Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Lau Vs Nichols

Supreme Court Project, Following The Lau Vs Nichols Case
by

Jimmy Phan

on 31 August 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Lau Vs Nichols

Lau Vs Nichols Past Present Future How Does It Effect Us Today Who Is Affected By It? Is This Still Controversial Today? Because Of This Case More ELL(English Language Learners) Programs Extend Past Kindergarten.
No One Is Allowed To Graduate The 12th Grade Without Being English Proficient.
Simply Giving Them The Same Books, Supplies, Etc, Is Simply Not Enough. Any K-12 Student Who Is Not Fluent In English Is Affected Because They Have To Go Through ELL Classes In School To Learn English. Simply Put No 1973 - 1974 How Did The Case Come To Be? Its Journey Who Is Involved Chinese Students And Parents Wanted Reform, And Went Against The School Board. The Case Went To The District Court Who Found That There Were 2,856 Chinese Students Who Did Not Speak English, And Only About 1000 Received English Supplument Instruction.
They Ruled For The District.
Finally It Went To The Supreme Court Where They Sided With The Petitioners. Superintendent Nichols
Schools
Chinese Children & Parents
State Court
Court Of Appeals
Supreme Court
A Majority Of Children In The School Districts Of San Francisco, California, Of Chinese Ancestry Did Not Get Programs Or Additional Help Offered To Them For Them To Learn English. This Caused Those Children’s Grades To Plummet As They Had No Way Of Understanding Their Teachers. It Also Inevitably Caused Them Not To Get A College Education Because Of Their Poor Grades In School. Justice Reasoning Justice Douglas Ruled The Schools Didn’t Intentionally Discriminate, As The Petitioners Mentioned, However, When They Took No Action To Solve The Problem, They Violated Tit. VI. This States That Students Who Don’t Know The English Language Cannot Properly Be Taught. Thus They Are Being Denied The Full Capabilities And Extent Of The Knowledge Being Distributed. As A Result, The School Must Make Changes To Their System In Order To Provide Understandable Education To Those Of Other Languages.
Justice Stewart Ruled That The Civil Rights Act, As Stated, Was Not Violated As The School Didn’t Actually Discriminate. However, The Guidelines Established By The Office Of Civil Rights State That If A Service, Federally Funded, Is Unavailable To It’s Fullest Extent Because Of Race Or Ethnicity, It Is A Civil Rights Violation. Justice Blackmum And Chief Justice Burger: Ruled That Stewart Is Correct. However, It Must Also Be Known That This Ruling Only Applies Because There Is A Large Minority Of Students Who Are Being Deprived Of Education. If The Case Had Been For Only A Few Students, This Ruling Would Not Have Been Made. Thus, In Future Cases, If There Is A Situation In Which Two Or Three Students Don’t Speak English And Are Unable To Receive Education To Its Full Extent, The School Doesn’t Have To Change Its Policies, The Students Just Have To Switch Schools. Impacts Now Immigrants And People Who Don’t Know English Are Still Able To Take Advantage Of The Educational System. However, This Has Increased The Budget For Schools. Now This Might Be A Good Thing, But If There Are Budget Cuts In The Education System, The Schools Have A Harder Time Managing Because There Is A Set Amount Of Money That Has To Go To This Program. Then The Petitioners Appealed To The Case, Driving The Case To The Court Of Appeals Where They Too Sided With District
Full transcript