Lau v Nichols research paper

Lau v Nichols research paper - 1 As a result of the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 As a result of the Immigration act of 1965, San Francisco schools experienced a sharp increase in the number of immigration students in the late sixties. In the years that followed, San Francisco Unified School District failed to provide Chinese American students with an equal opportunity for Education that their white counterparts were receiving in the classroom. In 1970, two thousand eight hundred and fifty-six Chinese American students did not speak English (1). Roughly a third of these non English speaking students (1,000 of 2,856) were given supplemental English courses, but only for one hour a day in school. One thousand eight hundred students received no core English instruction at all. Parents of these Chinese American students were frustrated and at their wits end over these schools not providing an education for their kids, so with the help of a poverty attorney, they took their case to court. District court failed to recognize the value of their case and they denied relief of the problem. The court of Appeals heard the case, but reasoned that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment or title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court of Appeals stated, “every student brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background that are created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system” (1). Basically, in layman’s terms, every kid comes to school with their own baggage, the baggage of the Chinese American student being the language barrier, but it’s not the responsibility of the school to shoulder the load and address that disadvantage-the court of Appeals believes it’s something that
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

Lau v Nichols research paper - 1 As a result of the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online