About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

48 Clearinghouse Rev. 126 (2014)
Don't Leave Them Behind: Education for Homeless, Immigrant, and Limited-English-Proficient Children

handle is hein.journals/clear48 and id is 134 raw text is: Don't Leave Them Behind Education for Homeless, Immigrant, and Limited-English-Proficient Children BY LIZ ABDNOUR chool districts across the country have been developing increasingly strict and restrictive enrollment policies over the past decade. The fear among these districts is that, due to their high levels of academic excellence, they are attracting students who are enrolling with false information. Kelley Williams-Bolar in Akron, Ohio, made nation- al news when she enrolled her children into the neighboring Copley-Fairlawn School District. Her home having been broken into, she and her children began staying temporarily with her father, who lived in Copley-Fairlawn's district. However, she was charged with and convicted of felony records tampering because she was allowing the children to attend school in a district not considered her district of residence. She was sentenced to jail. Williams-Bolar's case is an extreme example of the lengths to which some districts will go to enforce district residency policies and restrict enrollment to students living full-time within district boundary lines. In situations like Williams-Bolar's, many parents, who are forced by circum- stance to stay with relatives or who simply want to help their children by enrolling them in the best possible schools, end up running afoul of district residency policies. Moreover, for homeless, immigrant, and limited-English-proficient families, the im- pact of these restrictive residency policies can be such that children are prevented 1 Andrea Canning & Leezel Tanglao, Ohio Mom Kelley Williams Bolar Jailed for Sending Kids to Better School District, ABC NEWS (Jan. 26, 2011). 2 Kantele Franko Kelley Williams Bolar Case Highlihts Schools' Efforts to ID Fake Student Addresses, HUFFI NGTON POST (Feb. 25, 2011). For homeless, immigrant, and limited-English-proficient families, the impact of these restrictive residency policies can be such that children are prevented from accessing a public education entirely even if they reside within the district's borders. from accessing a public education entirely even if they reside within the district's borders. Across the nation, school funding inequities have segregated many families with low income and families of color into underperforming schools, and aggressive district policies on residency enforcement have a disparate impact on those families. The intent and result of restrictive residency policies can take different forms, such as requirements that potential students or parents present specific types of government-issued identification (e.g., driver's licenses or state identification cards) or that families proffer particular types of proof that they reside in the district (e.g., a parent's name on a lease or mortgage document). On their face the policies may appear to be nondiscrimina- tory and equally applied to all students. But in practice these policies can have a disparate negative impact on immigrant and limited-English-proficient youths whose parents may not have the required state identification documents due to their immigration status; on nonimmigrant students of color whose parents may lack documents as a result of poor-quality keeping of civil records in the post-Jim Crow South or high incarceration rates; and homeless youths whose parents may no longer have documents that they once had. Constitutional History The right of equal access to education has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a number of cases, starting with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.1 In Brown the Court held that, even if schools segregated by race were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation in and of itself was both unconstitutional and harmful to minority students. Subsequent cases further clarified and expanded that right. 3 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2014CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW JOURNAL OF POVERTY LAW AND POLICY 126 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW JOURNAL OF POVERTY LAW AND POLICY 126 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2014

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most