Lau v. Nichols was a landmark case for English language learners, due to its finding that not providing students with resources necessary to understand the curriculum was a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The 1974 decision involved a case where Chinese American students in San Francisco were forced to have instruction entirely in English, even though many of them only had a rudimentary understanding of English. This resulted in many of these students being placed in special education classrooms or being forced to repeat the same grade for several years. The Supreme Court decided that forcing an English-only curriculum violated their protections under the Civil Rights Act, which required equal opportunities for all students (Crawford, 2014).

The unanimous decision resulted in school districts being required to take appropriate action to ensure that equal opportunity was provided. In this instance, providing language materials and instruction in Chinese, or providing for English as a second language (ESL) instruction would be appropriate and reasonable. This has helped contribute to the academic success of English language learners primarily because it mandates that a non-fluent ability in English should not represent a barrier to an equal education. If one of the main barriers for education is fluency in English, as it was before the case was decided, then a solution found by the court was that a school district should provide for an education that removes this barrier, either by enhancing ESL classes and programs, or providing an education in a language familiar to a large percentage of students within the school district. Although the court case involved Chinese students in the San Francisco school district, other languages and districts were required to abide by this decision. Thus, school districts with a large Hispanic population began including Spanish language instruction, and English as a second language programs grew drastically, in order to remove barriers created by language.

The case improved educational opportunities for English language learners because the decision resulted in a lack of English proficiency being viewed on the same level as special education or remedial instruction. It also identified that a lack of language proficiency should not be a barrier, and schools districts had to respond to the needs of its students (Ovando, 2013). If these needs included instruction in a language other than English, or the provision of an ESL program, then the school district was required to provide for these needs as long as it was reasonable to do so. Essentially, the decision made it so a fluent knowledge of English was no longer a requirement of receiving an equal quality of education.

Gaps that still exist following this decision is that in many school districts, English language curriculum is normalized, and many students who are not fluent may still have trouble learning in English (Calderón et al., 2011). While they may have access to ESL classes or alternatives, this does not seem to fully bridge the gap in quality of education for all students, because the extra education received in ESL classes may take away from education in other areas. There is also the impact of reasonable provisions being given; if one student speaks a language not commonly spoken, he or she may have difficulty learning in English or even ESL classes, as there may not be instructors or staff on hand who can communicate directly in the student’s native language.

Thus, the court decision did not resolve all potential issues for English language learners, but it did take a significant step in ensuring that these types of programs be provided whenever possible, and reducing the barrier created by English-only instruction for non-native speakers.