to require affirmative remedial efforts to give special attention to linguistically deprived children. J., joined, post,. All classes were taught in English in accordance with the district handbook. . The regulations provide in part that no recipient of federal financial assistance administered by HEW may "Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;. United States Supreme Court case, lau. This led to the development of bilingual programs and additional English instructions in most public schools. Although Lau had a significant impact on the education of non-English-speaking students, the Court failed to adopt specific remedies to redress the school boards discriminatory practices. The case centered on the San Francisco Unified School District (sfusd s 1971 decision not to provide 1,800 non-English-speaking students with a way to improve their English proficiency, despite the fact that all public school classes were taught in English. 4, the students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English, and they argued they were entitled to special help under the.
Petrzela, Natalia M (2010). Blackmun,., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger,. Board of Education of Topeka ; Brown. Against the possibility that the Court's judgment may be family and Gender interpreted too broadly, I stress the fact that the children with whom we are concerned here number about 1,800. Thus, Lau signifies a fundamental turning point that reaffirmed the rights of non-English-speaking students to be free from discriminatory practices in educational programs and services. The San Francisco, California, school system was integrated in 1971 as a result of a federal court decree, 339. The District Court denied relief. By Elianna Spitzer, updated July 04, 2018, lau. 563, date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Lau. Lau, along with other students, filed a class action suit against the district, arguing that the lack of supplemental materials violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead of examining the equal protection clause from the 14th Amendment, the Court relied on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.