English or Content Instruction

Among earlier generations of immigrants, especially adults, it was not uncommon for English language learners (ELLs) to study and learn English first and subsequently learn other subjects and skills in English. Persons unfamiliar with the status of current language policy in the United States often ask why schools do not employ an intensive English immersion program that takes up the students' entire day until they master the language. In short, why not teach them English first, intensively and without other subjects to distract them, before they are exposed to other portions of the curriculum such as history, science, or math? The answer is in two parts. First, that such a sequence would be in violation of the spirit of the Lau v. Nichols (1974) decision, which is detailed elsewhere in this encyclopedia. The second is that such a plan would not comport with the education profession's current thinking on how curriculum should be organized and sequenced. This entry briefly explores both of these reasons.

In the Lau decision, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke directly, tersely, and unequivocally to this point:

The Court also noted that because California requires all graduating students to pass a test in English at the end of their high school years, the schools have a legal responsibility to teach that language effectively. In short, it is not enough to require a certain score on the English test in order to graduate; there is a concomitant requirement that the schools teach that language well. We are not privy to the justices' complete thinking on this subject, but a review of the full decision suggests that they were not willing to impose greater requirements and responsibilities on language minority children that go beyond what is imposed on native speakers of English (see Appendix C for full text of the decision.). Instead, the decision focused on the responsibility of schools, since that was the issue before the court: to what degree schools are responsible to rectify a situation they did not create themselves, a linguistic incompatibility between the school and a segment of its student body. At the appellate court review of the case, Judge Shirley Hufstedler had made this point in clear and explicit terms. She pointed out that children learn whatever language is taught to them by their parents and that neither the teaching nor the learning of the non-English language can be used to negate the responsibilities of the schools relative to the lingua franca. Hufstedler argued that students could not be blamed or punished for having learned the language taught them by their parents.

Judge Hufstedler did not prevail at that level, but her idea and attendant logic found a more hospitable climate in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellate court had sided with the plaintiff, the San Francisco Unified School District, by ruling that the district had not created the linguistic incompatibility and was not, therefore, responsible for correcting it. Hufstedler and the Supreme Court saw things differently: It was not the legal responsibility of families to teach English to their children before they [Page 270]enter school. Rather, it was the school's responsibility to develop that language at the same time they were teaching other subjects to those children. The Court made it clear that it did not wish to see any delays in the ELLs' engagement with the full curriculum, which may have resulted if children were first required to learn English.

...