NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
PDF pending restoration PDF pending restoration
ERIC Number: ED127055
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1975-Dec
Pages: 351
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Bilingual-Bicultural Education: A Handbook for Attorneys and Community Workers.
Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA. Center for Law and Education.
The 1967 Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title VII generated national attention to the demands of Chicano, Puerto Rican, Chinese, Native American, and other groups for bilingual-bicultural education. The May 1970 Memorandum clarified the availability of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VI to advocates seeking such programs. In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court left open the question of what kind of programs would meet Title VI standards. Thus legal advocates for bilingual-bicultural education have to be knowledgeable in the elements of bilingual-bicultural education philosophy, program and planning. Intended for use by legal service lawyers and other community advocates requiring quick access to the basic law of bilingual-bicultural education, these materials suggest various ways to obtain such programs. Topics covered are: the nature and effects of language exclusion, complaints and other litigation materials, relief, desegregation and bilingual-bicultural education, Federal and State laws, and types of programs. The 11 court decisions covered are: Lau v. Nichols, Serna v. Portales, U.S. v. Texas, Bradley v. Milliken, Martinez v. Santa Maria Independent School District, Morgan v. Kerrigan, Evans v. Buchanan, Morales v. Shannon, Aspira v. Board of Education of the City of New York, U.S. v. Board of Education of Waterbury, and Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver. (NQ)
Publication Type: Guides - General
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: N/A
Sponsor: Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA. Center for Law and Education.
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Lau v Nichols; Milliken v Bradley