ESL 154 Test Prep (Competency 8)

Organize these options into the right categories

• Castañeda v. Picard

• Guidelines were established to ensure that English as Second Language programs were substantive and enabled students to overcome language barriers.

• Plessy v. Ferguson

• Bilingual education could not be outlawed.

• Plyler v. Doe

• Public schools were able to remain segregated under the Plessy ruling.

• Lau v. Nichols

• All children living in the United States, regardless of immigrant status, were entitled to a free, public education.

• Meyer v. Nebraska

• Schools are responsible for providing English as a Second Language education so they have access to the content of instruction.

In ​ (a)   , the U.S. Supreme Court issued its now infamous decision that “separate but equal” public facilities, including school systems, are constitutional. Although the decision related to the segregation of African American students, in many parts of the country Native American, Asian, and Hispanic students also faced routine segregation.

• Plessy v. Ferguson
• Meyer v. Nebraska
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Lau v. Nichols
• Castañeda v. Pickard
• Plyler v. Doe

Public schools were able to remain segregated.

In ​ (a)   , the 14th Amendment was upheld providing legal protection for language minorities. Prior to this case, passed a law that prohibited schools from teaching children any language other than English. A Lutheran School teacher, who taught his students in German, was convicted under this law. The US Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional.

The decision established the principle that parents have a constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children, including their education and specifically the right of communities to teach their primary languages to their children. Bilingual education could not be outlawed.

• Brown v. Board of Education
• Lau v. Nichols
• Castañeda v. Pickard
• Plyler v. Doe
• Plessy v. Fergusson
• Meyer v. Nebraska

In ​ (a)   , a group of non-English speaking students of Chinese Heritage alleged that the San Francisco Public School District did not provide equal educational opportunities, because schools offered no programs for second language learners. Therefore, the district was denying its Fourteenth Amendment rights and violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case was brought before the United States Supreme Court which unanimously ruled in favor of the students. The court explained that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act protects children who are not proficient in English and their parents from discrimination Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race color or national origin in any program receiving federal financial assistance. 

This court decision determined that schools must take effective measures to overcome the educational challenges faced by non-English speakers and provide effective English as a Second Language education programs that teach both English language proficiency and provide access to the content of instruction. The Office of Civil Rights interpreted the Court's decision as effectively requiring bilingual education unless the school district could prove that another approach would be equally or more effective.

• Brown v. Board of Education
• Castañeda v. Pickard
• Plyler v. Doe
• Plessy v. Fergusson
• Lau v. Nichols
• Meyer v. Nebraska

What constitutes a legally sufficient ESL program? ​ (a)  

In 1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit established a three-part test for determining how programs for English learners would be held responsible for meeting the requirements of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. The criteria require that the program be:

- based on sound educational theory

• - Implemented effectively with resources for personnel, instructional, materials, and space

• - Monitored to prove the program model’s effectiveness

• Brown v. Board of Education
• Castañeda v. Pickard
• Plyler v. Doe
• Plessy v. Fergusson
• Meyer v. Nebraska
• Lau v. Nichols

In ​ (a)   , the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that undocumented immigrants and their children are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Prior, Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold funds from local school districts for educating children of undocumented immigrants.

• Brown v. Board of Education
• Plessy v. Fergusson
• Meyer v. Nebraska
• Lau v. Nichols
• Plyler v. Doe
• Castañeda v. Pickard

In 1954, in ​ (a)   , the Supreme Court unanimously reversed ​ (b)   after 58 years.

Again, even though the case is related to African American students, the ruling emphasizes the responsibility of states to create equal educational opportunities for all, effectively paving the way for future policy on ESL and bilingual education.

• Lau v. Nichols
• Castañeda v. Pickard
• Plyler v. Doe
• Meyer v. Nebraska
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Plessy v. Ferguson

Bilingual education could not be outlawed.

• Meyer v Nebraska
• Lau v. Nichols

• Castañeda v. Pickard

• Plyler v. Doe

• Brown v. Board of Education

Guidelines were established to ensure that English as a Second Language programs were substantive and enabled students to overcome language barriers.

• Meyer v Nebraska
• Lau v. Nichols

• Castañeda v. Pickard

• Plyler v. Doe

• Brown v. Board of Education