education equity » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘education equity’
October 3, 2014 2

California Takes Lead In Ending School-To-Prison Pipeline

Cal­i­for­nia has once again shown itself to be a leader in pro­mot­ing civil rights and equal­ity for all by ban­ning school sus­pen­sions for K-3rd grade stu­dents and expul­sions for all stu­dents under the sub­jec­tive and often-abused “will­ful defi­ance” stan­dard in the Edu­ca­tion Code.  As part of our mis­sion to fight big­otry of all kinds, ADL has had a long his­tory of sup­port­ing equal access to qual­ity edu­ca­tion for all students—the goal promised in the land­mark Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion Supreme Court rul­ing in 1954.  This momen­tous change in Cal­i­for­nia law, which ADL proudly sup­ported, will bring us a sig­nif­i­cant step closer to that ideal.school-to-prison-pipeline

The new law spec­i­fies that a pub­lic school stu­dent in grades 6–12 may be sus­pended for will­ful defiance—which can be as minor as a dress code vio­la­tion or fail­ure to hand in homework—only after the third offense in a school year, and pro­vided that other means of resolv­ing the behav­ioral prob­lems were first attempted.  The law also pro­hibits a school from rec­om­mend­ing that stu­dent for expul­sion solely for will­ful defi­ance.  The law now encour­ages schools to invest in chil­dren rather than resort­ing to harsh out-of-school dis­ci­pline for rel­a­tively minor offenses.  Its pas­sage will ensure that stu­dents remain where they need to be—in class—and not on the streets or in the crim­i­nal jus­tice system.

Although there are many fac­tors that con­tribute to a student’s inabil­ity to thrive in school, the cycle of sus­pen­sions and expul­sions is among the best indi­ca­tors of which stu­dents will drop out.  Stu­dents who drop out of school have more dif­fi­culty find­ing gain­ful employ­ment, have much lower earn­ing power when they are employed, and ulti­mately are more likely to wind up in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.  This trou­bling phenomenon—which dis­pro­por­tion­ately impacts stu­dents of color, stu­dents with dis­abil­i­ties, and stu­dents who iden­tify as les­bian, gay, bisex­ual or trans­gen­der—has become known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.”  Work­ing to dis­man­tle the pipeline has become a key focus of ADL’s civil rights and edu­ca­tion agendas.

Both the Los Ange­les Uni­fied School Dis­trict and the San Fran­cisco Uni­fied School Dis­trict have already com­pletely banned sus­pen­sions and expul­sions for will­ful defi­ance, tak­ing a sig­nif­i­cant step towards dis­man­tling the school-to-prison pipeline.  California’s new statewide law will sun­set in three and a half years.  Dur­ing this time, ADL will be work­ing with coali­tion part­ners on new bills and ini­tia­tives to strengthen pro­tec­tions for stu­dents and develop addi­tional alter­na­tive meth­ods for chang­ing neg­a­tive stu­dent behav­iors with pos­i­tive interventions.

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

May 14, 2014 0

From The Archives: ADL’s Involvement In Brown v. Board

Sat­ur­day, May 17th marks the 60th anniver­sary of Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion, the land­mark Supreme Court deci­sion that ruled racially seg­re­gated pub­lic schools “inher­ently unequal” and ordered the deseg­re­ga­tion of America’s pub­lic schools. ADL-brown-amicus-brief

Act­ing on its man­date “to secure jus­tice and fair treat­ment to all cit­i­zens alike and to put an end for­ever to unjust and unfair dis­crim­i­na­tion,” in Octo­ber 1952 ADL’s National Com­mis­sion resolved to encour­age fed­eral and state leg­is­la­tors “to sup­port leg­is­la­tion to insure the great­est pos­si­ble pro­tec­tion of civil rights and equal­ity of oppor­tu­nity for all in the fun­da­men­tal fields of employ­ment, edu­ca­tion and housing.”

The next month, ADL filed an ami­cus brief in Brown, argu­ing that because African Amer­i­can chil­dren were “dis­ad­van­taged by the seg­re­gated pub­lic school sys­tem of Topeka” the Court should “dis­avow the ‘sep­a­rate but equal’ doc­trine as it has been applied to pub­lic edu­ca­tional institutions.”

ADL’s brief noted a lower court’s find­ing that seg­re­ga­tion “irrepara­bly dam­ages the child,” and argued that “that which is unequal in fact can­not be equal in law.” The brief’s final argu­ment read:

Legally imposed seg­re­ga­tion in our coun­try, in any shape, man­ner or form, weak­ens our pro­gram to build and strengthen world democ­racy and com­bat total­i­tar­i­an­ism. In edu­ca­tion, at the lower lev­els, it indeli­bly fixes anti-social atti­tudes and behav­ior pat­terns by build­ing inter-group antag­o­nisms. It forces a sense of lim­i­ta­tion upon the child and destroys incen­tive. It pro­duces feel­ings of infe­ri­or­ity and dis­cour­ages racial self-appreciation.

Today, ADL con­tin­ues to com­bat dis­crim­i­na­tion in schools and advo­cate for edu­ca­tion equity. On its 60th anniver­sary, we rec­og­nize the Brown deci­sion as a mon­u­men­tal leap for­ward in the ongo­ing fight for equal education.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , ,