Plylerv. Doe: A Free and Public Education for All Students

Plyler v. Doe: A Free and Public Education for All Students

Dr. Terry Rowles, Assistant Director, Policy ServicesDavid DeCabooter, Policy Consultant

Background

Arizona School Boards Association | www.azsba.org 2

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 627 (1950)• George W. McLaurin, Ed.D. student. Oklahoma law prohibited schools from

instructing blacks and whites together.

Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)• Herman Marian Sweatt, denied admission to Univ. of Texas Law School.

Texas prohibited integrated education.

These two cases, which were decided the same day, marked the end of the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in graduate and professional education.

Background


Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Kansas, (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954). • USSC declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white

students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education - "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

• As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Kansas, (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955) • Brown I did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools,

and the Court's second decision in Brown II, only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)

• USSC held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.• The majority opinion, reversing the District Court, stated that

the appellees did not sufficiently prove a textual basis, within the US Constitution, supporting the principle that education is a fundamental right. Urging that the school financing system led to wealth-based discrimination, the plaintiffs had argued that the fundamental right to education should be applied to the States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that there was no such fundamental right and that the unequal school financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny.



The lawsuit alleged that education was a fundamental right and that wealth-based discrimination in the provision of education (such as a fundamental right), created in the poor, or those of lesser wealth, a constitutionally suspect class, who were to be protected from the discrimination.




Justice Lewis Powell, who proved to be the swing vote in the Rodriguez case, led the narrow majority in deciding that the right to be educated (as a child of school age or an uneducated adult), was neither 'explicitly or implicitly' textually found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

It was therefore, not anywhere protected by the Constitution.He also found that Texas had not created a suspect class related to poverty.

The two findings allowed the state to continue its school financing plan as long so it was "rationally related to a legitimate state interest."


U. S. Constitution Number of Text References:

Education – Zero (0)Citizen – Eleven (11)Person – Twenty-two (22)

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

•1975 - Texas revised its laws to withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted“ into the United States.•School districts were authorized to deny enrollment to children not "legally admitted“ to the U.S.


Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

A lawsuit was initiated by undocumented children who claimed that their right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed in the 14th Amendment was being denied.

https://www.pinterest.com/explore/the-14th-amendment/9

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)The USSC determined that the children, even though they were not U.S. citizens, were entitled to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In order for the state to deny children the right to a free public education, the State had the burden of proof that the law would “further a substantial goal” of the State.


Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/PlylerVDoeSummary.html• Public schools are prohibited from denying immigrant students

access to a public education.• USSC stated that undocumented children have the same right to a

free public education as U.S. citizens and permanent residents.• Compulsory Attendance laws require all students, including

undocumented immigrant students, to attend school until they reach the age mandated by state law.


Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

• Public schools and school personnel are prohibited under Plyler from adopting policies or taking actions that would deny students access to education based on their immigration status.• School officials may not require children to prove they are in this

country legally by asking for documents such as green cards, citizenship papers, etc. They may only require proof that the child lives within the school district attendance zone, just as they might for any other child.• Schools should be careful of unintentional attempts to document

students' legal status which lead to the possible "chilling" of their Plyler rights.


Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Public schools may not:

• Bar access to a student on the basis of legal status or alleged legal status.• Treat students disparately for residency determination purposes

on the basis of their undocumented status.• Inquiring about a student's immigration status, including requiring

documentation of a student's legal status at any time.•Make inquiries from a student or his/her parents which may

expose their legal status.Arizona School Boards Association | www.azsba.org

13

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Check with your School District Attorney prior to any of the following:• Communication with INS - Any communication to INS initiated by a school or school

official concerning a specific student.• Request by INS to enter a school.• Request for information by INS - Complying with INS in any way that may jeopardize an

immigrant students' right of access (with the exception of the administration of F-1 and J-1 visas).

• INS and police requests for information which can be released upon the presentation of a valid subpoena.

• Response to presentation of a warrantSchool Name and AddressList of students by nameSignature of judgeService by an officer with proper identification


Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

ASBA Policies, including regulations and exhibits, to reference:

• JB – Equal Educational Opportunities

• JE – Student Attendance

• JFB – Open Enrollment

• JG – Assignment of Students to Classes and Grade Levels

• JHB – Truancy

• JHD – Exclusions and Exemptions from School Attendance

Arizona Laws to reference:

• A.R.S. 15-802

• A.R.S. 15-803

• A.R.S. 15-804

• A.R.S. 15-805.

School District Personnel should

always consult an attorney to

clarify their duties and

responsibilities under Plyler.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Review FERPA • The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g;

34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

• Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record.


Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Review FERPA However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):

• School officials with legitimate educational interest; • Other schools to which a student is transferring; • Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes; • Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student; • Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school; • Accrediting organizations; • To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;• Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and • State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

See ASBA policies JR, Student Records (policy, regulation and exhibits) and JRR, Student Surveys.


Plyler v. Doe: A Free and Public Education for All Students

Dr. Terry Rowles, Assistant Director, Policy ServicesDavid DeCabooter, Policy Consultant

ASBA’s Regional Policy Workshops, October 2017

Documents

Plylerv. Doe: A Free and Public Education for All Students