What Rights Do Students Have in Public Schools Today?

Student Rights in Public Schools

Having examined the Supreme Court case Lau V. Nichols, this writer finds much has changed since the justices gave their final opinions. Research reveals much remains in need of changed as the student population has significantly grown and become more diverse since the 1974 case. Since Lau, the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe that "states must educate children of undocumented immigrants" supporting its ruling as interpreted by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that is "to apply to anyone who lives in the U.S., regardless of citizenship" (OSPI para. 5).

Immigration arguments notwithstanding, the rights of children of illegal immigrants have a legal and moral right to a quality education. What this means is that a school or its respective district cannot attempt to mitigate or enforce immigration law by refusing to educate a child of an illegal immigrant as to do so would be to punish the child for social and legal circumstance beyond their control. Plyler asserts that public schools shall not: deny admission "during initial enrollment or at any other time on the basis of undocumented status", show preferential treatment as a means of determining residency, "engage in any practices to 'chill' the right of access to school", mandate that students or parents disclose or document immigration status, inquire in a manner "that may expose their undocumented status" and "require social security numbers from all students, as this may expose undocumented status" (para. 1).

In general education terms, while Lau added to the Bilingual Education Act, legislation surrounding education has changed significantly since Lau and even since the latest amendments to Lau in 1994 (Moran). For instance, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), passed in 2002, has significantly impacted bilingual education and changed the scope of the Bilingual Education Act (i.e. renaming the act the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act) because of the emphasis the NCLB places on high-stakes testing (Menken). While the general concept of NCLB appears to be promising in that it works to ensure all students have equal access to a quality education and that students are actually graduating with the knowledge necessary to proceed and succeed in adult life, there are gaps that must be repaired. The testing processes are so dependent on federal funding where low and consistently low scores put districts at risk of losing funding that more emphasis is being placed on pasting state tests than on daily learning and retention processes. The students who suffer the most are low-income students, students with disabilities and non-English learners.

As this paper illustrates, attempts to improve the national education system have been made but there remains much in need to reform before non-English learners and other at-risk students will have full and equal access to a quality education. Sadly, however, many parents and educators may feel at a loss regarding what can and should be done to bridge the gap between what districts must do according to state and federal law and the true outcomes of applying laws such as NCLB. As such, based on the sources examined, Lau and subsequent laws are currently being upheld as non-English speaking or bilingual students are granted admission to public schools, but the law and the system fail these students when the application of a student's rights does not equate to a positive outcome that prepares the individual student for life after high school.

Works Cited

OSPI. "Immigrant Students' Rights to Attend Public Schools." Migrant and Bilingual Education, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

Lauen, Douglas Lee, and S. Michael Gaddis. "Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB's subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34.2: 185-208.

Menken, Kate. "No Child Left Behind and its effects on language policy." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29: 103-117.

Moran, Rachel F. "Undone by Law: The Uncertain Legacy of Lau v. Nichols." Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 16: 1. Plyler v. Doe. Supreme Court case, 457 U.S. 202.