NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
PDF pending restoration PDF pending restoration
ERIC Number: ED222075
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1981-Mar
Pages: 13
Abstractor: N/A
Implementing the Lau Decision in the 1980's: Implications for Research. Professional Papers B-1.
Berdan, Robert
The implications for research of the Lau regulations, the political climate in which the regulations were withdrawn, and the Lau remedies are explored. Research activities have been mandated by the Bilingual Education Act of 1978 in the areas of needs assessment, the quality of educational services, and the effectiveness of Title VII programs. Issues of bilingualism and bilingual education research that have retained their salience throughout the political change process include language proficiency assessment, the language acquisition process among bilinguals, and the role of language in access to education. The withdrawal of the Lau regulations signals a changing role for the federal government in bilingual education. The initiative for protecting equal access to education is likely to shift from the executive branch to the courts. Court decisions regarding bilingual education have drawn heavily on research. Documentation of the beneficial effects of mandated remedies on bilingual children remains limited. It is important for the research community to demonstrate the benefits of implementing the proposed remedies in terms of the economic costs of failure to provide adequate educational services to language-minority students. In addition, researchers should monitor the provision of equal education services under state and local jurisdictions as responsibility is shifted away from the federal government. (RW)
Publication Type: Reports - General
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: National Center for Bilingual Research, Los Alamitos, CA.
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title VII; Lau v Nichols