Sociological / Psycholinguistic   Bases of Bilingual Education 

Key Legal Cases in Bilingual Education.

         In the case of Lau v. Nichols, and Meyer v. Nebraska, there appears to emerge a recurring attitude modeled by the Courts in their decisions which politicians and pundits could stand to learn from if we as a multilingual multicultural nation are ever to come to an accord on how best to educate language minority students. This attitude is one of caution and open-mindedness.

  In Lau v. Nichols 1800 Chinese American students in the San Francisco area filed suit because of their district’s lack of action to afford them linguistically appropriate access to the curriculum, many of these students spoke little or no English thereby rendering even quality English instruction in math, science, and language arts largely useless. The district’s counsel argued that these students were given equal access to district resources.  The Supreme Court ruled that an English immersion program with no modifications for children with little or no English speaking abilities constituted a violation of their civil rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court however, did not purport to know the perfect educational vehicle through which these students would best be served; instead it simply directed the Board of Education to give guidance as to how the San Francisco school district should remedy their non-compliance. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the decision.    

No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioner asks only that the Board of Education apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation…

            This decision marked the end of the “sink or swim” policy that placed non-English speaking children in regular English classrooms with no modifications. It did not however mandate that every child be taught in her native language, but simply demands that instruction be rendered in a comprehensible manner.

  In Meyer v. Nebraska, a school teacher in Hamilton County, Nebraska, was brought up on charges of violating a 1919 statute which called for all instruction to be delivered in the English language until the 9^th grade. Robert Meyer taught a Bible story to a 10 year old child in the German language. 

This statute and others like it in Iowa, and Ohio came out of a period of nationalism and isolationism. Directly after the First World War Americans felt concern that recent immigrants were less willing than previous waves of immigrants to assimilate to the American way of life. An upbringing and schooling in their first language, it was felt, would work to undermine their feelings of loyalty and pride in their country of immigration.

While it was not possible to control what language was spoken in the home, it was possible to legislate that all instruction be carried out in English and therefore exposing second and third generations of immigrants to the majority language.

The Nebraska Supreme Court actually upheld Meyer’s conviction, declaring it unsafe for the nation that immigrant children should be raised and educated in the language of their parents.

The Supreme Court on the other hand reversed the decision of Nebraska’s highest court and struck down the statute sighting the 14^th amendment, which allows for individual liberty. It also pointed to the double standard of the statute prohibiting the use of immigrant languages before 9^th grade but allowing for the teaching of “dead languages” such as Latin, Hebrew, and Greek. If it is not detrimental to learn Hebrew at a young age then why would Italian, German, or Norwegian be any different? The court also stated that it understood the desire of the legislature to elicit or cultivate a homogeneous people with similar “American” notions. However the statute prohibiting the use of other languages as a vehicle of instruction was seen as an encroachment on an individual’s liberty.

  Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding language and education, the controversy over the education of language minorities has not been one of: should we make modifications or offer special assistance or not, but rather the debate has been over how best we can serve these individuals.

Components:

1. Cognitive Theories Paper  
2. Legal Cases Analytical Paper  
3. Presentation   
4. Notebook  
5. Paper   
6. Professional Development