To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
When state and local governments attempt to impose restrictions on education based on a student's legal status, they are often met with opposition from the court system. The landmark case of Plyler v Doe is frequently cited in these situations, but what exactly does Plyler v Doe do for undocumented students?
Prior to 1982, when Plyler v Doe was decided, some Texas local governments were denying funding for undocumented students and even charging them a tuition fee of $1,000 per year. The original policy allowed school districts to withhold funds for educating children who were not legally documented within the United States, giving them the authority to determine who could enroll in schools.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that this policy violated the children's Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, stating that children born to immigrants are still considered citizens. The Supreme Court recognized that children have no control over their parents' decisions to enter the country illegally.
The court also believed that denying education to these children would lead to more significant societal issues.
Undocumented children have the same right to free public education and are required to attend school until they reach the age mandated by state laws.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Education
5 (204)
“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”
Plyler v Doe also established that schools cannot require children to prove their legal citizenship through documentation or a green card; rather, they only need to demonstrate that they live within the school district's attendance zone. Additionally, schools cannot demand a social security number from students or compel them to obtain one.
If a school system wishes to have this information on file, they must send a request (in all appropriate languages) to parents, allowing them to voluntarily provide it for their child's records.
The determination of eligibility for free or reduced lunch is based on the family's income, not their legal status.
To qualify for free or reduced lunch, a student must provide the social security numbers of all family members aged 21 and older. If any family members do not have a social security number, they can indicate this on the worksheet. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prohibits external agencies from accessing information from these lunch forms without a court order. Similarly, schools are prohibited from sharing any information with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
If I had been one of the individuals involved in the decision-making process of Plyler v Doe, I would have sided with the majority who believed that denying these children an education was unjust. Children have no say in their parents' choices, especially when it comes to illegal residency in a country. It is not fair to punish a child for circumstances beyond their control. Denying education could potentially create more harm and societal issues than allowing these children access to schooling. I firmly believe that all children, regardless of their legal status, deserve equal opportunities, including access to education to improve themselves, their families, and their futures.
Education is a fundamental right that should be accessible to all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. Denying education to undocumented children not only goes against the principles of equality and fairness but also hinders the potential growth and development of these individuals. By providing educational opportunities to all children, we are investing in a brighter and more equitable future for society as a whole.
Furthermore, Plyler v Doe serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of upholding the rights of all individuals, regardless of their legal status. It sets a precedent for ensuring that no child is left behind or denied access to education based on factors beyond their control. The decision in Plyler v Doe reflects a commitment to justice and equality, emphasizing the value of education as a tool for empowerment and social mobility.
It is essential for policymakers, educators, and society as a whole to recognize the significance of providing equal educational opportunities to all children, irrespective of their immigration status. By fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment, we not only fulfill our moral obligation to uphold the rights of every child but also cultivate a more diverse and enriched society. Education has the power to break down barriers, bridge divides, and create a more equitable and just world for future generations.
Legality-Based Education Restrictions Stymied by Legal Challenges. (2016, Dec 12). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/plyler-v-doe-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
