Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Difference between revisions

** Court ruled in favor of Puerto Rican and other Hispanic students whose language and cultural needs weren't being addressed. This triggered an increased development of bilingual programs in New York public schools.<ref name="History of Bilingual Education"/>

** Court ruled in favor of Keyes recognizing the right that Hispanic children had to go to desegregated schools and not be racially isolated. The ruling recognizes Latinos’ suffering from systemic educational inequities.<ref name="History of Bilingual Education"/>

** Court ruled in favor of Lau which guarantees students the right to a “meaningful education” regardless of language. This ruling ensures that districts will provide students with the same [[curriculum]] via initiatives such as bilingual programs and ESL classes. It also increased district accountability—schools with high numbers of English language learners must submit reports to the federal government to show they're providing adequate support for these students.<ref>Sugarman, ["Equal Protection for Non-English-Speaking School Children: Lau v. Nichols."] California Law Review (0008-1221), 1974, vol. 62, issue 1, pp. 157–182</ref>

** Court ruled in favor of Serna that Portales Municipal Schools must provide a bilingual curriculum to accommodate the non-English speaking students. Texas also commits to employ bilingual personnel in schools.<ref name="History of Bilingual Education"/>

** Court ruled in favor of Rios that the Pastchogue-Medford School District's bilingual program offered to students was essentially an English-only course. The ruling states that these students were denied an equal education since they weren't instructed in Spanish extensively in elementary school.<ref name="History of Bilingual Education"/>

** Court ruled in favor of Castañeda that the school was racially segregating the Hispanic children in classes and not providing adequate bilingual programs to help them overcome English-language barriers. The decision established a clear evaluation system to hold bilingual programs accountable for providing equal educational opportunities (programs based on educational theory, implemented effectively, and proven to be successful in overcoming language barriers).

** Court ruled in favor of Horne that the state should have the right to determine the requirements of its English Language Learner programs. This holds schools less accountable for producing fluent English-speakers.