Landmark Court Rulings

Regarding ELLs Gallery Walk

Use your and your classmates’ Gallery Walk research guides to answer each of the
following questions.

1. What future case was inspired by the Mendez v. Westminster School

District, et al. (1946) case? What similar issue did these two court cases
address?

Brown v. Board. Both address that having segregated school was unconstitutional.
Both of these cases deal with segregation within schools.

2. What was the plantiffs claim in the Lau v. Nichols (1974)case?

Failure to provide supplemental English classes constituted an unequal education

opportunity in violation of the 14th amendments and the civil rights act of 1964.

3. What are the Lau Remedies?

These are policy guidelines for English Language Learners education. This ruling
mandated school districts to comply with civil rights requirements of Title V1.

4. How is the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) connected

to the Lau v. Nichols case?

Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 prohibits discrimination against

faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requires
school districts to take action to overcome barriers to student’s equal participation.
This connects to Lau v. Nichols because in this court case they were fights for
providing equitable education opportunity for ELL students.

5. What are the three requirements for English language acquisition

programs that came as a result of the Castañeda v. Pickard (1978) ruling?

1. The bilingual education program must be “based on sound educational theory.”

2. The program must be “implemented effectively with resources for personnel,
instructional materials, and space.”
3. After a trial period, the program must be proven effective in overcoming
language barriers/handicaps

6. What was the outcome for Plyler v. Doe (1982)

The court ruled that denying undocumented children that are of illegal immigrants
the right to attend public school constitutes as discrimination based on alienage
that violates the 14th amendment is discrimination.

7. What do the Flores v. Arizona and Williams v. California cases have in

common?

In both cases ELL students were not being served properly in both Arizona and
California. In Arizona, the state was not properly funding programs for ELL
students, while in California ELL students were not being properly served with the
basic needs in education. Therefore, the state decided to rule that in California
school districts must have a certified ELL teacher to teach ELL students.