EqualProtection and Public Education

EqualProtection and Public Education

Inthe recent years, there have been rises in K-12 classrooms that arechosen as English Language Learners (ELL). As a result, differentapproaches are being used to identify ELLs. For instance, whenstudents enroll in a public school, their parents are requested tocomplete a survey of English Language (Genesee, et al., 2005). Whenthe parents answer to any of the queries on the review using alanguage that is not English, then it is obligatory that thesestudents are tested for English proficiency.

Insome instances, it is the work of a conventional teacher to bring astruggling ELL student to a team of administrators and professionalsso that a support plan can be discussed. Such meetings are alsoreferred to as instructional support or Response to InterventionsTeams. At this point, the team decides an intervention plan based onteachers commendation (August, &amp Escamilla, 2009). Depending onthe school, the team and the child may opt to complete a fullbilingual assessment. Other educational institutions might implementacademic reading.

However,for a long time, the implications of equal protection for K-12students based on ELLs have indicated that students are not supposedto be discriminated against because of their language. They are notsupposed to be denied services just because their teacher does notspeak the language. These students are also not supposed to be deniedenrollment because of their limited proficiency in English. They aresupposed to be entitled to education until they are 21 years old, andthey should not be retained because they are not proficient inEnglish. Also, in case the inability of an individual to speak orunderstand the national language bars him from taking part ineducational programs, then the district has to rectify this so thatthe student is included (Genesee, et al., 2005).

Accordingto Genesee, et al., (2005) the case of Lau v. Nichols (1974) wasruled by the Supreme Court that equality in educational opportunitiesis not attained by simply offering all students with textbooks.Offering them the students the same facilities, a curriculum andteachers are not enough because those who do not comprehend Englishwill successfully be excluded from any expressive education (Sugarman&amp Widess, 1974). The court ruled that districts have to takesteps which are affirmative to overcome barriers which face studentswho are non-English speakers. As a result, the act of equalopportunity of 1974 necessitates that an organization of a schooltakes appropriate action to go beyond the language barriers whichimpede a student’s equal contribution to programs.

Accordingto Rios v. Read 1978 a state has the responsibility of classifyingthrough valid testing with a program that is monitored and not has apremature exit without valid testing (Plastino, 1978). It goesfurther in the 1981case of Castaneda v. Pickard to state that aprogram which is used to develop learners ought to be constructed ona philosophy that is sound and a success has to be reasonable(Landward, 2002).

However,the equal protection requires that no state will rebuff somebodywithin the prerogative equal security of the regulations. The clauseguarantees that each will have rights which are equal to those ofeach citizen any individual who is born or naturalized in the US areconsidered citizens of the US and the state where they live. Thereshall be no state which shall enforce or make any law that curtailsthe immunities and privileges of a US citizen nor shall the statedeprive a person property, liberty without the due law procedure.

References

August,D., Shanahan, T., &amp Escamilla, K. (2009). English languagelearners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report ofthe National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432-452.

Genesee,F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., &amp Christian, D. (2005).English language learners in US schools: An overview of researchfindings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4),363-385.

Landward,G. (2002). Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrettand the Equal Education Opportunity Act: Another Act Bites the Dust.BYU Educ. &amp LJ, 313.

Plastino,A. J. (1978). Legal Status of Bilingual Education in America`s PublicSchools: Testing Ground for a Statutory and ConstitutionalInterpretation of Equal Protection, The. Duq. L. Rev., 17, 473.

Sugarman,S. D., &amp Widess, E. G. (1974). Equal protection fornon-English-speaking school children: Lau v. Nichols. California LawReview, 62(1), 157-182.