State of Language Rights and Bilingual Education 50 years After Lau vs. Nichols

January 21, 2024 marked the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court case of 1974 which enshrined in law that students identified as English learners (ELs) must be provided with the necessary services to “fully participate” in their education, regardless of their home language. The class action case was brought forth on behalf of 1,800 Cantonese-speaking students from Chinese backgrounds enrolled in San Francisco Unified School District who were not being provided supplemental language instruction. The plaintiffs argued that without the appropriate linguistic supports, these students could not reasonably access equal educational opportunities they were entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

The provisions of Lau require that every school district serving EL-classified students have their own plan to ensure these students meaningful access to the district's educational program. To be sure, the scope of Lau’s impact has only broadened since 1974. For example, in San Francisco alone, there were 14,844 EL-classified students in 2022–23 speaking 51 different languages. Nationally, students classified as ELs represent roughly 10 percent of the K–12 population at around five million students.

On January 22, the School of Educational Studies at Claremont University hosted a webinar to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Lau and reflect on issues of advocacy, civil rights, policy and practice implementation. The event served as a pulse check for the state of language rights and bilingual education in the U.S. over the last 50 years as a result of Lau. So how have things changed since then?

On the positive side, several panelists spoke about the fact that research and evidence to support bilingual education has grown. There is consensus that bilingual education, including dual language programs that provide instruction in English and a partner language such as Spanish or Mandarin, is the best approach for students identified as ELs. Yet, as the benefits of bilingualism have become more amplified, these programs are increasingly saturated with English-dominant students, shared several panelists. In Texas, for example, Celina Moreno, president and CEO of the Intercultural Development Research Association shared that only 20 percent of EL-identified students participate in dual language programs, and the rest are still being educated in English as a Second Language (ESL) and other bilingual programs.

Despite progress on the research front, a resounding sentiment among panelists was that the promise of equitable access to education for students whose first language is not English remains unfulfilled and incomplete. As Edward Steinman, the original plaintiff attorney in Lau stated, policies such as Lau are not self-executing, they are just words unless reified with action, and there still seems to be barriers standing in the way of aligning policy and practice.

First, the education of EL-classified students is still highly politicized, potentially even more so than in 1974. Several panelists expressed that there still seems to be a need to win over the “hearts and minds” of those in positions of power who make programmatic and resource decisions that shape these students’ educational prospects. Michael Robert, a superintendent from Arizona shared his experience navigating a political landscape where those in positions of power continue to try to deny EL-identified students access to dual language programs.

This response is related to a misconception that still permeates the public consciousness that language is to blame for these students’ “underachievement”, when in reality underfunded schools and inadequate practices lead to inequitable access to education and hence, lower outcomes. Instead, panelists argued, focus should be placed on how to increase dedicated funding to design linguistically and culturally appropriate programs for these students.

Lastly, as Eugene Garcia, professor emeritus at Arizona State University expressed, fulfilling the intent of Lau is not possible without properly trained teachers in the classroom. Unfortunately, the teacher workforce has not been immune to anti-immigrant socio-political ideologies that position speaking a language other than English as a deficit. Many would-be bilingual teachers who grow up in the U.S. experience what Cristina Alfaro, associate vice president of international affairs at San Diego State University, described as “language shame,” about their lack of proficiency in their home language. As a result, not only is there a shortage of bilingual educators entering the profession, but there is also a lack of awareness, understanding, and capacity by those already working in schools and districts on how to build coherent educational programs for linguistically diverse students.

Looking at the next 50 years, panelists were hopeful that we could continue to break down these barriers by centering the benefits of multilingualism on EL-identified students, better defining and differentiating what equity means for these students, and creating better partnerships between schools, the broader community, and research and policy practitioners.

After Lau, San Francisco Unified entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice to bring them into compliance with their civil rights obligations to EL-classified students. The consent decree was in place until 2019, which means that it took the district 45 years to rectify their shortcomings to students classified as ELs. There is no denying that Lau is a cornerstone of the larger fabric of civil rights legislation that protects linguistically diverse students, but 45 years is too long to realize change for these students. Let us hope it does not take 50 more years to bring equitable learning environments to life for EL-classified students.