department of education » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘department of education’
May 12, 2014 0

Schools Must Educate All Students, Regardless of Immigration Status

The U.S. Depart­ment of Jus­tice (DOJ) and the U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion (DOE) last week issued crit­i­cal joint guid­ance to schools nation­wide remind­ing them of their respon­si­bil­ity to pro­vide qual­ity edu­ca­tion for all youths, regard­less of immi­gra­tion sta­tus.  Writ­ing that they “have become aware of stu­dent enroll­ment prac­tices that may chill or dis­cour­age the par­tic­i­pa­tion, or lead to the exclu­sion, of stu­dents based on their or their par­ents’ or guardians’ actual or per­ceived cit­i­zen­ship or immi­gra­tion sta­tus,” the Dear Col­league let­ter under­scored for schools that deny­ing edu­ca­tion to stu­dents because of their immi­gra­tion sta­tus vio­lates fed­eral law. plyer-guidance

Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pro­hibit dis­crim­i­na­tion on the basis of race, color, or national ori­gin, among other fac­tors, respec­tively, by pub­lic ele­men­tary and sec­ondary schools and by recip­i­ents of fed­eral assis­tance.  In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe that a state may not deny access to pub­lic edu­ca­tion to any child resid­ing in the state, no mat­ter his or her immi­gra­tion sta­tus.  The Court explained that deny­ing “inno­cent chil­dren” access to pub­lic edu­ca­tion “imposes a life­time of hard­ship on a dis­crete class of chil­dren not account­able for their dis­abling status…By deny­ing these chil­dren basic edu­ca­tion, we deny them the abil­ity to live within the struc­ture of our civic insti­tu­tions, and fore­close any real­is­tic pos­si­bil­ity that they will con­tribute in even the small­est way to the progress of our Nation.”

In recent years some states and school dis­tricts have tried to require par­ents to dis­close immi­gra­tion sta­tus or pro­vide doc­u­ments unavail­able to undoc­u­mented immi­grants when enrolling their chil­dren in pub­lic schools.  Such require­ments, as the new guid­ance reminds schools, vio­late fed­eral law.  They also run afoul of our val­ues as a nation of immi­grants.  As the Supreme Court wisely rec­og­nized, edu­ca­tion is the build­ing block to suc­cess.  Pro­vid­ing chil­dren access to high qual­ity edu­ca­tion not only serves those chil­dren well, but is also good pol­icy for our coun­try.  Stu­dents who receive high qual­ity edu­ca­tion have the poten­tial to become entre­pre­neurs boost­ing our econ­omy, sci­en­tists research­ing cures for thus far incur­able dis­eases, world lead­ers shap­ing global pol­icy, and so many other possibilities.

Today, 16 states have leg­isla­tively extended in-state tuition to undoc­u­mented stu­dents and other state schools have extended in-state tuition of their own accord, mak­ing col­lege a real­ity for many chil­dren who were brought to the U.S. as chil­dren, have stud­ied hard, and have grad­u­ated from Amer­i­can schools.  As the Court rec­og­nized in Plyler, and the DOJ and DOE under­scored with their guid­ance last week, all chil­dren should have access to high qual­ity edu­ca­tion, no mat­ter their immi­gra­tion sta­tus.  It is time to extend those prin­ci­ples nation­wide from ele­men­tary and sec­ondary schools to higher edu­ca­tion as well.

 


 

Las escue­las deben edu­car a todos los estu­di­antes, sin impor­tar su esta­tus migratorio

El Depar­ta­mento de Jus­ti­cia (DOJ) y el Depar­ta­mento de Edu­cación (DOE, por sus siglas en inglés) de los Esta­dos Unidos emi­tieron con­jun­ta­mente la sem­ana pasada una guía crítica para las escue­las a nivel nacional, recordán­doles su respon­s­abil­i­dad de pro­por­cionar edu­cación de cal­i­dad a todos los jóvenes, sin impor­tar su esta­tus migra­to­rio.  Afir­mando que “han encon­trado prác­ti­cas de inscrip­ción de estu­di­antes que pueden desan­i­mar o desalen­tar la par­tic­i­pación, o con­ll­e­var a la exclusión de  estu­di­antes basán­dose en la ciu­dadanía o esta­tus migra­to­rio real o percibido de ellos o sus padres o tutores”, la Carta a los Cole­gas recuerda a las escue­las que negar la edu­cación a los estu­di­antes por su esta­tus migra­to­rio es una vio­lación de la ley federal.

Los Artícu­los IV y VI de la Ley de Dere­chos Civiles de 1964 pro­híben la dis­crim­i­nación por motivos de raza, color u ori­gen nacional, entre otros fac­tores, respec­ti­va­mente, por parte de las escue­las públi­cas pri­marias y secun­darias y los recep­tores de asis­ten­cia fed­eral.  En 1982, el Tri­bunal Supremo de Esta­dos Unidos sos­tuvo en Plyler v. Doe que un estado no puede negar el acceso a la edu­cación pública a ningún niño que resida en el estado, sin impor­tar su esta­tus migra­to­rio.  La Corte explicó que negar a “niños inocentes” el acceso a la edu­cación pública, es “impon­erle una vida de penurias a unos niños que no son respon­s­ables de su condi­ción migra­to­ria… Al negarle a estos niños la edu­cación básica, se les niega la capaci­dad de vivir den­tro de la estruc­tura de nues­tras insti­tu­ciones cívi­cas y se excluye toda posi­bil­i­dad real de que con­tribuyan al pro­greso de nues­tra nación”.

En los últi­mos años, algunos esta­dos y dis­tri­tos esco­lares han inten­tado exi­gir a los padres cuando inscriben a sus hijos en las escue­las públi­cas que rev­e­len su esta­tus migra­to­rio o pro­por­cio­nen doc­u­men­tos que los inmi­grantes indoc­u­men­ta­dos no tienen.  Esos req­ui­si­tos, como le recuerda la nueva guía a las escue­las, violan la ley fed­eral; tam­bién entran en con­flicto con nue­stros val­ores como nación de inmi­grantes.  Como recono­ció sabi­a­mente la Corte Suprema, la edu­cación es la piedra angu­lar del éxito.  Pro­por­cionar a los niños acceso a una edu­cación de alta cal­i­dad no sólo le sirve a esos niños, tam­bién es una buena política para nue­stro país.  Los estu­di­antes que reciben una edu­cación de alta cal­i­dad tienen el poten­cial de con­ver­tirse en empre­sar­ios que impulsen nues­tra economía, cien­tí­fi­cos que inves­tiguen curas para enfer­medades hasta ahora incur­ables, líderes mundi­ales que con­tribuyan a la política global, y muchas otras posibilidades.

Hoy día, 16 esta­dos han exten­dido por ley la matrícula estatal a los estu­di­antes indoc­u­men­ta­dos y otras escue­las estatales lo han hecho por su propia vol­un­tad, haciendo real­i­dad la edu­cación para muchos niños que fueron traí­dos a Esta­dos Unidos cuando pequeños, han estu­di­ado mucho y se han grad­u­ado de escue­las amer­i­canas.  Como la Corte recono­ció en Plyler, y el DOJ y el DOE destac­aron con su guía de la sem­ana pasada, todos los niños deben tener acceso a edu­cación de alta cal­i­dad, sin impor­tar su esta­tus migra­to­rio.  Ya es hora de ampliar esos prin­ci­p­ios a nivel nacional, desde las escue­las pri­marias y secun­darias hasta la edu­cación superior.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

August 20, 2013 0

ADL Coordinates Coalition Letter On Department Of Education Bullying Data Collection Proposal

On June 21, the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion (DoE) announced a num­ber of revi­sions to its Civil Rights Data Col­lec­tion (CRDC) school sur­vey.  The CRDC is the largest, most impor­tant, and most com­pre­hen­sive data col­lec­tion instru­ment of its kind.  It requires schools and school dis­tricts to pro­vide data on a wide range of rel­e­vant edu­ca­tion issues.  The DoE pro­posed that CRDC add sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion and reli­gion to their exist­ing effort to col­lect data on bul­ly­ing and harass­ment on the basis of race, sex, and disability. civil-rights-data-collection-bullying

Accom­pa­ny­ing resources for the DoE announce­ment stated: 

Safe envi­ron­ments are crit­i­cal to learn­ing. Since the 2009, the CRDC has pro­vided a lens on school cli­mate and the bul­ly­ing and harass­ment that stu­dents too often endure on the basis of race, sex, and disability….

ADL coor­di­nated a let­ter from 49 national orga­ni­za­tions pro­vid­ing com­ments relat­ing to these pro­posed CRDC revi­sions.  In our com­ments, ADL and its coali­tion of edu­ca­tion, reli­gious, civil rights and pro­fes­sional orga­ni­za­tions sup­ported DoE’s deci­sion to expand the CRDC to include reports of bul­ly­ing and harass­ment based on sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion and reli­gion, and encour­aged the col­lec­tion of data on inci­dents based on gen­der iden­tity. We argued that though the impact of bul­ly­ing has been well doc­u­mented, there is insuf­fi­cient data on the nature and mag­ni­tude of bul­ly­ing directed at indi­vid­u­als on the basis of their sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion – and even less on religion-based and gen­der identity-based bullying.  

ADL and its allies also urged the Depart­ment to recon­sider their pro­posal to elim­i­nate ques­tions relat­ing to whether a school has adopted writ­ten bul­ly­ing pre­ven­tion poli­cies.  An essen­tial start­ing point for effec­tive response to bul­ly­ing and harass­ment in schools is the adop­tion of a com­pre­hen­sive, inclu­sive bul­ly­ing and harass­ment pre­ven­tion pol­icy.  The inclu­sion of ques­tions relat­ing to whether an edu­ca­tion unit has such a pol­icy, the coali­tion argued, ele­vates aware­ness of the value of these poli­cies and demon­strates that hav­ing such poli­cies is impor­tant and sig­nif­i­cant enough to high­light in the CRDC.  The coali­tion let­ter also urged the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion to ask the edu­ca­tion units that have adopted a bul­ly­ing and harass­ment pre­ven­tion pol­icy to pro­vide a link to their pol­icy as part of their CRDC response.

A top pri­or­ity for the Anti-Defamation League is work­ing to cre­ate safe, inclu­sive schools and com­mu­ni­ties and ensur­ing that all stu­dents have access to equal edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties.  Over the past decade, the League has emerged as a prin­ci­pal national resource devel­op­ing edu­ca­tion and advo­cacy tools to pre­vent prej­u­dice and big­otry. ADL has built on award-winning anti-bias edu­ca­tion and train­ing ini­tia­tives, includ­ing the A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE® Insti­tute, to craft inno­v­a­tive pro­gram­ming and advo­cacy to address bul­ly­ing and its per­ni­cious elec­tronic form known as cyber­bul­ly­ing.  ADL takes a holis­tic approach to address­ing bul­ly­ing and cyber­bul­ly­ing, track­ing the nature and mag­ni­tude of the prob­lem, devel­op­ing edu­ca­tion and train­ing pro­grams, and advo­cat­ing — at the state and fed­eral level — for poli­cies and pro­grams that can make a difference.

It will be incum­bent on ADL and our allies to work with schools and school dis­tricts to make sure schools and school dis­tricts are report­ing this data accu­rately – and using the data to improve the cli­mate for learn­ing for all students.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,