# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apply by March 24, 2021, to be considered for the 2021-2022 Fulbright Teachers for Global Classrooms Program .

The Fulbright Teachers for Global Classrooms (Fulbright TGC) Program is a yearlong professional learning opportunity and short-term exchange for elementary, middle, and high school educators from the United States to develop skills to prepare students for a competitive global economy. Fulbright Teachers for Global Classrooms equips educators to bring an international perspective to their schools through targeted training, experience abroad, and global collaboration.

To be eligible for the Fulbright TGC Program, the applicant must:

Fulbright Teachers for Global Classrooms are selected through an open competition. Applications are reviewed by an independent panel of experts according to a rubric of specific evaluation criteria.

In an effort to reflect the diversity of the United States and global society, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs programs, funding, and other activities encourage the involvement of U.S. and international applicants from traditionally underrepresented groups, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities. Opportunities are open to people regardless of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, geographic location, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The Bureau is committed to fairness, equity, and inclusion.

Alumni of the Teachers for Global Classrooms (TGC) programs are ineligible to apply. Preference will be given to applicants who have not participated in the Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching (DA), the Fulbright Classroom Teacher Exchange or another Fulbright program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opportunity for U.S. teachers: Fulbright Teachers for Global Classrooms Program (Fulbright TGC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apply by March 24, 2021, to be considered for the 2021-2022 Fulbright Teachers for Global Classrooms Program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In June 1982, the Supreme Court issued Plyler v. Doe, a landmark decision holding that states cannot constitutionally deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status. By a 5-4 vote, the Court found that any resources which might be saved from excluding undocumented children from public schools were far outweighed by the harms imposed on society at large from denying them an education.

For more than thirty years, Plyler has ensured equal access to education for children regardless of status, but anti-immigrant sentiment continues to threaten that right. States and localities have passed measures and adopted unofficial policies that violate the spirit-if not the letter-of the Court's decision. For example, in 2011 the state of Alabama enacted a law requiring school administrators to determine the immigration status of newly enrolling students, which in turn resulted in markedly higher rates of absenteeism for Latino school children and caused much fear and confusion in schools. Supporters of the Alabama law wanted to challenge Plyler itself, claiming the Court implied that its ruling could change if sufficient evidence established that the enrollment of undocumented children harmed the overall quality of education, but that challenge was blocked by the Courts.

This fact sheet provides an overview of the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler and subsequent efforts by states and localities to avoid compliance with the decision.

What were the facts of Plyler v. Doe?

In 1975, the Texas Legislature authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in public schools to foreign-born children who were not "legally admitted" to the United States. Two years later, the TylerIndependentSchool District adopted a policy requiring foreign-born students to pay tuition if they were not "legally admitted." Under the school district's policy, children were considered "legally admitted" if (1) they possessed documentation showing that they were legally present in the United States, or (2) federal immigration authorities confirmed they were in the process of securing such documentation.

Shortly thereafter, a group of students from Mexico who could not establish that they were "legally admitted" brought a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. The district court, after making extensive findings of fact, held that the policy violated the Constitution and was also "preempted" by federal immigration law. A federal appeals court upheld the injunction, although its decision rested on constitutional rather than preemption grounds. The school district then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, which granted the case for review.

What was the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling?

The Court based its ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says in part, "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (This provision is commonly known as the "Equal Protection Clause.") Under this provision, the Court held that if states provide a free public education to U.S. citizens and lawfully present foreign-born children, they cannot deny such an education to undocumented children without "showing that it furthers some substantial state interest."

The Court found that the school district had no rational basis to deny children a public education based on their immigration status, given the harm the policy would inflict on the children themselves and society as a whole. "By denying these children a basic education," the Court said, "we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation." The Court also said that holding children accountable for their parents' actions "does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."

Did the dissent suggest that undocumented children should be prevented from attending school?

No. To the contrary, the dissent acknowledged that it "is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children-including [unauthorized immigrants]-of an elementary education," in part because "the long-range costs of excluding any children from the public schools may well outweigh the costs of educating them." Instead, the dissent argued that the Court should defer to the school district's policy because the Constitution does not officially prevent discrimination against unlawfully present immigrants.

Did the Court say its opinion would change if evidence existed that educating undocumented children reduces the quality of education for other students?

No. The majority noted that the record in the case did not support "the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State." However, the remark was not central to the Court's reasoning or otherwise intended to leave open the question. The Court also said that even if barring one group of children from schools was likely to improve the overall quality of education, the school district would still have to justify applying the prohibition to undocumented children. Thus, there is no basis to believe the Court's decision would have been different-or that a future Court would overrule Plyler -if evidence showed that educating undocumented school children reduces the quality of education for other students.

How have states and localities attempted to circumvent the Plyler decision?

In the three decades since the Plyler ruling was issued, states and localities have passed numerous measures and adopted unofficial policies that violate the spirit if not the letter of the decision. For example:

In 1994, California voters enacted Proposition 187, which prohibited public elementary and secondary schools from admitting any student who was not lawfully present in the United States, and which required schools to notify federal immigration authorities within 45 days of any student reasonably believed to be in violation of federal immigration laws. The measure was subsequently struck down in federal court for violating Plyler.

In 2006, the school district in Elmwood Park, Illinois, denied enrollment to a student who had overstayed the tourist visa on which he had originally entered the country. The district ultimately permitted the student to enroll, however, after the Illinois State Board of Education threatened to withhold funding.

In 2011, the Alabama legislature enacted a measure requiring school administrators to determine the immigration status of all newly enrolling students, and to submit an annual report to the state Board of Education setting forth all data obtained under the requirement. The federal government and numerous private plaintiffs have sought to enjoin this provision as part of a larger challenge to H.B. 56, the omnibus measure in which it was enacted. A federal district court in Alabama declined to enter a preliminary injunction against the provision upon finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing to appeal. However, a federal appellate court subsequently blocked implementation of the provision pending resolution of an appeal. The provision was permanently blocked in October 2013 when Alabama agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit.

In addition to formal measures, local school districts have routinely adopted unofficial policies designed to circumvent Plyler. For example, schools have required immigrant students or parents to submit Social Security numbers or provide other additional documents prior to enrollment. In a "Dear Colleague" letter sent in May 2011, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice reminded school administrators that they may not deny enrollment to students who are unwilling or unable to provide a Social Security number, or who provide a foreign birth certificate at the time of enrollment.

Why should schools be prevented from collecting and reporting information on students' immigration status?

Even if schools permit undocumented children to enroll, collecting and reporting information about their immigration status is bad policy and also likely unconstitutional. Although the stated intent of such measures may be to obtain an accurate count of the number of undocumented schoolchildren, their implementation may dissuade immigrant families from enrolling their children in the first place. According to figures provided by the state of Alabama, for example, more than 13 percent of Latino students in the state withdrew from public schools between September 2011 and February 2012-even though immigrants as a whole constituted less than 0.5 percent of students in Alabama schools. Thus, the apparent effect of such measures is to deter enrollment of children with undocumented parents or other family members, even if the children are themselves U.S. citizens.

In addition to causing higher rates of absenteeism, measures like Alabama's require untrained school administrators to make complicated determinations about immigration status; erode immigrant students' trust of teachers, counselors, and other school employees; create greater potential for racial and ethnic profiling; and can breed conflict amongst students themselves, such as the bullying of students who are (or are perceived to be) foreign-born. Such measures can also lead to potential violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prevents schools from disclosing information in student files without parental consent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This fact sheet provides an overview of the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe and subsequent efforts by states and localities to avoid compliance with the decision.

# data[].attributes.body
tree map template

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thinking Maps - Central Union School District

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Careers Start Here | Altierus Career College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enroll as a student. Leave as a professional. Find industry-current, in-demand training for exciting careers in business, healthcare, IT, and trades at Altierus Career College!

# data[].attributes.body
Career and College Readiness Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To inspire and to facilitate improvements that affect educational outcomes-especially among underserved populations-through ev

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders | CCSSO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) unanimously approved new, refreshed standards for educational leaders in October 2015. The final standards were released in November 2015. The 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, formerly known as ISLLC standards, aim to ensure district and school leaders are able to improve student achievement and meet new, higher expectations.

# data[].attributes.body
These are all good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Parents Are Sweating And Hustling To Pay For Child Care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New America Care Report was covered in an NPR special series on working parents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Proficiency (ELP) Assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consortia and non-consortia assessments used to determine the English proficiency of ELs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Learning / English Proficiency Levels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ELL students hold a wide range of English profiency levels along with a wealth of cultural experiences . In order to better meet the needs of our students, it is important to consider both of these pieces. Above you will see the six different stages of language development, accompanied by a brief description of each stage. Knowing where our students fall on this chart helps us to know what expectations are appropriate to have for our ELL students. Looking to the next level is a way we can set goals to help our students progress.

Academic vs. Social Language (CALP vs. BICS)

The distinction between academic and social language is important to consider when supporting ELL students. Social language is especially influenced by social interactions students have with their native-English speaking peers and teachers. At first, students may simply step back and observe their peers interacting in English. Rest assured that even just the exposure to such language is building their vocabulary and knowledge. It is important to note that research shows social language generally takes 6 months to 2 years to fully develop.

Academic language refers to content language, which corolates with the subject at hand being taught. This might include math vocabulary such as fractions, multiples, and so forth. While social language typically falls in place first, academic language may take as many as 5-7 years to develop. It is important to keep in mind that while a student may be proficient in English social language, they have not fully grasped academic language. It is easy to lose sight of this when students are proficient in convsersing with ease socially. Preteaching academic vocabulary and regular check-ins for understanding are important in meeting the needs of students' academic language.

Can-do descriptors are a tool which provide teachers with expectations for students' language capabilities along with methods to teach them.

Websites for Instruction ELL Rubrics for Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ELL students hold a wide range of English profiency levels along with a wealth of cultural experiences . In order to better meet the needs of our students, it is important to consider both of these pieces. Above you will see the six different stages of language development, accompanied by a brief description of each stage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Collaboration and Co-Teaching Strategies for English Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Collaboration and Co-Teaching Strategies for English Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information about collaborative teaching practices and co-teaching or team teaching for English Learners; Applications of the Common Core for English language learners, ELLs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language Translation and Interpreting Services | LanguageLine Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LanguageLine is the global leader in interpretation, translation, and localization services. We provide 24/7 language access coverage in 290+ languages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apps, sites, and text hotlines help kids cope with issues from cyberbullying to suicide. Advice from Common Sense Media editors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lumos NJ ASK Test Preparation - Online study program

# data[].attributes.body
For Programmatic Considerations