 1974, which prohibits denial of equal access and deliberate segregation and requires districts to take actions to remedy language barriers. By codifying the language of the Lau decision into law, Congress ensured that the ruling of the court would endure. In addition, the legislators passed amendments to the Bilingual Education Act, which provided federal funding for bilingual programs at a higher level than before. In 1975, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued the “Lau Remedies,” which specified procedures for identifying limited-English-proficient (LEP) students, provided guidelines for determining which type of program was needed to meet students' needs, set program exit guidelines (also known as reclassification), and established standards for teachers in terms of the profile and training they should have. The Lau Remedies were used for several years by the OCR of the U.S. Department of Education in conducting Lau compliance reviews. But the remedies were an administrative solution that needed more power behind them.

Castañeda v. Pickard

An important complement to the Lau decision came in 1981 in the form of yet another court case, Castañeda v. Pickard. In that case, the plaintiffs charged a school district in Raymondville, Texas, with discrimination. They claimed that the district used ability grouping in a way that segregated and created learning obstacles for LEP students. They also said that the hiring of Mexican American faculty and administrators was not representative of the population in the district (close to 90% Mexican American). The district was accused, in addition, of not providing students with adequate bilingual education to overcome the linguistic barriers that prevented them from fully benefiting from the regular instructional program. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that the use of standardized tests in English to measure progress was not an appropriate way to demonstrate academic growth. The court ruled that the district should not mix the concept of intelligence with language abilities and should not use “low” as a designator of English proficiency. The court held that ability grouping was beneficial sometimes and that it was not illegal per se. It also ruled that a focus on the English language in the early years of schooling was appropriate and that there were appropriate measures, such as learning centers, to assist students with academic matters in the district. The school district was asked to look at testing procedures and hiring practices. An interesting point about this case is that the plaintiffs sued for violation of both Title VI and the EEOA, which had codified Lau.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution