The United States has a long history of legal practices in regards to immigrants and immigration, for example, the

Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which aimed to severly restrict immigration from China, as well the Bracero programs of 1942, which aimed to increase temporary worker flow from Mexico. However, although immigrants and immigration have been of particular interest for the better part of a century and a half, focus on education for these immigrants has not nearly the length of legal history as the act of immigration itself. In order to explore the legal rights if immigrant students who are not native English speakers (English Learners, or ELs), it is important to understand the nature of these students and thier educational needs. Once this understanding has been constructed, one can analyze ELs rights to instruction under the law and analyze the impact of state and federal laws on these students. According to Freeman and Freeman (2005), there are three types of ELs. The first type of EL is the long term learner. These learners have been in the United states for most, if not all, of thier education. Some may have even been born in the United States. However, in spite of their years of experience being educated in this country, they are not achieving academically as well as thier mainstream counterparts. The second type of EL Learner is the adequately schooled newcomer, who is ag grade level in their native language, but lacks the language and linguistic skills and abilities in English to be able to perform similar tasks in their second language. The thirs type of learner is the student with limited or interrupted formal schooling. These students, for many reasons, including but not limited to war, famine, natural disasters, genocide, among others, have not had the opportunity to study consistently in thier native language. As a result, they lack grade level content knowledge and literacy skills in thier first language. Depending on the situation, they may not have literacy skills at all, relying completely on oral skills. Another factor to consider in regards to ELL learners rights to education under the law is the already existing legal precedents, determined by court cases. The most significant cases regarding ELLs have taken place in the second half of the twentieth century to the present day. A discussion of the cases and their outcomes is as follows: In 1967, Hobson v. Hanson was filed in a federal court against the Washington DC Superintendent. Although this case is not specifically geared ntoward ELL learners, the precedent set in this case can be used to determine whether or not ELL students are getting a meaningful access to education under the law. The reslts in this case prohibit the tracking of students into ability groups based on race, socioeconomic status, which denies the students an equal opportunity to succeed in classes offered to white students. This precedent can be used to examine the educational opportunities afforded to all children, not only EL children. First filed in 1971 and later reversed by the Supreme court in 1974, Lau v. Nichols is consideded one of the most important cases affecting EL students in the United States. Originating in San Francisco, a group of Chinese students who were denied access to summplementary Enlgish instruction fiked a lawsuit against the Lawsuit. The basis of this suit was that because they were not afforded the opportunity to receive special instruction to help them learn English, they were not receiving equal access to content, as is students right under the 14th amendment. Although the District court found in favor of the school district, the

Supreme court ordered that students be provided with specialized instruction.

A few years later, in 1971, Castaeda v. Pickard was presented in the 5th circuit court. This was a decision that greatly impacted the nature of education for English Learners. Although on the surface, it may initally seem that it is contrary to the findings of Lau v. Nichols, the decision on this matter actually helps clarify and specify actions that districts should take when designing programming for EL Learners. The issue at hand in Castaneda was not that there was not specialized instruction, but that this particular instruction and programming were ineffective for the needs of the Castaneda children. Initially finding in favor of the school district, this decision was reversed in the appeals process and found in favor of the Castanedas. The ruling included three new requirements for schools to follow, collectively referred to as the Castaneda Test. These three prongs include the following: 1.) A program must be based on sound educational theory 2.) Schools must implement these programs in a reasonable way utlilzing sound practices, resources, and staffing 3.) The school must make reasonable efforts to monitor and modify as necessary.

Larry P. V Riles This case involved a high percentage of children of color being placed into special education programs based soley on culturally biased IQ tests. Although it is not a deciusion specifically regarding EL LEarners, since most ELs are of color, this nis an nimportant precedent to state.

Diana v. State A Spanish speaking student was placed in a program for cognitively disabled students based on a test in english--a language she did not speak. Court determined that tests should be given in native language to avoid low scores as a result of language barriers.

Plyler v. Doe was a case from Texas where it was found that denying undocumented children an education, is a violation of their 14th amendment right to equal protection.

LOLAC v. Wilson, also related to measures taken by states to deny undocumented children the right to an education (as a result of Cali prop 187)

Horne v. Flores--2009. Problematic case from AZ where arguements of state law, 14th amendment rights and NCLB collide. close Supreme court majority vote; court seemed to endorse the English immersion programs over bi ed programs, Another court decision we discussed in class involved a MN case, Mumid, et.al v. ALHS, et. al. where Somali students filed suit agains tthe Minneapolis Public Schools. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs for a variety of reasons.