Public schools are obligated by law to provide an equal education to all children,  even those students who enter with no or little command of English.  If schools do not provide an equal education to language minority students, then the schools are violating the students’ civil rights.  The right to have equal access to education was set out in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  It was restated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and confirmed in the Supreme Court decision, Lau v. Nichols.  Furthermore, in order to make sure that the educational program for second language speakers was adequate, Castaneda v. Pickard provided a framework for evaluating programs for English language learners.  Educational leaders must understand that serving the needs of students who do not understand the language of instruction is not an option.  Educators and administrators in public school districts have a legal and ethical obligation to provide meaningful instruction for these children.

        The 14th amendment establishes the constitutional guarantee for the educational rights of all students. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 confirmed that all children had the right to an equal education. Between 1968 and 1987 numerous court cases were brought forward to specifically protect the rights of language minority students.  Therefore, no school administration can ignore the law and not offer an equal opportunity for education to those students who are not proficient in English.

       Why is this even an issue after 30 years of legislation protecting the rights of these limited English proficient (LEP) students?  This is a demographic group which keeps growing.  It is projected that by the 2030s, students who enter school with either no English or very limited proficiency will comprise 40% of the student body in our public schools.  They are legally entitled to an effective program which will give them access to the school curriculum.  Yet, 1999 statistics show that the dropout rate for Hispanic youth born in the U.S. was 44%.  Are they receiving an equal education?  Not if they are dropping out before finishing high school at a higher rate than their native English speaking peers.

        With the institution of high stakes testing, and hinging a high school diploma on successful completion of competency exams, students whose first language is not English face an even greater challenge.  Educational leaders must include strategies for making the high school curriculum accessible to these students to give them a chance to earn a high school degree.  If these students are not given equal access to education the school systems leave themselves open to law suits.  Districts with low achievement of language minority students, high dropout rate, multiple retentions and failing standardized test scores would find it difficult to prove that they are offering an equal educational program to the LEP students.  Parents would have the right to sue to get the rights that are guaranteed their children.

         Also, education reformers need to understand that even though Lau v. Nichols did not set up specific remedies for programs which would benefit language minority students, Castaneda v. Pickard did give specifics about minimum standards.  For    example, in order to conform to the law, a language program designed for LEP students must be taught by a certified teacher and not an aide, tutor or volunteer.  The teacher must be trained in the methodology of the program selected and materials must be based on sound educational theory.  Another important provision of Castaneda v. Pickard , and one which could land many school districts in court, is that language minority students should not be exited from the language program until they are proficient enough in English to "participate meaningfully in the regular educational program". (Castaneda v. Pickard)  When looking at the California program mandated by Proposition 227, one  year of language training before entering the mainstream curriculum does not conform to the reality of language acquisition theory which finds that 5-10 years of language are needed to attain academic fluency.  States with a large language minority population should not be tempted to follow the Unz initiative, which evolved into Proposition 227. They should consider their legal responsibilities to language minority children before going ahead with programs which are not educationally sound.

         Before exiting students from a language program designed to give them equal access to the curriculum, school districts must take into consideration whether the retention rate and high school completion/dropout rate of these language minority students is comparable to their native English speaking peers.  Looking at the 1999 statistic of a 44% dropout rate for Hispanic students, it seems obvious that some school districts are not complying with the law.

         Not only is this a legal issue but school districts must do what is best for the students who are placed in its care.  Ethically, administrators cannot concentrate on the percentage of children who enter school speaking English and ignore the high percentage of students who enter not knowing the language of instruction.  Educational leaders must lead reform in a way that addresses LEP students’ high dropout rates, high retention rates, failing test scores and inadequate language programs not because it leaves them liable for a law suit but rather because it isn’t serving the needs of the children entrusted to them.  Schools owe children an education.  Communities expect schools to produce a group of educated graduates.  Businesses look to schools for an educated workforce. Schools are morally bound to fulfill these obligations and to do the best they can with the students they are given.

        Educators, from educational theorists to the school boards to the principals to the classroom teachers must realize that there is both a legal and moral obligation to provide a meaningful education to the children in the public schools.  Teachers cannot pick and choose which students they will teach and which they will ignore.  Neither can administrators decide to provide access to the curriculum to one group of students and not another.  Researchers in language acquisition programs have been working to find what programs and strategies work best for language minority students.  Educators must use this research to provide equal educational opportunities for LEP students in order to conform with their moral obligation and their legal duty. If not, they will find themselves in court.