Bilingual Education: The Legal Mandate

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The Lau v. Nichols decision of the Supreme Court, which upheld the right of non-English-speaking students to educational programs designed to meet their language-skill needs, has suddenly created a presumption in favor of bilingual education that is causing nationwide repercussions. In this article attorneys Herbert Teitelbaum and Richard Hiller review Lau and subsequent cases and point out that the bringing and winning of such cases will not overcome all the obstacles to equitable education. One hurdle may be the sluggish federal enforcement of remedies to Lau violations; another may be school districts' resistance, explained on the grounds of increased costs, contract rights of teachers, the small number of students involved, or the need to avoid segregation. Although such defenses are rarely successful in court, Teitelbaum and Hiller acknowledge that fears of segregation may impede the implementation of bilingual programs. Accordingly, they present options for remedying discrimination against linguistic-minority students without violating constitutional constraints against segregation. Moreover, they pointedly remind us that proponents of bilingual education are natural allies, not enemies, of this constitutional command, for "many of the minority groups that now support bilingual education were themselves victims of segregation."

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: