<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Assignment 2: Civil Rights Protections by Cierah Clowe</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l</link>
      <description>Landmark Court Rulings and Laws that Protect ELs</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2022-01-26 00:15:14 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2022-01-26 21:00:14 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)</title>
         <author>cierahclowe</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012435530</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In this case, Nebraska had passed a law saying that grade school children could not be taught any language besides English. Meyer taught German at a Lutheran school and was convicted. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and that Meyer had the right to teach German to students.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2022-01-26 00:30:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012435530</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Mendez v. Westminster (1947)</title>
         <author>cierahclowe</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012436362</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In this case, Mendez was forced to attend "Schools for Mexicans". The reason for the segregation was language based, although this case did set the scene for Brown v. Board of Ed. Mendez's father took the school district to court. The courts ruled that this segregation was unconstitutional on the grounds that separating children based on language would hinder their ability to acquire the new language (English) and they would not have the same opportunities later in life because of this.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2022-01-26 00:30:55 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012436362</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools (1972) </title>
         <author>cierahclowe</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012436767</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Serna (the lead plaintiff) and other Mexican-American families took Portales Municipal Schools (NM) to court claiming that the schools did not offer meaningful and multicultural education to ESL students that attended these schools. The court ruled in favor of Serna and the other plaintiffs, finding it was true that the schools did not offer ESL students the same meaningful education that was offered to English speaking students and this violated their 14th amendment.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2022-01-26 00:31:18 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012436767</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Plyler v. Doe (1982)</title>
         <author>cierahclowe</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012437756</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In this case a Texas statute withheld funding for schools that taught students who were not "legal Americans." The court ruled that this was in fact a violation fo the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The court struck the Texas law down.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2022-01-26 00:32:13 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012437756</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Flores v. Arizona (2008)</title>
         <author>cierahclowe</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012438102</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In this case the plaintiffs argued that Arizona schools were not providing a sufficient instructional program (that included language acquisition and funding) to ELLs. The plaintiffs claimed this was a violation of the EEOA. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2022-01-26 00:32:31 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/cierahclowe/ga0l7l9zgqiyh05l/wish/2012438102</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
