Frum

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

AMERICAN ACADEMIC - VOLUME HREE

81

Postscoday Edcatoal Accss o UdoctdStdts: Oppottsad Costats

Jennifer L. Frum

Introduction

Each ya, U.S. hgh schools gadat a statd 65,000 doctdstdts, o who oly 5 pct v attd collg.

1

Fo ost doctdgats, th ajo bas to postscoday accss a both acal adlgal. Fo stac, 39 pct o doctd chld lv blow th dalpovty lvl (copad to 17 pct o atv-bo chld) whl th avagco o a doctd gat’s aly s 40 pct low tha thato th atv-bo als o lgal gat als.

2

Althogh stats aqd to povd doctd stdts accss to  pblc K-12 dcato,oc thy ach collg ag sch stdts a  so spcts abadod by thpblc dcatoal syst. Fo stac, v  a doctd stdt wasboght by hs/h pats to th Utd Stats as a yog chld, gadatd oa U.S. hgh school, ad s accptd to a pblc collg o vsty,  40 statsthat stdt s qd to pay o-sdt o ot-o-stat tto, whch costs aavag 140 pct o tha sdt tto.

3

Eqally, d dal law thssa doctd stdts a pohbtd o cvg dal acal ado th dcato. Ts pohbto, whch appls to doctd stdtsbt ot to th cotpat o-ctzs who a lgal pat sdts,pvts doctd stdts o cvg Pll Gats ad patcpatg dally dd wok stdy pogas. Ftho, v  thy cold aodto attd collg o vsty, sch stdts’ doctd stats as thy caot lgally wok at gadato d ct law. Ts s aoth stctothat dstgshs doctd stdts o th cotpat doctdo-ctzs, who ay obta psso to wok lgally  th Utd Stats.Gv th sz o th doctd gat poplato  th Utd Stats,ow statd to b so 11 llo

4

, a sgcat pblc polcy dbat

82

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

has emerged concerning the main issue o whether undocumented studentsshould be entitled to attend public postsecondary institutions, and the narrowerissues o whether they should be eligible or resident or in-state tuition and who(the ederal government or the states) should have the authority to determinethis, and whether economic and social returns accrue rom investing in undocu-mented immigrants’ higher education. Within the context o this phenomenono growing numbers o undocumented students graduating rom U.S. highschools, then, in this article I explore two aspects o the issue o undocumentedstudents’ access to public colleges and universities. In the rst section I examinea number o key court rulings, relevant ederal statutes, recent state legislative ac-tion, and current Congressional proposals impacting undocumented immigrants’eligibility to attend public postsecondary institutions and access in-state tuition.I also consider the extent to which these measures may actually improve un-documented students’ access to public colleges and universities and the way in which current policy aects the opportunities available to students upon gradu-ation rom college. In the second section, I investigate the economic and non-economic costs and returns o measures to improve postsecondary opportunitiesor undocumented students. I also examine whether the economic and socialreturns to higher education accrue in the same way or undocumented students asor resident students. Finally, I oer a policy option or states, should they wish toimprove educational opportunities or undocumented immigrants.

Te Regulatory Environment

Any discussion o the legal issues surrounding undocumented students andhigher education must be situated within the larger debate surrounding unau-thorized immigration in general. As Massey, Durand, and Nolan (2002) note,U.S. citizens’ attitudes towards immigrants have varied historically, oten refect-ing the state o the U.S. economy and other internal political considerations,rather than the realities o the actual migration process.

5

So, paradoxically, evenas the movement o goods and capital between the United States and other na-tions is on the rise, much o the discourse concerning immigration is ocused onseeking to restrict the movement o people across borders and to limit access orimmigrants currently in the United States to social “benets,” including highereducation. It is perhaps more oten this highly politicized discourse, rather thansound public policy, that has impacted the way in which immigration, particu-larly that rom Latin America, has been legislated, regulated, and litigated atboth the ederal and state levels.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC - VOLUME HREE

8

One o the most important statements to date on undocumented immigrants’access to public education was the landmark US Supreme Court case

Plyler v.Doe

(1982), a case related not to postsecondary schooling but to K-12 education.In a 5-4 decision, the

Plyler

Court held that the State o exas could not deny undocumented immigrant children access to ree K-12 public education. Whilethe Court did not explicitly extend the same protections to undocumentedstudents at the college level,

Plyler v. Doe

is relevant to the debate at hand or atleast two reasons. First, the Court held that states must show that they have acompelling interest in limiting access to education or a particular group, andthat in this case exas had ailed to do so. Indeed, the Court ound that there was no signicant nancial burden imposed by undocumented immigrantson the state and rejected the claim that preventing undocumented immigrantsrom accessing education would be an efective deterrent to urther illegal im-migration.

6

Second, while holding that education is not a undamental right,the Court stressed that denying K-12 education to undocumented childrenamounted to creating a “lietime o hardship” and a permanent “underclass” o individuals. Tis is signicant, because at the time o the

Plyler

decision a highschool diploma could very well lead to a well-paying job that could help onemove up the socio-economic ladder. Indeed, Justice Brennan’s majority opinionis explicit in its declaration o the link between education and social mobility.oday, though, nearly a quarter o a century later, a high school diploma createsewer opportunities or those entering the labor market. Arguably, the ticket tosocial and economic mobility has increasingly become a college degree, withcollege graduates’ average annual earnings almost double those o high schoolgraduates and nearly three times those o high school drop-outs.

7

While in 1982the Supreme Court sought to prevent the creation o an underclass o undocu-mented individuals by assuring access to ree public K-12 education, the new educational “ticket to the middle class” may well be a college degree.

8

By today’sstandards, then, not extending similar protections to undocumented studentsonce they reach college age may create the very socio-economic chasms theCourt had originally sought to avoid.

Beyond Te

Plyler

Ruling

Te regulatory issues related to undocumented immigrants’ access to publichigher education emerged rapidly post-

Plyler

, becoming enguled in the largerdebate regarding immigration and immigrants’ access to social services and

of 00

Leave a Comment