Close Menu
  • Home
  • Donate
  • 50th Anniversary 2023
  • Who We Are
    • About IDRA
    • Change Model & How We Work
    • President & CEO
    • Staff
      • Staff Team Home
      • Mikayla Arciaga, M.A.Ed.
      • Nilka Avilés, Ed.D.
      • Hector Bojorquez
      • Charles A. Cavazos
      • Morgan Craven, J.D.
      • Paige Duggins-Clay, J.D.
      • Reymundo R. Flores, MBA
      • Stephanie Garcia, Ph.D.
      • Christie L. Goodman, APR
      • Chloe Latham Sikes, Ph.D.
      • Thomas Marshall III, M.Ed.
      • Aurelio M. Montemayor, M.Ed.
      • Celina Moreno, J.D.
      • Lizdelia Piñón, Ed.D.
      • Christina Quintanilla-Muñoz, M.Ed.
      • Annette Ramos
      • Jocellyn Rivera
      • Joanna D. Sánchez, Ph.D.
      • Claribel Tirú
      • Silvia Valencia. MBA
      • Michelle Martínez Vega
      • Terrence Wilson, J.D.
    • Board of Directors
    • IDRA Fellows
    • IDRA Interns
    • Youth Advisory Board
    • Our Story – Transforming Education by Putting Children First
    • Annual Reports
    • IDRA Social Media
    • Contact Us
    • Employment Opportunities at IDRA
  • Change Model & How We Work
    • Quality Schools Action Framework
    • College Bound and Determined
    • Courage to Connect: A Quality Schools Action Framework
    • Six Goals of Educational Equity
  • Data Dashboards & Maps
  • Learning Goes On – COVID-19 Resources
    • Learning Goes On – Home
    • Donate to Support Education During COVID-19 Crisis
    • Policy Updates – English
    • Policy Updates – Spanish
    • IDRA Surveys
    • Webinar Series
  • Educator and Student Support
    • School Leadership
    • Teaching Quality
    • Curriculum Quality and Access
    • Student Programs
    • Family and Community Engagement
    • Online Technical Assistance Toolkits
  • Families and Communities
    • Families and Communities Home Page
    • Education CAFE™
    • Family Leadership Model
    • Family and Community Engagement
    • IDRA Ventanilla de Orientación Educativa
  • IDRA Valued Youth Partnership
  • Knowledge is Power
  • Learning Goes On
  • Policy, Advocacy and Community Engagement
    • Policy, Advocacy and Community Engagement Home
    • Ending Harmful Discipline to Create Safer Schools
    • Ensuring Excellent Educational Opportunities for English Learners
    • Ensuring Fair School Funding for All Students
    • Growing and Sustaining Healthy School Districts
    • Preparing All Students to Succeed in College
    • Federal Education Advocacy
    • Texas Education Advocacy
    • Georgia Education Advocacy
    • Policy Fellows Program
    • Georgia Coalition for Education Justice
    • Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition
  • Pressroom
    • News Releases
    • Statements
    • Speeches and Testimony
  • Research
    • Research Home
    • Attrition and Dropout Rates in Texas
    • Texas School Finance Dashboards
    • José A. Cárdenas School Finance Fellows Program
    • Ready Texas
    • Evaluation, Research and Needs Assessment Services
    • English Learner Education Research
    • Teacher Preparation Research
    • Early Childhood Education Research
    • School Funding Research
    • College Access and Success Research
    • School Discipline Research
    • Studies for San Antonio College
  • Resource Center
    • Resource Center Home
    • Annual Reports
    • Classnotes Podcast
    • IDRA eNews
    • IDRA Newsletter
    • Infographics
    • Legacy of Mendez & Brown
    • News Releases
    • Publications
    • Statements
    • Webinars
  • School Resource Hub – We All Belong
  • Semillitas de Aprendizaje
  • Southern Education Equity Network
  • Services for Educators
    • African American Studies
    • Building Inferencing Skills
    • Coaching and Mentoring
    • Cultural and Ethnic Studies
    • Data Services to Inform Teaching & Learning
    • English Learner Literacy Coaching
    • ESL and Bilingual Education
    • Evaluation, Research and Needs Assessment
    • Mexican American Studies
    • Parent Involvement & Leadership Development
    • Project Based Learning Schoolwide
    • Restorative Practices Team Training
    • School Board Assistance
    • Students in Technology Explorations – Moving to STEM
    • Transitions to Teaching
    • Ventanilla de Orientación Educativa (VOE)

We're celebrating 50 years of transforming education across the country!

Get info
Full Menu
  • Who We Are
  • Events
  • Pressroom
Home
  • Subscribe
  • Search

Resource Center

Public Engagement Results in Support of Education for All Children

Share:
Share

• by Albert Cortez, Ph.D. and Anna Alicia Romero • IDRA Newsletter • November – December 1996 • 

Anna Alicia RomeroDr. Albert Cortez

U.S. lawmakers recently waged a major battle over reforms of our national immigration policies. As a result of extensive pressure from California legislators, part of the national debate focused on immigrant student access to public education. This article provides an overview of the debates and the outcome for immigrant children.

The Education of Some Children is Threatened

Back in November 1994 California voters passed Proposition 187, making undocumented immigrants ineligible for public services in that state. Policy leaders in the US Congress saw this as a signal to propose restrictive laws against immigrants. Several bills affecting immigrants were making their way through the legislative process rather unsuccessfully. One such bill was introduced by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) that would give states the option of denying children of undocumented workers access to public schools and would call for citizen verification of students’ immigration status by school employees.

The Gallegly bill was postured as a “dis-incentive” for immigrants and their families to enter the country. The California legislator’s intent was to allow California – which has the greatest number of immigrant student enrollees within its schools – to legally deny admission to immigrant students residing in that state.

Opponents of the measure cited the US Supreme Court decision in Plyler vs. Doe in which the court had ruled that such exclusion violates the equal protection provisions of the US Constitution. Analysts concur that the Gallegly proposal was designed to force a re­visiting of the Plyler decision in a court that many perceive is a conservative body, in hopes that the court would revise its position on the issue.

The debates about the education of children of undocumented workers were long and harsh. They caused some bitter divisions between members who re often aligned on other issues.

In Texas, Gov. George W. Bush Jr. spoke out against the measure by Gallegly because of the aftermath that would occur in Texas economically. Minority, religious and business groups also voiced strong opposition to the proposed measure on the basis of its immorality and the hurtful repercussions to the nation’s economy.

Last March, in an unprecedented move, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich endorsed the amendment and strongly urged members of Congress to do the same. The national effort to curtail the number of undocumented workers in the United States was an issue couched in the argument that individual states have the right to determine how to control their borders and that immigrants are continually “reaping the benefits” of social programs for which taxpaying citizens must pay.

However, various groups spoke out against these claims and called attention to the measure’s long­term negative implications. Advocacy groups throughout the country like the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), National Association of Bilingual Educators (NABE) and many others began a campaign to disseminate information to other interested people on the Gallegly amendment and the unconstitutionality of the proposal (Cortez, 1996).

A broad range of other interest groups was also actively involved in the public debate on the issue. These included educator associations such as National Education Association (NEA), National Association of School Administrators (NASA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CSSO) which is the national organization of state superintendents and commissioners, and law enforcement groups concerned with large numbers of school­age youth “wandering the streets” with no place to go during the school day and denied admission to school.

Despite this broad range of opposition, the Gallegly amendment was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 257 to 163 (12 members not voting) (Congressional Record, 1996).

The senate version of the immigration legislation did not include the Gallegly measure. A conference committee was appointed to work out this and other differences in the two versions. Once a new version was created, both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have to vote to accept the changes before the bill would be sent to President Clinton.

In the Senate, many members had heard their constituents’ objections during the August recess and expressed serious reservations about denying children access to education, calling it a misguided way of attempting to control immigration. At one point during the conference committee deliberations, the conferees received a letter signed by 47 senators indicating that the senators would not support an immigration reform measure that denied education to immigrant children.

The president also communicated his grave concerns with the Gallegly provisions and stated that he would veto any measure that included denial of education to children.

Attempted Compromises

Faced with strong Senate opposition, proponents of the Gallegly amendment attempted to develop “compromises” that would make the measure palatable to enough members of the senate to win approval. One such compromise provided for grandfathering, or excluding children of undocumented workers who are already enrolled in schools. Another called for allowing such students to attend elementary schools but would require children to pay full tuition to attend high school. None of the variations on the original proposal produced sufficient changes of position by senators.

As opposition to the immigrant reform measure grew because of the Gallegly provisions, proponents of some of the broader reforms began to take issue with the student exclusion provisions. They complained that it was endangering passage of the broader bill and eventually eliminated the contentious education exclusion clauses from the final legislation.

Undeterred, Gallegly supporters won a concession to be allowed the opportunity to introduce the amendment as a separate bill before the end of the 104th Congress. The Gallegly measure was introduced, but not adopted, in the final days of the recently completed congressional session.

Other measures, some even more exclusionary, were introduced this year. Yet they did not receive the same high level of attention as did the Gallegly measure and were not passed by Congress.

What It All Means

These latest attempts to deny children of undocumented workers access to public schools is a continuation of efforts by organized groups that include California­based anti­immigrant factions and immigration reform proponents from around the country. While the latest attempt was defeated, it is likely that there will be future attempts to deny education to children of undocumented workers in national legislative proposals, and possibly in state­focused legislation.

Children’s advocates did not stand on the sidelines during the crucial congressional debates this year, and they made a difference in the defeat of the proposals. The general public began to understand that these proposals were more about excluding children from education than they were about reducing illegal immigration and saving taxpayer money. Individuals across the country voiced their disdain for such exclusion.

Since we will likely see similar proposals again and again, it would behoove us to deal with the larger issue. We must continue to create understanding among the general public about the issues at stake. We must dispel the many misconceptions surrounding the “rationale” offered by proponents of exclusion. The truth is that:

  • There is no research data supporting the concept that denying children access to education will have any impact on immigration.
  • Denial of a basic education punishes children for situations that they do not control.
  • Research has shown that the majority of children of undocumented workers end up settling in the United States as adults, making access to education a critical long­term issue.
  • The savings that some say are realized by keeping immigrant pupils out of school, when distributed among those currently enrolled, comes to a mere few dollars per school year and pennies per school day for each student. Funding issues attributed to immigrant pupil enrollment are often really a reflection of fundamental flaws in systems of state education funding.

Had the individuals and groups not staged organized and informed objections to the latest attack on immigrant children’s educational opportunities, it is conceivable that the restrictive proposals would have prevailed. If we allow legislators to deny access to education for some, then we take a step closer to allowing legislators to deny or dilute equity of access for any others perceived as different or “undeserving.” If any child is subject to injustice, we are all the poorer for it.


Resources

Congressional Record (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, March 20, 1996).

Cortez, Albert. “Immigrant Education Policy: Why Attempt to Fix What’s Not Broken?” IDRA Newsletter (San Antonio, Texas: Intercultural Development Research Association, May 1996) Vol. XXIII, No. 5.


Albert Cortez is the division director of the IDRA Institute for Policy and Leadership. Anna Alicia Romero is an education assistant in the IDRA Institute for Policy and Leadership. Comments and questions may be sent via e-mail to feedback@idra.org.


[©1996, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the November – December 1996 IDRA Newsletter by the Intercultural Development Research Association. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]

Share
  • News

    • image for learning goes on content
      50th Anniversary News
    • image for learning goes on content
      Donate Here
    • image for learning goes on content
      Combatting Classroom Censorship On
    • Book cover for Semillitas de aprendizaje
      Semillitas de Aprendizaje
  • Get Email Alerts

    • Sign up here
  • Classnotes Podcast

    • podcasts-icon-lg Recent Podcasts
  • Explore IDRA

      • Who We Are
      • IDRA Social Media
      • Learning Goes On
      • Change Model & How We Work
      • Data Dashboards & Maps
      • Learning Goes On
      • Educator & Student Support
      • Families & Communities
      • IDRA Valued Youth Partnership
      • Knowledge is Power
      • Policy, Advocacy & Community Engagement
      • Pressroom
      • Research
      • School Resource Hub – We All Belong
      • Semillitas de Aprendizaje
      • Research
      • Southern Education Equity Network
      • Services for Educators
      • You Tube Channel
  • Equity Connection
  • Semillitas de Aprendizaje
  • IDRA EAC–South
  • IDRA Newsletter
  • eNews
  • Classnotes Podcast
  • Valued Youth Partnership Evaluator
  • Resource Center
  • Let’s be friends! Find IDRA Online
  • Learning Goes On – A COVID-19 Resource for Education
  • Donate to Support Education During COVID-19 Crisis
  • Equity Connection
  • Semillitas de Aprendizaje
  • IDRA EAC–South
  • IDRA Newsletter
  • eNews
  • Classnotes Podcast
  • Valued Youth Partnership Evaluator
  • Resource Center
  • Let’s be friends! Find IDRA Online
  • Learning Goes On – A COVID-19 Resource for Education
  • Donate to Support Education During COVID-19 Crisis

Contact

5815 Callaghan Road, Suite 101
San Antonio, TX 78228

Phone: 210-444-1710
Fax: 210-444-1714