The Law and Supporting State Guidance
The Lau Decision
In 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the San Francisco school system to provide specialized English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who did not speak English denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based “on the grounds of race, color, or national origin” in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Ruling stated:
…there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education (414 U.S. at 566, 1974).
The Court went on to uphold the May 25, 1970 Memorandum, which stated:
Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to… open its instructional program to these students. (32 FED. Reg.11595).
As a result of the 1974 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lau v Nichols, the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, and the Office of Civil Rights regulations issued under the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, school districts are required to take affirmative steps to rectify deficiencies and open their instructional programs to all students, particularly National Origin Minority group children whose lack of English language skills prevents them from full participation in educational programs.
Plyler v Doe
The right of undocumented children entering school is guaranteed under the Supreme Court decision of Plyler v Doe (1982). The court found a Texas law that prevented registration of undocumented children and the use of state funds for their education unconstitutional. This ruling was based on the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Of particular concern to the court was the fact that children – rather than their parents – were involved (Uerling, 1982). The court believed that denying undocumented children access to education punished children for their parents’ behavior. The court went on to say that states can no longer use residency requirements to deny undocumented children access to a tuition-free public education. Under Plyler, undocumented immigrant students have the same right to attend public schools through grade 12 as do citizens and permanent residents.
Furthermore, schools should avoid asking about nor request documentation regarding a student’s immigration status. In addition, making inquiries of a student or parent that might expose their documentation status of requiring students or their parents apply for Social Security numbers prior to registration is not allowed. It is not required that the parent(s) possess a valid S.C. driver’s license to register for school.
State Department of Education Memorandums
The following memoranda have been issued by the State Department of Education in order to ensure compliance with federal law as well as ensure equity for the Multilingual Population in SC.