76 Kappan December 2015/January 2016 is required in the perfor- mance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cul- tural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his en- vironment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is de- nied the opportunity of an education. But in 1973, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held that access to public education was not a consti- tutional right under the U.S. Constitution. In another case, Chinese- American students with limited English language profi ciency claimed the San Francisco school district’s failure to provide language accommodation and support for them violated the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Find- ing in favor of the students, in Lau v. Nichols (1974), the Supreme Court focused not on the constitutional question but on the Civil Rights Act. Congress codifi ed much of the decision shortly thereafter by passing the Equal Educa- tion Opportunities Act. Denying children an education because of the actions of their parents is not legal. The right to a public educa- tion for those who are not U.S. citizens, legal residents, or living with their parents is not a clear and stable issue. Children who enter the U.S. illegally with or without their parents are at the heart of this question. Let’s begin with the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, where the court declared state laws denying access to public schools based on race to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause: Today education is per- haps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demon- strate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It cratic system of government and . . . the primary vehicle for transmitting the values on which our society rests. . . . In sum, education has a funda- mental role in maintaining the fabric of our society.” The Court noted that, if the state intends to deny such a benefi t, it should have a suffi ciently valid reason. The Court found that denying children an education, not due to their own actions, but the actions of their parents, was not suffi ciently compel- ling to deny children this important public benefi t. In Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (8 -1) on another Texas statute intended to close the school- house doors to nonresident children. The student was a U.S. citizen by birth. But, when he was a young child, he and his parents moved to Mexico, where his parents were citiz.

1. 76 Kappan December 2015/January 2016
is required in the perfor-
mance of our most basic
public responsibilities, even
service in the armed forces.
It is the very foundation of
good citizenship. Today it
is a principal instrument in
awakening the child to cul-
tural values, in preparing
him for later professional
training, and in helping him
to adjust normally to his en-
vironment. In these days, it is
doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to
succeed in life if he is de-
nied the opportunity of an
education.
But in 1973, in San Antonio
Independent School District v.
Rodriguez, the Supreme Court
held that access to public
education was not a consti-
tutional right under the U.S.
Constitution.
In another case, Chinese-
American students with
limited English language

2. profi ciency claimed the San
Francisco school district’s
failure to provide language
accommodation and support
for them violated the U.S.
Constitution and Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act. Find-
ing in favor of the students,
in Lau v. Nichols (1974), the
Supreme Court focused not
on the constitutional question
but on the Civil Rights Act.
Congress codifi ed much of
the decision shortly thereafter
by passing the Equal Educa-
tion Opportunities Act.
Denying children an
education because
of the actions of their
parents is not legal.
The right to a public educa-
tion for those who are not
U.S. citizens, legal residents,
or living with their parents is
not a clear and stable issue.
Children who enter the U.S.
illegally with or without their
parents are at the heart of this
question.
Let’s begin with the 1954
U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Brown v. Board of Education,
where the court declared state

3. laws denying access to public
schools based on race to be
unconstitutional under the
Equal Protection clause:
Today education is per-
haps the most important
function of state and local
governments. Compulsory
school attendance laws and
the great expenditures for
education both demon-
strate our recognition of the
importance of education to
our democratic society. It
cratic system of government
and . . . the primary vehicle
for transmitting the values on
which our society rests. . . . In
sum, education has a funda-
mental role in maintaining
the fabric of our society.”
The Court noted that, if
the state intends to deny such
a benefi t, it should have a
suffi ciently valid reason. The
Court found that denying
children an education, not
due to their own actions, but
the actions of their parents,
was not suffi ciently compel-
ling to deny children this
important public benefi t.

4. In Martinez v. Bynum, 461
U.S. 321 (1983), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled (8 -1)
on another Texas statute
intended to close the school-
house doors to nonresident
children. The student was
a U.S. citizen by birth. But,
when he was a young child,
he and his parents moved to
Mexico, where his parents
were citizens. When he was
eight years old, he returned
plyler case
In 1982, in Plyler v. Doe,
the Supreme Court held (5-4)
that school districts could
not deny access to a public
education to resident children
whose parents had entered
the U.S. illegally. The case
arose as a challenge to a 1975
Texas statute that withheld
state funds from public school
districts for expenses related
to educating children who
had not been legally admit-
ted into the U.S. The statute
also authorized public school
districts to deny enrollment
to such children (Tex. Educ.
Code Ann. 21.031). The
Court held that access to edu-
cation, while not specifi cally

5. a federal constitutional right,
was a signifi cant state benefi t.
The Court said education
“has a fundamental role in
maintaining the fabric of our
society” by preparing citizens
to participate in a democracy.
“[T]he public schools [are] a
most vital civic institution for
the preservation of a demo-
JUliE UnDERWooD (Julie.
[email protected]) is a
professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
U N D E R T H E L AW
Supreme Court guards education
for undocumented immigrants
By JULIE UNDERWOOD
Although access to education is not a federal
constitutional right, the U.S. Supreme Court
said education is still a signifi cant state benefi t
and should not be denied to resident children.
Comments?
Like PDK at www.
facebook.com/pdkintl
V97 N4 kappanmagazine.org 77

6. to Texas to live with his sister
and attend public school. He
was denied tuition-free admis-
sion because of a state statute
(Tex. Educ. Code 21.031) that
denied tuition-free access to
students who were not living
with their guardians or par-
ents for the primary purpose
of accessing an education.
Unlike the statute in Plyler,
this statute did not single out
undocumented children but
was written to apply to all.
The U.S. Supreme Court up-
held the statute as a bona fi de
residency requirement intend-
ed to protect the resources of
the local school district. The
Court stated, “The provision
of primary and secondary
education, of course, is one of
the most important functions
of local government. Absent
residence requirements, there
can be little doubt that the
proper planning and op-
eration of the schools would
suffer signifi cantly. Thus a
district must offer services to
all students who reside within
its boundaries, unless they
are there without the support
of their parents or guard-
ians solely for the purpose of
receiving an education.”

7. other efforts
During the 1990s, the
education rights of undocu-
mented PreK-12 students
came into question in several
state proposals. California
and New York considered
state provisions that, con-
trary to the holding in Plyler,
would have foreclosed access
to undocumented students.
The California initiative,
Exclusion of Illegal Aliens
from Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, was part
of the Save Our State propo-
sition, passed by California
voters in 1994. A federal court
issued an injunction against
the law in League of United
Latin Amer. Citizens v. Wilson
in 1995. The litigation was
abandoned when Califor-
nia elected a new governor,
Gray Davis. The U.S. House
of Representatives passed a
similar provision in 1996 as
part of the proposed Illegal
Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility
Act. However, it was removed
from the fi nal legislation.

8. In 1996, a federal statute,
the Personal Responsibil-
ity and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, passed,
precluding undocumented
higher education students
from applying for federal fi -
nancial aid and student loans.
Further, the Illegal Immigra-
tion Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act prohibited
states from offering in-state
tuition to undocumented stu-
dents. In response, starting
in 2001, legislation has been
introduced that would offer
undocumented higher educa-
tion students conditional
residency and access to public
higher education on par with
other students. The Develop-
ment, Relief, and Education
for Alien Minors (DREAM)
Act allows undocumented
minors of good moral char-
acter who were younger than
16 when they entered the
country and who have lived
in the U.S. for at least fi ve
years to have lawful perma-
nent resident status upon
graduation from high school.
DREAM students also would
qualify for federal fi nancial
aid and in-state college tu-
ition. It has been introduced

9. regularly but Congress has
not passed it.
Preserving education rights
in the current political envi-
ronment has been challeng-
ing, particularly for undocu-
mented students. There are a
number of anti-immigration
lobbies and associations. The
Federation for American Im-
migration Reform regularly
provides its estimates of the
costs of educating undocu-
mented children and unac-
companied undocumented
children in the public schools.
They suggest that these costs
are an unreasonable drain on
state and local budgets. In
this era of declining public
education resources, this
strategy may appeal to voters,
school board members, and
administrators. If the cur-
rent U.S. Supreme Court was
called upon to uphold the
5-4 decision in Plyler, court
watchers are uncertain about
the outcome. K
Coming to America
Julie Underwood

10. A friend’s mother once asked me, “Where do your people
come from?” I was without a ready answer. My ancestors came
from lots of places. I come from a long line of mixed heritage.
My grandparents were all born within the United States. Each
story predates Ellis Island. I come from a line of ambiguous
family names . . . Underwood, Gilley, Kohlmorgan, Dearth,
Bertram, Sims, Arndt, Gold, Hill, Morgan, Deadman. One
great-great-grandparent left Eastern Europe during the times
when emigration was possible for people of her heritage.
She found her way to the heart of the Midwest. For another
great-grandparent, the origin of that branch of the family tree is
basically unknown.
My “growing up” family adopted the heritage of Midwesterners.
We are the example of the melting pot — not the kind of
melting pot that becomes a stew where the ingredients are
readily identifi able but the puree where all the pieces blend to
form a new identity.
That mixed heritage is the heart of diversity in our nation. In
my opinion, our nation’s racial and ethnic diversity is a great
strength.
The Gilley family Thanksgiving 1954.
Copyright of Phi Delta Kappan is the property of Sage
Publications, Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.

11. Rubic_Print_FormatCourse CodeClass CodeESL-523ESL-523-
O500Legislative Effects on English Language
Learning75.0CriteriaPercentageNo Submission
(0.00%)Insufficient (69.00%)Approaching (74.00%)Acceptable
(87.00%)Target (100.00%)CommentsPoints
EarnedCategory100.0%Court Case or Educational Policy
Pertaining to English Language Learners (ELLs)25.0%Not
addressed.The essay includes one Supreme Court case or one
educational policy pertaining to ELLs, but the case or policy is
vaguely described or its effect on the education of ELLs is
tenuous.The essay includes one Supreme Court case or one
educational policy pertaining to ELLs, but the case or policy
could be described more accurately or its effect on the
education of ELLs could be more apparent.The essay includes
one Supreme Court case or one educational policy pertaining to
ELLs and the case or policy is described adequately and its
effect on the education of ELLs is apparent.The essay includes
one Supreme Court case or one educational policy pertaining to
ELLs and the case or policy is described accurately and its
effect on the education of ELLs is significant.Contribution to
Academic Success of ELLs20.0%Not addressed.The essay
vaguely mentions how the case or policy has contributed to the
academic success of ELLs.The essay briefly mentions how the
case or policy has contributed to the academic success of
ELLs.The essay includes an adequate explanation of how the
case or policy has contributed to the academic success of
ELLs.The essay includes an appropriate and insightful
explanation of how the case or policy has contributed to the
academic success of ELLs.Improvements to Education for
ELLs20.0%Not addressed.How the case or policy will improve
education for ELLs is vaguely addressed in the essay.How the
case or policy will improve education for ELLs could be
explained more adequately in the essay.The essay includes an
adequate explanation of how the case or policy will improve
education for ELLs.The essay includes an appropriate and

12. insightful explanation of how the case or policy will improve
education for ELLs.Gaps10.0%Not addressed.The essay
contains an explanation regarding gaps within the case or policy
that is not presented clearly or accurately.The essay could
contain a better explanation regarding any gaps within the case
or policy.The essay contains an adequate explanation regarding
any gaps within the case or policy.The essay contains an
insightful explanation regarding any gaps within the case or
policy.Organization10.0%Not addressed.An attempt is made to
organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The
ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to
each other.The content is adequately organized. The content
provides the audience with a sense of the main idea.The content
is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other.
The content provides the audience with a clear sense of the
main idea.The content is well-organized and logical. There is a
sequential progression of ideas that relate to each other. The
content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides the
audience with a clear sense of the main idea.Mechanics of
Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language
use)5.0%Not addressed.Surface errors are pervasive enough that
they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word
choice or sentence construction is used.Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence
structure is correct but not varied.Submission includes some
mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A
variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as
some practice and content-related language.Submission is
virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-
developed use of practice and content-related language.
Sentence structures are varied and engaging.Paper Format (use
of appropriate style for the major and assignment)5.0%Not
addressed.Template is not used appropriately or documentation
format is rarely followed correctly.Appropriate template is
used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of

13. control with formatting is apparent.Appropriate template is
fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.All
format elements are correct. Documentation of Sources
(citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)5.0%Not
addressed.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect,
as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, although several minor formatting errors
are present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are
completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.Total
Weightage100%