1

Mikala Miles

EDU 203 - 1001 (ESSR Grant) Introduction to Special Education

Artifact #1: Exploration of Historical Foundations In Special Education-Lau v. Nichols

Constantina Pappas

June 25, 2021

 2

The court case I have chosen to write about today is Lau v. Nichols. The supreme court case

of Lau V. Nichols is a landmark case because it led to many changes in education. The case was

brought to the supreme court for the school district to provide equal educational opportunities for

all after changes that had occurred in San Francisco's school system in 1971 when the school

district was integrated. As a result of the district integration, the school district took on 2,856

students of Chinese descent who had limited English proficiency. Of the 2,856 students, only

1,000 of them were provided with extra English language classes. Kinney Kinmon Lau (the

appellant) was among the students who did not receive the extra English classes. Together, a

group of students then brought the class action suit against the board of the San Francisco

Unified School District claiming the lack of extra classes for all students was a defiance of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Lau V. Nichols case appellants used Brown V. Board of Education as a “surface of equality”,

Though the Brown V. Board of Education case helped desegregate schools, it did not necessarily

however help students of the minority, which in this case, were students with limited English

proficiency. This lack of an appropriate education did not help improve the students’ ability and

motivation to learn. Due to this, students tended to be behind, not only in their educational

growth but their mental achievements as well. Though Brown V. Board provided the same

classes it did not ensure that the students would be provided with an understanding of learnings

taught in a classroom at the same level.

The case was won by the appellees on a district level due to the fact that the school district

had uniforms. The district claimed that due to school uniforms, and everyone looking similarly,

they could not have intentionally discriminated against the students with limited English

proficiency in the appellees words. The Court of Appeals decided that since the district provided
 3

the same treatment to all students, even though some students were at a lack of education due to

their limited fluency in English, the school district was not required to make up for the difference

of students. Then the students appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made its decision on January 21, 1974. The court sided with appellant

Lau and benefited all in the class action suit. The court ruling stated that the San Francisco

school board was in violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964 due to the fact that the school

district was receiving federal funding. The Supreme Court had decided that though the district

provided an education for all students, the district was still lacking in its education of students

with limited English proficiency, thus not providing equal opportunity. They referenced the

guideline put in place by the Office for Civil Rights in 1970 that stated that language could be

used as discrimination on national origin. It also stated that by not providing students with an

equal understanding of their education, and due to lack of English language instruction, they had

been discriminating against the students. The court then demanded that the school district make

necessary changes to provide equal opportunities for education for all students, including those

with limited English proficiency.

Following the Supreme Court decision, the school district made adjustments to the facilities,

textbooks, teachers, and curriculum in order to better benefit the students with limited English

proficiency and comply with the Supreme Court ruling. The schools were also required to offer

English language programs for students who needed it in order to provide equal educational

opportunity.

I believe the Supreme Court's ruling is very important to today’s students because it upholds

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as makes it much easier for students with English as a

second language to succeed in school. I also believe that this court case has helped to inspire
 4

other school districts to take action to make changes to better help the students with language

barriers.