# data[].attributes.headline
Great resource on intercultural communication

# data[].attributes.subject
Great resource on intercultural communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anthropologist Edward Hall founded the field of intercultural communication in 1959 with his book The Silent Language. The book was originally intended for the general public, but it sparked academic research in intercultural communication and fueled interest in subjects like nonverbal communication, according to Keio Communication Review.

Hall defines intercultural communication as a form of communication that shares information across different cultures and social groups. One framework for approaching intercultural communication is with high-context and low-context cultures, which refer to the value cultures place on indirect and direct communication.

High-Context Cultures

A high-context culture relies on implicit communication and nonverbal cues. In high-context communication, a message cannot be understood without a great deal of background information. Asian, African, Arab, central European and Latin American cultures are generally considered to be high-context cultures.

Become a Master of Intercultural Communication

Southeastern University's online Master's in International Community Development equips working adults to help others - domestically or internationally - through ministry, business and social services.
View Program
High-context cultures often display the following tendencies, according to C.B. Halverson's book Cultural Context Inventory.

Association: Relationships build slowly and depend on trust. Productivity depends on relationships and the group process. An individual's identity is rooted in groups (family, culture, work). Social structure and authority are centralized.

Interaction: Nonverbal elements such as voice tone, gestures, facial expression and eye movement are significant. Verbal messages are indirect, and communication is seen as an art form or way of engaging someone. Disagreement is personalized, and a person is sensitive to conflict expressed in someone else's nonverbal communication.

Territoriality: Space is communal. People stand close to each other and share the same space.

Temporality: Everything has its own time, and time is not easily scheduled. Change is slow, and time is a process that belongs to others and nature.

Learning: Multiple sources of information are used. Thinking proceeds from general to specific. Learning occurs by observing others as they model or demonstrate and then practicing. Groups are preferred, and accuracy is valued.

Low-Context Cultures

A low-context culture relies on explicit communication. In low-context communication, more of the information in a message is spelled out and defined. Cultures with western European roots, such as the United States and Australia, are generally considered to be low-context cultures.

Low-context cultures often display the following tendencies, according to Halverson.

Association: Relationships begin and end quickly. Productivity depends on procedures and paying attention to the goal. The identity of individuals is rooted in themselves and their accomplishments. Social structure is decentralized.

Interaction: Nonverbal elements are not significant. Verbal messages are explicit, and communication is seen as a way of exchanging information, ideas and opinions. Disagreement is depersonalized; the focus is on rational (not personal) solutions. An individual can be explicit about another person's bothersome behavior.

Territoriality: Space is compartmentalized. Privacy is important, so people stand farther apart.

Temporality: Events and tasks are scheduled and to be done at particular times. Change is fast, and time is a commodity to be spent or saved. One's time is one's own.

Learning: One source of information is used. Thinking proceeds from specific to general. Learning occurs by following the explicit directions and explanations of others. Individual orientation is preferred, and speed is valued.

Communication Dynamics in High- and Low-Context Cultures

Cultural differences shape every aspect of global communication, says Forbes contributor Carol Kinsey Goman. This helps explain why people in Japan (a high-context culture) prefer face-to-face communication over electronic technology favored by other industrialized countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany (low-context cultures).

High-context cultures also prefer personal bonds and informal agreements over meticulously worded legal documents. They "are looking for meaning and understanding in what is not said - in body language, in silences and pauses, and in relationships and empathy," Goman says. Meanwhile, low-context cultures "place emphasis on sending and receiving accurate messages directly, and by being precise with spoken or written words," she explains. U.S. business leaders often fall into a communication trap by disregarding the importance of building and maintaining personal relationships when interacting with people from high-context cultures.

People should also watch for differences within high- and low-context cultures. This classification is an oversimplification, according to A.C. Krizan and others in the book Business Communication. "For example, although American culture is classified as low context, communication among family members tends to be high context," they write. "Family relationships and members' high level of shared experiences require fewer words because of mutual understandings."

On the other hand, communication between two businesspersons from a low-context culture tends to be more specific and direct. Attention focuses more on what is said than relationships. In China or Japan, words receive less attention than relationships, mutual understandings and nonverbal body language.

Helping People From Different Cultures

Southeastern University's online Master's in International Community Development equips working adults to help others - domestically or internationally - through ministry, business and social services. The program uses a multidisciplinary approach to give students the skills needed to impact people through relief and development agencies, international government, church ministries, corporate relations and philanthropy, healthcare, project management, education or research.

A one-week international practicum in El Salvador is included in the tuition. The program takes place in a convenient and flexible online learning environment to accommodate students' work and personal schedules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Intercultural Communication: High and Low Context Cultures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anthropologist Edward Hall founded the field of intercultural communication in 1959 with his book The Silent Language. The book was originally intended for the general public, but it sparked academic research in intercultural communication and fueled interest in subjects like nonverbal communication, according to Keio Communication Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resources for English Learner Educators - SupportEd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SupportEd has resources available to help teachers and administrators serve English learners including materials from presentations given at conferences and books published by the SupportEd team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Virginia EL Supervisors' Association (VESA) is an educational organization that promotes the academic achievement of English Language Learners in grades PK-12.

Our membership consists of administrators, supervisors, and program coordinators school divisions from all over Virginia.

The purposes of the organization are:

To disseminate information that promotes and enhances the study and teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL).

To encourage exchanges of ideas among members that clarify the place of ESL in our schools and lives.

To recognize and publicize excellence in ESL study and teaching.

To sponsor an annual conference for Virginia educators on the education of English Language Learners.

To offer scholarships for post-secondary education to English Language Learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Virginia EL Supervisors' Association (VESA) is an educational organization that promotes the academic achievement of English Language Learners in grades PK-12. Our membership consists of administrators, supervisors, and program coordinators school divisions from all over Virginia. The purposes of the organization are: To disseminate information that promotes and enhances the study and teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL).

# data[].attributes.headline
VDOE Handbook for Educators of English Learners with Suspected Disabilities

# data[].attributes.subject
VDOE Handbook for Educators of English Learners with Suspected Disabilities

# data[].attributes.headline
quizlet ESL Practice, ABC order on all concepts 

# data[].attributes.subject
quizlet ESL Practice, ABC order on all concepts 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vocabulary and terms used on the ESL Praxis II test. Learn with flashcards, games, and more - for free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The security system for this website has been triggered. Completing the challenge below proves you are a human and gives you temporary access.

# data[].attributes.headline
Quizlet on linguistics,language acquisition theory, methods

# data[].attributes.subject
Quizlet on linguistics,language acquisition theory, methods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start studying ESL PRAXIS. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching Tolerance
Critical Practices for Anti-bias Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When asking students to explore issues of personal and social identity, teachers must provide safe spaces where students are seen, valued, cared for and respected. It is also important that students have opportunities to learn from one another's varied experiences and perspectives. To create this learning environment, teachers need to skillfully draw on student experiences to enrich the curriculum.

Teachers can show they value students' lives and identities in a variety of ways. Some are small, like taking the time to learn the proper pronunciation of every student's name or getting to know young people's families. Others require more time and investment, like building curriculum around personal narratives or incorporating identity-based responses into the study of texts. At the community level, it is important to understand neighborhood demographics, strengths, concerns, conflicts and challenges. Like students themselves, these dynamics may change frequently.

For teachers whose experiences differ from those of their students, it is critical to exercise sensitivity. They must bring the following to the effort:

An asset-based view of youth and unfamiliar identity groups

A commitment to avoiding and challenging stereotypes

A sense of openness and cultural humility

A willingness to let students define their own identities

Connection to Anti-bias Education

Honoring student experience supports three of the four anti-bias domains: Identity, Diversity and Action. Students who feel their experiences are unwelcome, judged, stereotyped, disrespected or invisible find it extremely difficult to engage in meaningful discussion of identity and justice issues. Those whose stories and voices are heard and reflected in the classroom are more likely to engage with anti-bias curriculum and translate their learning into action.

Knowing and valuing students' lives provides other benefits:

Ability to identify potential "hot spots" on key topics.

Development of caring student-teacher relationships that support effective identity-based learning.

Development of intergroup awareness and understanding.

Direction in the selection of texts that are relevant to a particular class.

Appreciation of student contributions to discussions.

Strategies

Classroom-Reflective Texts Coupled with Nonjudgmental Dialogue

Choosing texts that reflect classroom demographics and following the readings with discussions or reflective writing assignments can provide teachers with powerful information about their students' hopes, concerns, strengths and life circumstances. These practices also open channels of understanding among students. Successful conversations about issues of identity frequently lead to deeper dialogue about students' own backgrounds and the experiences of others.

Share Stories That Make Room for Student Sharing

Personal anecdotes-respectfully and thoughtfully shared by teachers-have great power. Stories should be chosen carefully, kept brief, and told at a level that invites appropriate student sharing.

Community Study or Student-Led Walking Tour

Community studies usually address up to three questions; structure can vary greatly and may involve research, interviews, art, writing, video or other media. A walking tour should also focus on a few themes and ask students to highlight neighborhood places they find meaningful in relation to a relevant social issue. Student age and physical limitations should be taken into consideration when planning a walking tour.

Without saying a word, classrooms send messages about diversity, relationship building, communication and the roles of teachers and students. Consider the different messages sent by these two classrooms:

Classroom 1

Desks are arranged in a U shape. The teacher's desk is in the front center of the room. On the wall is a poster of U.S. presidents, a copy of the Declaration of Independence and inspiring quotes from Winston Churchill, Robert F. Kennedy and Albert Einstein. Students are working quietly on an independent assignment.

Classroom 2

Desks are arranged in clusters of four with students facing one another. The teacher's desk is in the back corner of the room. On the wall is a display of student self-portraits, a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and inspiring quotes from Maya Angelou, Aung San Suu Kyi and César Chávez. Students are working with their table-mates on a group project.

Classroom setup should be student centered. Specifics will vary from teacher to teacher and class to class, but common elements include these:

Classroom milieu. Classrooms should be decorated with multicultural images that mirror student backgrounds and showcase the diversity of our society.

Arrangement of furniture and supplies. The arrangement will look different depending on age group and subject, but all teachers can draw on these goals when setting up a classroom: supporting collaboration, fostering dialogue, encouraging ownership and ensuring comfort.

Student roles and responsibilities. Classrooms will be most effective when structured to maximize student voice and participation.

Classroom norms. Norms and expectations should take into account different cultural and communication styles, as well as gender differences, language needs and the desire to challenge stereotypes. Students should be involved in setting classroom norms to generate buy-in.

Connection to Anti-bias Education

Thoughtful classroom setup and structure supports two of the four anti-bias domains: Diversity and Justice. A welcoming class space sets the tone for participatory engagement. Diverse images affect students' conscious and subconscious understanding of classroom values. Expectations and practices that honor diverse backgrounds also create a more just and equitable educational experience.

Strategies

Classroom "Audit"

A (nonjudgmental) classroom audit involves "reading" the messages conveyed by the images on the walls, the books on the shelves and the arrangement of the furniture with an eye toward diversity, equity and student empowerment. The audit also includes considering the types of interactions that teachers have with students and that students have with one another.

Student Jobs and Ownership of Classroom Space

Many daily tasks can be done by students who, given the opportunity, may create new and interesting ways to approach them. Real-world lessons related to work and responsibility can be reinforced in a classroom. promoted for a job well done. Some classroom jobs might involve passing out materials, documenting or taking notes, managing a classroom library, filing papers or helping with a bulletin board. The job of "peacemaker" can work nicely in classrooms where students have been trained in conflict resolution. Jobs in a responsive classroom can accommodate multiple learning styles such as artistic, kinesthetic and verbal.

Gender-Neutral Practices

Many teachers, especially at the elementary level, seat or group students along gender lines. However, not everyone fits traditional gender categories. Some students may feel they are truly a different gender than their physical bodies suggest; others might not fit neatly into either the male or female identity category. Using gender-neutral categories or allowing students to choose the group with which they identify affirms the experiences of all students.

Differences shape who we are and what we know. Life, history, society and power cannot be understood from a single perspective; we need multiple viewpoints to truly see the world. Because of this, inclusive classrooms must function as learning communities built on shared inquiry and dialogue.

Dialogue is more than conversation. It is also different than debate, in which someone wins and someone loses. Dialogue requires openness to new ideas and collective learning. This is not an easy practice; for students (and teachers) to engage in dialogue, they must build and exercise specific skills:

Listening. Deeply listening to what others say and to the feelings, experiences and wisdom behind what they say.

Humility. Recognizing that, however passionately we hold ideas and opinions, other people may hold pieces of the puzzle that we don't.

Respect. Trusting the integrity of others, believing they have the right to their opinions (even when different from your own) and valuing others enough to risk sharing ideas.

Trust. Building a safe space to explore new ideas and work through conflicts, controversy and painful moments that may arise when talking about issues of injustice and oppression.

Voice. Speaking the truth as we see it and asking questions about things we don't know or understand, particularly on topics related to identity, power and justice.

Connection to Anti-bias Education

Shared inquiry and dialogue support two of the four anti-bias domains: Diversity and Action. Building the skills necessary to explore multiple perspectives fosters critical thinking, complex textual understanding and appreciation for diversity. Dialogue also supports active listening, respectful sharing and conflict resolution. A culture of shared inquiry offers a lived example of meaningful collaborative work and a model for community building.

Strategies

Naming Shared Inquiry as a Goal

Because many students experience classrooms that do not value shared inquiry and dialogue, it is important for teachers to create a safe environment before asking students to engage in this work. Safety can be established by discussing principles of engagement, demonstrating the teacher's commitment to collective learning or creating a set of discussion agreements.

Teaching Active Listening Skills

Active listening is a way of hearing and responding to another person that requires the listener to stop thinking about his or her own ideas and focus on the speaker. Active listening behavior includes asking good questions, listening without judgment and paraphrasing. These behaviors can be modeled through the use of talking circles or ordered sharing. Short practice activities can also strengthen active listening skills.

Rethinking Participation Norms

To most teachers, class participation means contributing to discussions, volunteering to answer questions or otherwise engaging in verbal exchanges. However, participation does not have to be verbal; gender, culture and ability may affect student comfort levels with verbal communication. Modeling equity and inclusiveness calls for a broader definition of participation that includes active listening, written response, artistic response and involvement in small groups. These options should all be valued as classroom participation.

Addressing Conflicts and Hurt Feelings

Teachers need to prepare for possible conflicts or hurt feelings when exploring personally or politically sensitive material. Teachers can encourage students to publicly or privately name "ouch moments"-times when comments or reactions (usually unintentional) cause upset or discomfort. It is also helpful for teachers to check in with students who seem upset as a result of a class activity or conversation.

Social-emotional learning, respect and safety are as important as literacy and critical thinking skills when exploring an anti-bias curriculum. Research shows that students need to feel both physically and emotionally safe to learn. This includes safety from stereotype threat, harassment and exclusion.

Creating a safe climate takes time and work. These are some of the most important components:

Active teaching of social-emotional skills

Attention to creating positive relationships

Bullying prevention and intervention

Community building

Explicit focus on understanding and appreciating differences

Meaningful conflict resolution

Teaching students to challenge bias and exclusion

Upstander training

Work on classroom climate and social-emotional learning cannot simply focus on empathy, kindness and inclusion. Social difference and bias underlie many unsafe and exclusionary behaviors; these issues need to be discussed explicitly. Appreciation for multicultural perspectives is also critical when teaching about relationship building, conflict management and community. This helps students learn to draw on many traditions and experiences and address social divisions in the classroom.

Connection to Anti-bias Education

Prioritizing social and emotional safety supports three of the four anti-bias domains: Identity, Diversity and Action. This practice supports a classroom community in which students feel secure enough to engage in respectful, productive conversations about identity and diversity. This work also models actions necessary to nurture inclusive, respectful connections across lines of difference.

Strategies

Classroom Contracts

A contract of norms and behaviors can help define the classroom community as a socially and emotionally safe place. Students should participate in shaping the contract, identifying a list of agreements about how class members will treat one another, talk together and so on. Issues such as identity, difference and power should be addressed explicitly. For example, a contract could include "Listen with respect to the experiences of others," "Try to understand what someone is saying before rushing to judgment" or "Put-downs of any kind are never OK."

Explicit Anti-bullying or Community-Building Curricula

Many powerful anti-bullying and community- building curricula, when integrated into the regular school curriculum, can build social-emotional skills and teach students to manage conflict. Below are a few suggested resources. Not all address diversity or bias issues specifically; be sure to add these issues to the existing materials if they're missing.

Tribes Learning Community. Research-based approaches to classroom and school-wide community building, social-emotional education and the development of positive learning communities (all grades).

Respect for All Project (GroundSpark). Award-winning films, curriculum guides and teacher training on issues of bias-based bullying, family diversity, gender role expectations and LGBT inclusivity (all grades).

Steps to Respect/Second Step (Committee for Children). Research-based social-emotional learning and bullying-prevention programs (pre-K through middle school).

Bullied: A Student, a School and a Case That Made History (Teaching Tolerance). Documentary and teaching guide about one student's ordeal at the hands of anti-gay bullies and his fight against hate and harassment (middle and high school).

A Guide to the Film Bully by Lee Hirsch (Facing History and Ourselves). Film and discussion guide on bullying and its profound impact on several different students and families (middle and high school).

Participation in Mix It Up at Lunch Day

Mix It Up is a Teaching Tolerance program designed to help students identify, question and cross social boundaries. Launched in 2001, Mix It Up recognizes that some of the deepest social divisions in schools are found in the cafeteria. Each fall, Teaching Tolerance sponsors a national Mix It Up at Lunch Day when schools around the country encourage students to move out of their comfort zones and share a meal with peers who are different from them.

Discipline and behavior management are central to classroom culture. How are students encouraged to treat one another? What happens when they make poor choices or present behavioral challenges? What shapes student-teacher interactions? And what happens when conflicts arise?

This critical practice asks teachers to think about behavior management in light of five key principles from the Perspectives curriculum:

Belief in the dignity of every person

Community building

Equity and fairness

Respect for cultural differences

Respect for the safety and inclusion of all individuals and groups

These values can be creatively infused into disciplinary practices. However, in general, responsive classrooms address three key aspects.

First, behavior management systems must support safe, inclusive communities by enforcing high standards for respectful interaction; incorporating student-generated discipline policies; teaching conflict resolution; and actively addressing all instances of bias, bullying, exclusion or disrespect.

Second, disciplinary incidents must go beyond punishment and be treated as opportunities for growth, restitution and community building. This is not to say that rules violations should not be met with consequences. However, if community respect is to be a core classroom value, students should not be cast out of the group, even if they struggle to live up to expectations.

Finally, behavior management practices must reflect fairness, equity and cultural awareness. Research shows that students of color and special education students face disproportionate rates of discipline, suspension and expulsion. These patterns have devastating social consequences. Applying disciplinary rules fairly requires self-awareness and willingness to suspend judgment (positive as well as negative) about individual students. Culture also plays a role in disciplinary judgments; in some cases, "inappropriate behaviors" may reflect a cultural mismatch between the norms of the school and the norms of a student's home culture. Teachers can better understand the relationship between culture and discipline by working on a related critical practice: self-awareness and cultural competency.

Connection to Anti-bias Education

Taking a values-based approach to behavior management and discipline supports one of the four anti-bias domains: Justice. This practice exposes students to community-building goals and to a system of justice that values all people and builds connections rather than creates divisions.

Strategies

Student-Generated Agreements and Contracts

Involving students in the design of classroom discipline policies can go a long way toward establishing buy-in and shared ownership of classroom culture. Ideally, students will work on the policies as a class, but teachers can also work individually with students who need extra support.

"Zero Indifference" but Not Zero Tolerance

Although zero-tolerance policies are popular, mounting evidence suggests that this approach does not make schools safer. An alternative (recommended by the American Civil Liberties Union; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; the Anti-Defamation League; the Respect for All Project; and Teaching Tolerance) is taking a "zero-indifference" approach to bullying, harassment and other disciplinary issues. Zero indifference means never letting disrespectful conduct go unaddressed; school staff always name and respond to behaviors, but they do not implement automatic suspension, expulsion or other punishments.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is an approach to school discipline (and criminal justice) that emphasizes repairing harm and restoring relationships rather than simply punishing those who have engaged in misconduct. Restorative justice spans a wide variety of practices and strategies, including peacemaking circles, peer jury processes, mediation, conferencing and classroom discussions focused on building empathy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When asking students to explore issues of personal and social identity, teachers must provide safe spaces where students are seen, valued, cared for and respected. It is also important that students have opportunities to learn from one another's varied experiences and perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Culture in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Educators today hear a lot about gaps in education - achievement gaps, funding gaps, school-readiness gaps. Still, there's another gap that often goes unexamined: the cultural gap between students and teachers.

"A bunch of teachers here, they think they know what's wrong with us. But they don't know. If people want to help us, they have to see what we've been through, not from what their own experiences tell them."
- Billie, a Lakota teen speaking of the teachers at her high school

Most of us in the education profession are white, middle-class, monolingual-English speakers. Increasingly, the same profile does not hold true for our students. Often, when we stand before our classrooms, the faces looking back at us do not look like our own. Many of us try to bridge this difference with an embrace of color-blindness or the Golden Rule, treating others the way we would want to be treated.

But the truth is: culture matters.

Culture isn't just a list of holidays or shared recipes, religious traditions, or language; it is a lived experience unique to each individual. As educators, it's our job to stimulate the intellectual development of children, and, in this era, it's simply not enough to operate on the axis of color-blindness.

To truly engage students, we must reach out to them in ways that are culturally and linguistically responsive and appropriate, and we must examine the cultural assumptions and stereotypes we bring into the classroom that may hinder interconnectedness.

Overcoming Stereotypes

To engage students effectively in the learning process, teachers must know their students and their academic abilities individually, rather than relying on racial or ethnic stereotypes or prior experience with other students of similar backgrounds.

Many teachers, for example, admire the perceived academic prowess and motivation of Asian American students and fail to recognize how even a "positive" stereotype isn't positive if it presses students into molds not built for them individually.

Hear elementary school teacher, Diane Holtam, speak about how she works with other teachers to disabuse stereotypic notions of Asian American students' abilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educators today hear a lot about gaps in education - achievement gaps, funding gaps, school-readiness gaps. Still, there's another gap that often goes unexamined: the cultural gap between students and teachers. "A bunch of teachers here, they think they know what's wrong with us. But they don't know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The School Community Network connects families and schools to build strong school communities focused on student success.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education Connections Teachers working together for EL success

# data[].attributes.subject
Education Connections Teachers working together for EL success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Presented by the Center for Applied Linguistics and powered by the University of Oregon's Oba platform, the Education Connections website will be growing and expanding with new resources in the coming months. The resources linked below provide information on implementing standards-based instruction for English learners that we think you will find useful.

# data[].attributes.headline
Refugee and Immigrant Family and Community Engagement in the Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Refugee and Immigrant Family and Community Engagement in the Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refugee & Immigrant Family & Community Engagement

# data[].attributes.headline
English Language Learners – The Impact of Language and Socio-Cultural Factors on Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
English Language Learners – The Impact of Language and Socio-Cultural Factors on Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
English Language Learners: The Impact of Language and Socio-Cultural Factors on Learning
Lori Navarrete, Nevada State College Silvana M. R. Watson, Old Dominion University (Revised August 2013)
Our daily educational experiences can be enriched by learning in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms because we learn from others whose experiences and beliefs are different than ours. We learn to communicate effectively and respectfully with individuals of varied backgroundsand then may then think twice about stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory behaviors because we grow as individuals, as stewards of knowledge, and as change agents. We become good citizens in a pluralistic society.

Our fastest growing diverse population in PreK-12 are English language learners (ELLs) from diverse cultures and socio-economic backgrounds. By 2030, English language learners (ELLs) will account for approximately 40% of the entire school-age population in the United States (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, 2013). ELL students are spread throughout the country with their proportion of the total public school enrollment varying greatly by state. In 2010, Nevada had the highest density of ELL enrollment at slightly over 31%, followed byCalifornia with 25%, New Mexico with 18.5%, and Arizona and Texas with about 15% each (Batalova & McHugh, 2010).

Educators across the country concede that too few adequate programs exist to address the needs of ELLs with disabilities (Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011; Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, &Stephenson, 2003). This InfoSheet contains information drawn from federal regulations and other relevant sources for educators seeking to address the unique needs of ELLs with academic difficulties.
Who are English Language Learners?
Almost half of all culturally and linguistically diverse PreK-12 students have limited English language proficiency and are classified as English language learners, formerly known as limited English proficient (LEP) (Goldenberg, Reese, & Rezaei, 2011). An ELLis one who has to acquire a second or additional language and culture, a process that can be very challenging. The degree of challenge will depend on the personal, experiential, and contextual factors students bring to the process as well as how well they regulate the linguistic, cognitive, social, and emotional tasks required in language and cultural acquisition (Chu, 2011; Herrera, Perez, & Escamilla, 2010; Marinova-Todd & Uchikoshi, 2011; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011).

The ELL student population is not only culturally and linguistically diverse, but also socioeconomically diverse. Some students come from families with high levels of income and schooling, while others live in poverty or below poverty and have little formal schooling. This is important to know because family socioeconomic status and education level influence the academic achievement of students (Goldenberg et al., 2011). Research indicates that low-income

ELL students are usually behind their peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds in language and readiness skills and they need empirically validated and culturally responsive instruction (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008).
What is Involved in Acquiring a Second Language?
Acquiring a second language can be an arduous and slow process. Krashen and Terrell (1983) were the first to explore stages of second language acquisition and suggested there are five stages that an individual goes through in learning a second language: preproduction (0-6 months), early production (6 months-1 year), speech emergent (1-3 years), intermediate fluency (3-5 years), and advanced fluency (5-7 years). Many factors will influence the development of a second (or third) language such as age at arrival, first language proficiency, type of instruction including contextualized (i.e., supported by familiar situations and visual cues) and decontextualized instructional situations, and opportunities to use language (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; Flynn & Hill, 2006).

Cummins (1984) differentiated between social and academic language acquisition and identified different timelines for each. Under ideal conditions, it takes the average ELL 2 years to acquire Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS). BICS involves the context-embedded, everyday language that occurs between conversational partners. On the other hand, Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), or the context-reduced language of academics, takes 5 to 7 years under ideal conditions to develop to a level commensurate with that of native speakers. Often, many educators assume that because ELLs have achieved oral language proficiency in their second language they do not need support in school. However, research has consistently affirmed that it takes time for students to acquire a second language, at both the BICS and CALP levels, and to catch up with their monolingual peers (Marinova-Todd & Uchikoshi, 2011). Students must be exposed to rich learning environments with regular opportunities to practice language and literacy skills in the new language (Utley et al., 2011).
What is the Difference Between Language Acquisition and a Language-based Learning Disability?
Five percent of all school-age children in public schools have a learning disability. Over half of all students with a learning disability have a language-based learning disability, many with challenges in reading (Pierangelo& Giuliani, 2010). Oftentimes ELLs who are in the process of acquiring a second language will experience language and literacy development challenges similar to their peers with a language learning disability. See table below (Ortiz, 1992).

it is typical for their skills in English

vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar,

and comprehension to be less well-developedthan their peers who

speakonly English.

errors or limited skills in vocabulary,

pronunciation, grammar, and

comprehension interfere with

communication in their first language

(L1), compared to peers from the samelanguage group.

they will acquire English in a

predictable developmental sequence,

similar to younger children who are

beginning to learn English.

their English skills are delayed in

comparison to peers from the same

language group who have been learningEnglish for the same length of time.

reduced opportunities to use their first language may result in loss of

competence in L1 before becoming

proficient in English.

their communication is impaired in

interactions with family members and

others who speak the same language.

they may switch back and forth

between L1 and English, using their

most sophisticated skills in both

languages within single utterances.

skills in their first language will be

limited, inappropriate, or confused in

content, form, or use.

results from assessments conducted inEnglish are unlikely to reflect the child'strue skills and abilities in most domains.

assessments conducted in English will

be unable to discriminate between

language acquisition and languagedisorder.

On the other hand, it is critical that school personnel be able to predict when an ELL might also be experiencing a learning disability. If an ELL exhibits patterns of behavior similar to those listed below, then it may suggest a learning disability (Spear-Swerling, 2006).

The child has a history of oral language delay or disability in the native language.

· The child has had difficulty developing literacy skills in the native language (assuming adequate instruction in the native language).

· There is a family history of reading difficulties in parents, siblings, or other close relatives (again, assuming adequate opportunity to learn to read).

· The child has specific language weaknesses, such as poor phonemic awareness, in the native language as well as in English. (However, these difficulties may manifest somewhat differently in different languages, depending on the nature of the written language; for example, Spanish is a more transparent language than English, so children with phonological weaknesses may decode words more accurately in Spanish than in English.)

· The child has had research-based, high-quality reading intervention designed for English language learners, and still is not making adequate progress relative to other, similar English language learners
Referral of an ELL for Special Education Assessment
The increase in the number of ELLs in our nation's schools requires there to be a structure in place when referring, assessing, and identifying ELLs for special education services. Each school should have well developed referral guidelines and procedures as well as knowledgeable professionals who can examine academic and behavioral concerns from the context of language, culture, and disability. Many schools lack a comprehensive approach when assessing these students, and educators have difficulties sorting out the multiple overlapping characteristics of ELLs and students with learning disabilities (Rueda & Windmueller, 2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004).

It is important to remember that ELLs are entitled to the same services and interventions as their non-ELL peers. Response to Intervention (RTI), a critical component of the special education law, ensures equity and access to education for all students. RTI is a process that schools can use to help children who are struggling academically or behaviorally. One of its underlying premises is the possibility that a child's struggles may be due to inadequacies in instruction or in the curriculum either in use at the moment or in the child's past. Schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student's responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities (NICHCY, 2012).

The RTI instructional methods and interventions should be culturally sensitive and address the child's language needs. If after receiving high-quality instruction and intervention the ELL student does not demonstrate improvement, the student should be referred to a screening or intervention team to gather the following information:

· What is the student's level of English

language proficiency? Low - Median - High

· What has been the student's rate of English acquisition?Low - Median - High

· Is the student struggling with cultural and

affective issues? Low - Median - High

· Has the student received instruction that

addresses his or her language and cultural

needs? Low - Median - High

· What is the student's academic proficiency

level compared to same-age peers?Low -

Median - High

· Has the student received quality instruct-

tion and intervention to meet her or his academic needs?Low - Median - High

· Is there objective evidence of failure to

respond to intervention?

Low - Median - High

If the intervention team determines the ELL's difficulties are not the result of language acquisition or acculturation issues, it would be appropriate to refer the student for further assessment in order to determine eligibility for special education services (Klingner, Artiles, & Méndez Barletta, 2006).

Once the intervention team formally refers the student, a full psycho-educational evaluation must be conducted. The following guidelines and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-04), Part B,(U.S. Department of Education, 2006) must be met:

1. Parents should be notified of the proposed evaluation in their native language and they should be invited to be a part of the multidisciplinary team. The multidisciplinary team should, at minimum, include parents, general educators, special educators, and an ESL educator in order to assess whether the weaknesses evidenced by the student are attributable to inadequate instruction, limited English proficiency, or to a learning disability.

2. A variety of assessment tools and strategies should be employed when gathering relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student. This includes information provided by the parent on how the child functions at home, developmental milestones, and physical and social behaviors compared to siblings and peers. It is important to find out from parents if their child had language delays in the native language. Careful attention should be given to cultural differences and prior schooling experience as well as to relevant family medical, immigration, and acculturation history.

3. No single measure or assessment can be used as the sole criterion to determine whether the child has a disability or for determining an appropriate educational program. Teams should gather multiple sources of information about the student because of the challenges associated with differentiating between language acquisition difficulty and disability-related characteristics when determining the cause for low achievement.

4. The instruments used in the assessment must be technically sound and help in determining how cognitive, behavioral, physical, or developmental factors contribute to the child's learning. This requires that the team members be knowledgeable about the instruments and their usefulness when assessing ELLs.

4. It is also the responsibility of team members to ensure that the assessments and other evaluation materials selected and administered are not racially or culturally biased. Team members should gather information from parents and others familiar with the student so they can better understand the family's racial and cultural background, and thus rule out assessments and materials that are inappropriate.

5. Assessment and other evaluation materials must be provided and administered in the child's native language and/or other mode of communication (e.g., sign language) and in the modality and language most likely to yield accurate information about the child's abilities. The majority of evaluation materials in the U.S. are available only in English; a few are available in Spanish. Translation of standardized- and norm-referenced tests is not considered best practice (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2007) because translation affects a test's validity. In many instances, alternative assessment techniques such as structured observations, informal inventories, dynamic assessment, and diagnostic assessment should be incorporated into a comprehensive assessment.

6. Team members should ensure that the assessments and measures are used for the purposes for which they are designed and thus are reliable and valid. For example, a verbal intelligence measure administered in English should not be used to assess intelligence if the student has not yet developed adequate verbal skills in English.

7. The assessment and other evaluation materials must be administered by team members who have been trained and are knowledgeable of both the instruments and the nuances associated with assessing ELLs. Schools often lack school-based professional training in the assessment of ELLs. Consequently, team members with limited knowledge about the acquisition of a new language and a new culture often confuse differences with disabilities (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Therefore, it is important that educators be trained to recognize these differences and exercise caution when interpreting test results.

8. The student should be assessed in all areas of a suspected disability including health, vision, hearing, general intelligence, academic performance, communication skills, and/or motor abilities. The assessment is a collaboration amongst all team members, each contributing unique information about the student to help determine eligibility and an appropriate educational program.
Determining Eligibility
Once the assessment is complete, the team must determine if the ELL meets the criteria for special education services. These criteria include (a) having a disability, (b) experiencing adverse educational effects as a result of the disability, and (c) requiring specialized instruction that cannot be provided within a general education program. If the child is eligible for special education services, the team must begin to structure a program that meets the child's academic needs while still providing access to the general curriculum. This means the team will discuss the best instructional methods that will help the child to continue to develop English proficiency as well as improve academic skills that will ensure that the child meets the general education curriculum standards to the greatest degree possible. Once this information is determined, an Individualized Education Program (IEP) will be written.
Developing an IEP
If the student is found eligible for special education, the next step is to develop an IEP. Information that was gathered during the evaluation phase should be used to describe present levels of performance, areas of strengths and weaknesses, the nature of the disability, and its impact on the student's education. For ELLs, the assessments results should also provide educators with accurate diagnostic information about the degree to which the ELL's level of English proficiency and rate of acquisition can negatively impact performance in the general education classroom. Furthermore, it should provide information on the student's academic and ability levels in his or her primary language and how these compare to those in English. This should result in developing a program that will make use of the student's strengths in his or her native language and skills in order to facilitate the development of the second language. Each case of an ELL will be unique and the IEP will be individualized for assessment and instruction and will include clearly documented goals and objectives as well as the educators responsible for providing the services.
Instructional Considerations
English language learners with LD can benefit from interventions known to benefit their ELL peers without learning disabilities. These interventions include, but are not limited to, building background knowledge, explicit phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, direct-instruction in vocabulary, context-embedded instruction, and peer-assisted learning. English language learners require additional sheltered instruction techniques such as graphic organizers, gestures, visual aids, and memory strategies to facilitate English comprehension(Spear-Swerling, 2006).
Resources for Teachers
The following is a list of informal assessments for determining English language proficiency and acculturation status of ELLs. The assessment tools may be used by the intervention team when compiling information about an ELL who is being considered for a special education evaluation.

1. Acculturation Quick Screen. (2003). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service, Ferndale, WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com

2. Checklistof Language Skills for Use with Limited English Proficient Students.
http://www.k12.wa.us/SPECIALED/pubdocs/culturally_linguistically_diverse/limited_english_proficient_checklist.pdf
3. Classroom Language Interaction Checklist. (2002). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service, Ferndale, WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com

4. Resiliency Checklist. (2002). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service, Ferndale, WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com

5. Sociocultural Checklist. (2002). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service, Ferndale, WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com

6. Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (1985). Developed by San Jose U.S.D., San Jose, CA. Available at http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/LangAssessmtMMdl

7. ELL Starter Kit for Educators: Tools for Monitoring Language Skills. Available at http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit.pdf
References
Batalova, J.,& McHugh, M. (2010). States and districts with the highest number and share of English language learners. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diversestudents with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351-371.

Chu, S-Y. (2011). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38, 201-209. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/76117156/perspectives-understanding-schooling-achievement-students-from-culturally-linguistically-diverse-backgrounds

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2006). The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: PearsonEducation.

Flynn, K. M., & Hill, J. D. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L.,& Rezaei, A.(2011).Contexts for language and literacy development among dual-language learners.In A. Y. Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy development in bilingual settings (pp. 3-23).New York, NY:Guilford.

Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacy. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A.J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108-128.

Krashen, S. D.,& Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London, England: Prentice Hall Europe.

Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2011). The role of first language in oral languagedevelopment in English.In A. Y. Durgunoglu &C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual settings (pp. 29-60). New York, NY: Guilford.

NICHCY (2012). Response to intervention. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/schools-administrators/rti

Ortiz, A. (1992). Considerations in the assessment of language minority students with communication disorders. In W. A. Secord & J. S. Damico (Eds.), Best practices in school speech language pathology: Descriptive/non-standardized language assessment (pp. 107-113). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp.

Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook of bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brooks.

Pierangelo, R.,& Giuliani, G. (2010). Prevalence of learning disabilities.Retrieved from www.education.com/reference/article/prevalence-learning-disabilities

Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S., & Ortiz, S. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diversestudents. New York, NY: Guilford.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & Brice, A. (2013). What's 'normal,' what's not: Acquiring English as a second language. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/5126

Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 99-107.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Sanchez, M., & Brisk, M. (2004).Teacher's assessment practices and understandings in abilingual program. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 193-208.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Learning disabilities in English Language Learners. Retrieved from www.ldonline.org/spearswerling/Learning_Disabilities_in_English_Language_Learners

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities program and preschool grants for children with disabilities: Final rule. Federal Register, 34, CRF Parts 300 and 301.

Utley, C. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). Culturally responsive practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9, 5-18.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities.(No. 4). Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English language Acquisition (OELA).
For a downloadable PDF copy Click here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English language learners | Diverse Cultures | Socio-Economic Backgrounds | Council for Learning Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
English Language Learners: The Impact of Language and Socio-Cultural Factors on Learning Lori Navarrete, Nevada State College Silvana M. R. Watson, Old Dominion University (Revised August 2013) Our daily educational experiences can be enriched by learning in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms because we

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Characteristics of Highly Effective EF/SL Teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Characteristics of Highly Effective EF/SL Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I believe that the right credentials and sound professional knowledge are of paramount importance in determining effectiveness. That means a Master's degree in TESOL/applied linguistics for teachers teaching at the university level or a Bachelor's degree with a TESOL specialization or certification for those working in primary/secondary schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children from families in which English is not the language of the home represent a rapidly increasing percentage of students enrolled in U.S. schools. Language minority students can be found in schools across the country, not just those in large cities or in areas near the U.S.-Mexican border. All schools must be prepared to meet the challenge of an increasingly diverse student population, including many students who are not proficient in English.

The effectiveness of various program models for language minority students remains the subject of controversy. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of one program model over another in certain situations (Collier 1992; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991), a variety of programs can be effective. The choice should be made at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the students involved and the resources available.

ESL program models

ESL programs (rather than bilingual programs) are likely to be used in districts where the language minority population is very diverse and represents many different languages. ESL programs can accommodate students from different language backgrounds in the same class, and teachers do not need to be proficient in the home language(s) of their students.

ESL pull-out
This is generally used in elementary school settings. Students spend part of the school day in a mainstream classroom, but are pulled out for a portion of each day to receive instruction in English as a second language.
ESL class period
This is generally used in middle school settings. Students receive ESL instruction during a regular class period and usually receive course credit. They may be grouped for instruction according to their level of English proficiency.
The ESL resource center
This is a variation of the pull-out design, bringing students together from several classrooms or schools. The resource center concentrates ESL materials and staff in one location and is usually staffed by at least one full-time ESL teacher.

Bilingual program models

All bilingual program models use the students' home language, in addition to English, for instruction. These programs are most easily implemented in districts with a large number of students from the same language background. Students in bilingual programs are grouped according to their first language, and teachers must be proficient in both English and the students' home language.

Early-exit bilingual programs
These are designed to help children acquire the English skills required to succeed in an English-only mainstream classroom. These programs provide some initial instruction in the students' first language, primarily for the introduction of reading, but also for clarification. Instruction in the first language is phased out rapidly, with most students mainstreamed by the end of first or second grade.
Late-exit programs
These differ from early-exit programs "primarily in the amount and duration that English is used for instruction as well as the length of time students are to participate in each program" (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). Students remain in late-exit programs throughout elementary school and continue to receive 40% or more of their instruction in their first language, even when they have been reclassified as fluent-English-proficient.
Two-way bilingual programs
Also called developmental bilingual programs, these group language minority students from a single language background in the same classroom with language majority (English-speaking) students. Ideally, there is a nearly 50/50 balance between language minority and language majority students. Instruction is provided in both English and the minority language. Students serve as native-speaker role models for their peers. Two-way bilingual classes may be taught by a single teacher who is proficient in both languages or by two teachers, one of whom is bilingual.

Other program models

Some programs provide neither instruction in the native language nor direct instruction in ESL. However, instruction is adapted to meet the needs of students who are not proficient in English.

Sheltered English or content-based programs
These group language minority students from different language backgrounds together in classes where teachers use English as the medium for providing content area instruction, adapting their language to the proficiency level of the students. They may also use gestures and visual aids to help students understand. Although the acquisition of English is one of the goals of sheltered English and content-based programs, instruction focuses on content rather than language.
Structured immersion programs
These use only English, but there is no explicit ESL instruction. As in sheltered English and content-based programs, English is taught through the content areas. Structured immersion teachers have strong receptive skills in their students' first language and have a bilingual education or ESL teaching credential. The teacher's use of the children's first language is limited primarily to clarification of English instruction. Most students are mainstreamed after 2 or 3 years.

Conclusion

Successful program models for promoting the academic achievement of language minority students are those that enable these students to develop academic skills while learning English. The best program organization is one that is tailored to meet the linguistic, academic, and affective needs of students; provides language minority students with the instruction necessary to allow them to progress through school at a rate commensurate with their native-English-speaking peers; and makes the best use of district and community resources.

Citations

Excerpted from: Rennie, J. (1993). ESL and Bilingual Program Models. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Digest based on an article in (August, 1993) Streamlined Seminar (vol. 12, no.1). National Association of Elementary School Principals.

References

Collier, V. P. (1992). A Synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, p. 187-212.

Garcia, E. (1991). Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective instructional practices. Educational practice report number 1. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 099)

Lucas T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An Exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (1), 315-340.

McKeon, D. (1987). Different types of ESL programs. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

Pease-Alvarez, L., Garcia, E., & Espinosa, P. (1991). Effective instruction for language minority students: An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 347-361.

Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

Tikunoff, W., Ward, B., van Broekhuizen, D., Romero, M., Castaneda, L.V., Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1991). A Descriptive study of significant features of exemplary special alternative instructional programs. Washington: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Program Models for Teaching English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children from families in which English is not the language of the home represent a rapidly increasing percentage of students enrolled in U.S. schools. Language minority students can be found in schools across the country, not just those in large cities or in areas near the U.S.-Mexican border.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Informal assessments (also called authentic or alternative) allow teachers to track the ongoing progress of their students regularly and often. While standardized tests measure students at a particular point in the year, ongoing assessments provide continual snapshots of where students are throughout the school year. By using informal assessments, teachers can target students' specific problem areas, adapt instruction, and intervene earlier rather than later.

Ongoing assessments are particularly important for English language learners (ELLs). Standardized tests in English do not usually reflect ELLs' true content knowledge or abilities. Yet informal assessments can provide a more well-rounded picture of their skills, abilities, and ongoing progress. Today's No Child Left Behind legislation requires that meticulous records be kept on the progress of ELLs. Having these records will make it easier when questions of program placement, special services, and grading arise.

There are two commonly used informal methods: performance-based assessment and portfolio assessment. Both methods utilize typical classroom activities to measure progress toward curricular goals and objectives. These activities can be monitored and recorded by teacher observation and student self-assessment.

Performance-based assessments

Performance-based assessments are based on classroom instruction and everyday tasks. You can use performance-based assessments to assess ELLs' language proficiency and academic achievement through oral reports, presentations, demonstrations, written assignments, and portfolios.

These assessments can include both processes (e.g., several drafts of a writing sample) and products (e.g., team projects). You can use scoring rubrics and observation checklists to evaluate and grade your students. These assessment tools can help document your ELLs' growth over a period of time.

Here is a sample language and academic assessment form that you can complete on a monthly basis to learn about the overall academic and English proficiency progress of your ELLs. If there is an ESL or resource teacher at school assisting your ELLs, you can share this assessment of the ELL's progress during the past month.

When using performance-based assessments, it is important to establish clear and fair criteria from the beginning. It might be helpful to develop these criteria in conjunction with other teachers or specialists at your school. Performance-based assessments promote a wide range of responses and do not typically produce one single, correct answer. Therefore, evaluation of student performances and products must be based on teacher judgment, using the criteria specified for each task. Here is a sample oral scoring rubric.

You can also develop assessment (and instructional) activities that are geared to your ELLs' current level of English proficiency. Performance-based assessment activities can concentrate on oral communication and/or reading. Here are examples of commonly-used activity types designed for assessing speaking or reading:

Reading with partners

Retelling stories

Role playing

Giving descriptions or instructions using visual or written prompts

Oral reporting to the whole class

Telling a story by using a sequence of three or more pictures

Completing dialogue or conversation through written prompts

Debating, either one-on-one or taking turns in small groups

Brainstorming

Completing incomplete stories

Playing games

When using performance-based assessments with beginner and intermediate English proficiency level ELLs, it is best to assess no more than three items at a time. For example, in one role play activity, you might assess ELLs' abilities to:

1. Respond to "what" and "where" questions

2. Ask for or respond to clarification

3. Read addresses or telephone numbers

Portfolio assessments

Portfolios are practical ways of assessing student work throughout the entire year. With this method, you can systematically collect descriptive records of a variety of student work over time that reflects growth toward the achievement of specific curricular objectives. Portfolios include information, sample work, and evaluations that serve as indicators for student performance. By documenting student performance over time, portfolios are a better way to crosscheck student progress than just one measure alone. Portfolios can include:

Samples of written student work, such as stories, completed forms, exercise sheets, and descriptions

Drawings representing student content knowledge and proficiencies

Tapes of oral work, such as role-playing, presentations, or an oral account of a trip

Teacher descriptions of student accomplishments, such as performance on oral tasks

Formal test data, checklists, and rating sheets

Checklists or summary sheets of tasks and performances in the student's portfolio can help you make instructional decisions and report consistently and reliably. Checklists can also help you collect the same kind of data for each student. In this way you can assess both the progress of one student and of the class as a whole. This sample math development checklist is an example of how you can organize your data collection for each ELL.

In addition, here are a few ways that your ELLs can have an active role in the portfolio process:

Students can select samples of their work and reflect on their own growth over time.

You can meet with ELLs to develop their goals and standards, such as with this sample writing criteria chart.

Together with students, you can set tangible, realistic improvement goals for future projects.

Students - as a class, in groups, or individually - can create their own rubrics.

Assessing content knowledge

ELLs need to learn grade level academic content even though they are still in the process of learning English. Even if ELLs are at the beginning or intermediate stages of English language development, you can still use their thinking ability and challenge them with content knowledge activities. ELLs need your help to exercise their critical thinking skills - such as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation - in order to succeed in school during all stages of English language development.

It is possible to assess ELLs' understanding of math, science, social studies, and other content areas somewhat independently of their level of English proficiency. The following assessment techniques can help you adapt assessments to reduce English language difficulties while you assess ELLs' actual content knowledge. These techniques can be used separately or simultaneously as needed.

Scaffolding assessments allow ELLs to demonstrate their content knowledge through exhibits or projects, drawings, and graphic organizers. Consider giving ELLs extra time to complete these tasks, or to give short responses.

Differentiated scoring scores content knowledge separately from language proficiency. To score content knowledge, look at how well ELLs understand key concepts, how accurate their responses are, and how well they demonstrate the processes they use to come up with responses.

You can use a content area progress form with the above techniques to rate your ELLs' overall content achievement in class. You will need separate forms for math, science, and social studies performance.

It is important to note that if students are being instructed in content in one language (e.g., English), they should not be assessed on that content in another language, even if it is their native language.

For more information on assessing ELLs in general, visit the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (LAB) website.

Read about assessing fluency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Informal Assessments for English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Informal assessments (also called authentic or alternative) allow teachers to track the ongoing progress of their students regularly and often. While standardized tests measure students at a particular point in the year, ongoing assessments provide continual snapshots of where students are throughout the school year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Collaboration and Co-Teaching: Strategies for English Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Collaboration and Co-Teaching: Strategies for English Learners

# 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.headline
Understanding Language: Language, Literacy, and Learning in the Content Areas (Stanford) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding Language: Language, Literacy, and Learning in the Content Areas (Stanford) 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School districts have sought to create systemic plans for multilingual learners that move beyond compliance to insure coherence across their programs, policies and practices for their students and families. Understanding Language partners with districts to co-create, implement and refine their plans based on student evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESL Praxis II- Phonetics Flashcards | Quizlet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Phonetic transciptions, sounds Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start studying ESL Praxis Practice. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.

# data[].attributes.headline
INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS AND STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

# data[].attributes.subject
INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS AND STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This website uses cookies. A cookie is a small piece of code that gives your computer a unique identity, but it does not contain any information that allows us to identify you personally. For more information on how TESOL International Association uses cookies, please read our privacy policy. Most browsers automatically accept cookies, but if you prefer, you can opt out by changing your browser settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore our Resources for Professionals in English Language Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landing Page - Center for Applied Linguistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Latest Videos/Webinars Latest News Upcoming Events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore reading basics as well as the key role of background knowledge and motivation in becoming a lifelong reader and learner. Watch our PBS Launching Young Readers series and try our self-paced Reading 101 course to deepen your understanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bilingual site for educators and families of English language learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. Supreme Court

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe No. 80-1538 Argued December 1, 1981 Decided June 15, 1982* 457 U.S. 202 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. -216.

(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. The deprivation

Page 457 U. S. 203

of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. -224.

(d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Pp. -230.

No. 80-1638, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. , BLACKMUN, J., post, p. , and POWELL, J., post, p. , filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. .

Page 457 U. S. 205

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.

I

Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.

In May, 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States. The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not "legally admitted" to the country. Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.031 (Vernon Supp.1981). [ Footnote 1] These cases involve constitutional challenges to those provisions.

Page 457 U. S. 206

This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September, 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The action complained of the exclusion of plaintiff children from the public schools of the Tyler Independent School District. [ Footnote 2] The Superintendent and members of the Board of Trustees of the School District were named as defendants; the State of Texas intervened as a party-defendant. After certifying a class consisting of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing within the School District, the District Court preliminarily enjoined defendants from denying a free education to members of the plaintiff class. In December, 1977, the court conducted an extensive hearing on plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunctive relief.

Page 457 U. S. 207

In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." 458 F.Supp. 569, 575 (1978). Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id. at 575-576. It also found that, while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," id. at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." Id. at 577. The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Id. at 578. [ Footnote 3] Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [ Footnote 4] and that, without an education, these undocumented

Page 457 U. S. 208

children,

"[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."

The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that § 21.031 violated that Clause. Suggesting that

"the state's exclusion of undocumented children from its public schools . . . may well be the type of invidiously motivated state action for which the suspect classification doctrine was designed,"

the court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the statute would survive a "strict scrutiny" analysis because, in any event, the discrimination embodied in the statute was not supported by a rational basis. Id. at 585. The District Court also concluded that the Texas statute violated the Supremacy Clause. [ Footnote 5] Id. at 590-592.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court's injunction. 628 F.2d 448 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in finding the Texas statute preempted by federal law. [ Footnote 6] With respect to

Page 457 U. S. 209

equal protection, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all essential respects the analysis of the District Court, id. at 454-458, concluding that § 21.031 was "constitutionally infirm regardless of whether it was tested using the mere rational basis standard or some more stringent test," id. at 458. We noted probable jurisdiction. 451 U.S. 968 (1981).

I
n re Alien Children Education Litigation
During 1978 and 1979, suits challenging the constitutionality of 21.031 and various local practices undertaken on the authority of that provision were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern, Western, and Northern Districts of Texas. Each suit named the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency as defendants, along with local officials. In November, 1979, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on motion of the State, consolidated the claims against the state officials into a single action to be heard in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A hearing was conducted in February and March, 1980. In July, 1980, the court entered an opinion and order holding that § 21.031 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In re Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F.Supp. 544. [ Footnote 7] The court held that

"the absolute deprivation of education should trigger strict judicial scrutiny, particularly when the absolute deprivation is the result of complete inability to pay for the desired benefit."

Id. at 582. The court determined that the State's concern for fiscal integrity was not a compelling state interest, id. at 582-583; that exclusion of these children had not been shown to be necessary to improve education within the State, id. at 583; and that the educational needs of the children statutorily excluded were not different from the needs of children not excluded, ibid. The court therefore concluded that

Page 457 U. S. 210

§ 21.031 was not carefully tailored to advance the asserted state interest in an acceptable manner. Id. at 583-584. While appeal of the District Court's decision was pending, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in No. 80-1538. Apparently on the strength of that opinion, the Court of Appeals, on February 23, 1981, summarily affirmed the decision of the Southern District. We noted probable jurisdiction, 452 U.S. 937 (1981), and consolidated this case with No. 80-1538 for briefing and argument. [ Footnote 8]

II

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

"[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Page 457 U. S. 211

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [ Footnote 10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized

Page 457 U. S. 212

that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:"

"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

" These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at . [ Footnote 11] Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme: [ Footnote 12]

Page 457 U. S. 213

"Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. It is there that the equality of legal right must be maintained. That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders."

There is simply no support for appellants' suggestion that "due process" is somehow of greater stature than "equal protection," and therefore available to a larger class of persons. To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power. To permit a State to employ the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in order to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection.

Page 457 U. S. 214

Although the congressional debate concerning § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to all within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H.R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment. [ Footnote 13] Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866). Two days later, Bingham posed the following question in support of the resolution:

"Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?"

Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:

Page 457 U. S. 215

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

Id. at 2766 (emphasis added).

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry. The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the

Page 457 U. S. 216

United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children. It is to this question that we now turn.

III

The Equal Protection Clause directs that "all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, , (1920). But so too, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Tigner v. Texas, , (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is "different" and what is "the same" resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.

But we would not be faithful to our obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment if we applied so deferential a standard to every classification. The Equal Protection Clause was intended as a restriction on state legislative action inconsistent with elemental constitutional premises. Thus, we have treated as presumptively invidious those classifications that disadvantage a "suspect class," [ Footnote 14] or that impinge upon

Page 457 U. S. 217

the exercise of a "fundamental right." [ Footnote 15] With respect to such classifications, it is appropriate to enforce the mandate of equal protection by requiring the State to demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. In addition, we have recognized that certain forms of legislative classification, while not facially invidious, nonetheless give rise to recurring constitutional difficulties; in these limited circumstances, we have sought the assurance that the classification reflects a reasoned judgment consistent with the ideal of equal protection by inquiring whether it may fairly be viewed as furthering a

Page 457 U. S. 218

substantial interest of the State. [ Footnote 16] We turn to a consideration of the standard appropriate for the evaluation of § 21.031.

Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial "shadow population" of illegal migrants -- numbering in the millions -- within our borders. [ Footnote 17] This situation raises the specter of a permanent

Page 457 U. S. 219

caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents. [ Footnote 18] The existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law. [ Footnote 19]

The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply

Page 457 U. S. 220

"[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent."

Of course, undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic, since it is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action. But § 21.031 is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control. It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of § 21.031.

Page 457 U. S. 221

"[A]s . . . pointed out early in our history, . . . some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence."

"perceptions of the public schools as inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system have been confirmed by the observations of social scientists."

In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals

Page 457 U. S. 222

of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. Paradoxically, by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. But more directly, "education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society." Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at . Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and the obstacle it poses to individual achievement, make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause. [ Footnote 20] What we said 28 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, (1954), still holds true:

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school

Page 457 U. S. 223

attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Page 457 U. S. 224

the rationality of § 21. 031, we may appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children who are its victims. In light of these countervailing costs, the discrimination contained in § 21.031 can hardly be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.

IV

It is the State's principal argument, and apparently the view of the dissenting Justices, that the undocumented status of these children vel non establishes a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that a State might choose to afford other residents. The State notes that, while other aliens are admitted "on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under nondiscriminatory laws," Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, , (1948), the asserted right of these children to an education can claim no implicit congressional imprimatur. [ Footnote 21] Indeed, in the State's view, Congress' apparent disapproval of the presence of these children within the United States, and the evasion of the federal regulatory program that is the mark of undocumented status, provides authority for its decision to impose upon them special disabilities. Faced with an equal protection challenge respecting the treatment of aliens, we agree that the courts must be attentive to congressional policy; the exercise of congressional power might well affect the State's prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular class of aliens. But we are unable to find in the congressional immigration scheme any statement of policy that might weigh significantly

Page 457 U. S. 225

in arriving at an equal protection balance concerning the State's authority to deprive these children of an education.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Art. I., § 8, cl. 4. Drawing upon this power, upon its plenary authority with respect to foreign relations and international commerce, and upon the inherent power of a sovereign to close its borders, Congress has developed a complex scheme governing admission to our Nation and status within our borders. See Mathews v. Diaz, (1976); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, , -589 (1952). The obvious need for delicate policy judgments has counseled the Judicial Branch to avoid intrusion into this field. Mathews, supra, at . But this traditional caution does not persuade us that unusual deference must be shown the classification embodied in § 21.031. The States enjoy no power with respect to the classification of aliens. See Hines v. Davidowitz, (1941). This power is "committed to the political branches of the Federal Government." Mathews, 426 U.S. at . Although it is "a routine and normally legitimate part" of the business of the Federal Government to classify on the basis of alien status, id. at , and to "take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country," id. at , only rarely are such matters relevant to legislation by a State. See Id. at -85; Nyquist v. Mauclet, , , n. 8 (1977)

As we recognized in De Canas v. Bica, (1976), the States do have some authority to act with respect to illegal aliens, at least where such action mirrors federal objectives and furthers a legitimate state goal. In De Canas, the State's program reflected Congress' intention to bar from employment all aliens except those possessing a grant of permission to work in this country. Id. at . In contrast, there is no indication that the disability imposed by § 21.031 corresponds to any identifiable congressional policy. The

Page 457 U. S. 226

State does not claim that the conservation of state educational resources was ever a congressional concern in restricting immigration. More importantly, the classification reflected in § 21.031 does not operate harmoniously within the federal program.

To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). In light of the discretionary federal power to grant relief from deportation, a State cannot realistically determine that any particular undocumented child will in fact be deported until after deportation proceedings have been completed. It would, of course, be most difficult for the State to justify a denial of education to a child enjoying an inchoate federal permission to remain.

We are reluctant to impute to Congress the intention to withhold from these children, for so long as they are present in this country through no fault of their own, access to a basic education. In other contexts, undocumented status, coupled with some articulable federal policy, might enhance state authority with respect to the treatment of undocumented aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the present legislative record, we perceive no national policy that supports the State in denying these children an elementary education. The State may borrow the federal classification. But to justify its use as a criterion for its own discriminatory policy, the State must demonstrate that the classification is reasonably adapted to " the purposes for which the state desires to use it." Oyama v. California, , -665 (1948) (Murphy, J., concurring) (emphasis added). We therefore turn to the state objectives that are said to support § 21.031.

Page 457 U. S. 227

V

Appellants argue that the classification at issue furthers an interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." [ Footnote 22] Brief for Appellants 26. Of course, a concern for the preservation of resources, standing alone, can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources. Graham v. Richardson, , -375 (1971). The State must do more than justify its classification with a concise expression of an intention to discriminate. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, , (1976). Apart from the asserted state prerogative to act against undocumented children solely on the basis of their undocumented status -- an asserted prerogative that carries only minimal force in the circumstances of these cases -- we discern three colorable state interests that might support § 21.031.

Page 457 U. S. 228

First, appellants appear to suggest that the State may seek to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants. While a State might have an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population, [ Footnote 23] § 21.031 hardly offers an effective method of dealing with an urgent demographic or economic problem. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's economy. To the contrary, the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc. 458 F.Supp. at 578; 501 F.Supp. at 570-571. The dominant incentive for illegal entry into the State of Texas is the availability of employment; few if any illegal immigrants come to this country, or presumably to the State of Texas, in order to avail themselves of a free education. [ Footnote 24] Thus, even making the doubtful assumption that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy of the State is negative, we think it clear that "[c]harging tuition to undocumented children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration," at least when compared with the alternative of

Page 457 U. S. 229

prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. 458 F.Supp. at 585. See 628 F.2d at 461; 501 F.Supp. at 579, and n. 88.

Second, while it is apparent that a State may "not . . . reduce expenditures for education by barring [some arbitrarily chosen class of] children from its schools," Shapiro v. Thompson, , (1969), appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. But the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. [ Footnote 25] As the District Court in No. 801934 noted, the State failed to offer any

"credible supporting evidence that a proportionately small diminution of the funds spent on each child [which might result from devoting some state funds to the education of the excluded group] will have a grave impact on the quality of education."

501 F.Supp. at 583. And, after reviewing the State's school financing mechanism, the District Court in No. 80-1538 concluded that barring undocumented children from local schools would not necessarily improve the quality of education provided in those schools. 458 F.Supp. at 577. Of course, even if improvement in the quality of education were a likely result of barring some number of children from the schools of the State, the State must support its selection of this group as the appropriate target for exclusion. In terms of educational cost and need, however, undocumented children are "basically indistinguishable" from legally resident alien children. Id. at 589; 501 F.Supp. at 583, and n. 104.

Finally, appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence

Page 457 U. S. 230

within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the boundaries of the State, and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Even assuming that such an interest is legitimate, it is an interest that is most difficult to quantify. The State has no assurance that any child, citizen or not, will employ the education provided by the State within the confines of the State's borders. In any event, the record is clear that many of the undocumented children disabled by this classification will remain in this country indefinitely, and that some will become lawful residents or citizens of the United States. It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime. It is thus clear that whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.

VI

If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is

* Together with No. 80-1934, Texas et al. v. Certain Named and Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children et al., also on appeal from the same court.

That section provides, in pertinent part:

"(a) All children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens and who are over the age of five years and under the age of 21 years on the first day of September of any scholastic year shall be entitled to the benefits of the Available School Fund for that year."

"(b) Every child in this state who is a citizen of the United States or a legally admitted alien and who is over the age of five years and not over the age of 21 years on the first day of September of the year in which admission is sought shall be permitted to attend the public free schools of the district in which he resides or in which his parent, guardian, or the person having lawful control of him resides at the time he applies for admission."

"(c) The board of trustees of any public free school district of this state shall admit into the public free schools of the district free of tuition all persons who are either citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens and who are over five and not over 21 years of age at the beginning of the scholastic year if such person or his parent, guardian or person having lawful control resides within the school district."

Despite the enactment of § 21.031 in 1975, the School District had continued to enroll undocumented children free of charge until the 1977-1978 school year. In July, 1977, it adopted a policy requiring undocumented children to pay a "full tuition fee" in order to enroll. Section 21.031 had not provided a definition of "a legally admitted alien." Tyler offered the following clarification:

"A legally admitted alien is one who has documentation that he or she is legally in the United States, or a person who is in the process of securing documentation from the United States Immigration Service, and the Service will state that the person is being processed and will be admitted with proper documentation."

App. to Juris.Statement in No. 80-1538, p. A-38.

The court contrasted this group with those illegal aliens who entered the country alone in order to earn money to send to their dependents in Mexico, and who, in many instances, remained in this country for only a short period of time. 458 F.Supp. at 578.

Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Gilbert Cardenas, testified that "fifty to sixty per cent . . . of current legal alien workers were formerly illegal aliens." Id. at 577. A defense witness, Rolan Heston, District Director of the Houston District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified that

"undocumented children can and do live in the United States for years, and adjust their status through marriage to a citizen or permanent resident."

Ibid. The court also took notice of congressional proposals to "legalize" the status of many unlawful entrants. Id. at 577-578. See also n 17, infra.

The Court of Appeals noted that De Canas v. Bica, supra, had not foreclosed all state regulation with respect to illegal aliens, and found no express or implied congressional policy favoring the education of illegal aliens. The court therefore concluded that there was no preemptive conflict between state and federal law. 628 F.2d at 451-454.

The court concluded that § 21.031 was not preempted by federal laws or international agreements. 501 F.Supp. at 584-596.

Appellees in both cases continue to press the argument that § 21.031 is preempted by federal law and policy. In light of our disposition of the Fourteenth Amendment issue, we have no occasion to reach this claim.

[ Footnote 10]

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

"impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'"

Justice Gray concluded that

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Id. at . As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

[ Footnote 11]

In his separate opinion, Justice Field addressed the relationship between the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:

"The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. . . . The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar -- in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[ Footnote 12]

Leng May Ma v. Barber, (1958), relied on by appellants, is not to the contrary. In that case, the Court held, as a matter of statutory construction, that an alien paroled into the United States pursuant to 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) (1952 ed.), was not "within the United States" for the purpose of availing herself of § 243(h), which authorized the withholding of deportation in certain circumstance. The conclusion reflected the longstanding distinction between exclusion proceedings, involving the determination of admissibility, and deportation proceedings. The undocumented children who are appellees here, unlike the parolee in Leng May Ma, supra, could apparently be removed from the country only pursuant to deportation proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). See 1A C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 3.16b, p. 3-161 (1981).

[ Footnote 13]

Representative Bingham's views are also reflected in his comments on the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. He repeatedly referred to the need to provide protection, not only to the freedmen, but to "the alien and stranger," and to "refugees . . . and all men." Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1292 (1866).

[ Footnote 14]

[ Footnote 15]

In determining whether a class-based denial of a particular right is deserving of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, we look to the Constitution to see if the right infringed has its source, explicitly or implicitly, therein. But we have also recognized the fundamentality of participation in state "elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction," Dunn v. Blumstein, , (1972), even though "the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right." San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, at , n. 78. With respect to suffrage, we have explained the need for strict scrutiny as arising from the significance of the franchise as the guardian of all other rights. See Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, , (1966); Reynolds v. Sims, , (1964); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, , (1886).

[ Footnote 16]

See Craig v. Boren, (1976); Lalli v. Lalli, (1978). This technique of "intermediate" scrutiny permits us to evaluate the rationality of the legislative judgment with reference to well-settled constitutional principles.

"In expounding the Constitution, the Court's role is to discern 'principles sufficiently absolute to give them roots throughout the community and continuity over significant periods of time, and to lift them above the level of the pragmatic political judgments of a particular time and place.'"

[ Footnote 17]

The Attorney General recently estimated the number of illegal aliens within the United States at between 3 and 6 million. In presenting to both the Senate and House of Representatives several Presidential proposals for reform of the immigration laws -- including one to "legalize" many of the illegal entrants currently residing in the United States by creating for them a special status under the immigration laws -- the Attorney General noted that this subclass is largely composed of persons with a permanent attachment to the Nation, and that they are unlikely to be displaced from our territory:

"We have neither the resources, the capability, nor the motivation to uproot and deport millions of illegal aliens, many of whom have become, in effect, members of the community. By granting limited legal status to the productive and law-abiding members of this shadow population, we will recognize reality and devote our enforcement resources to deterring future illegal arrivals."

Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1981) (testimony of William French Smith, Attorney General).

[ Footnote 18]

As the District Court observed in No. 80-1538, the confluence of Government policies has resulted in

"the existence of a large number of employed illegal aliens, such as the parents of plaintiffs in this case, whose presence is tolerated, whose employment is perhaps even welcomed, but who are virtually defenseless against any abuse, exploitation, or callous neglect to which the state or the state's natural citizens and business organizations may wish to subject them."

458 F.Supp. at 585.

[ Footnote 19]

We reject the claim that "illegal aliens" are a "suspect class." No case in which we have attempted to define a suspect class, see, e.g., n. 14, supra, has addressed the status of persons unlawfully in our country. Unlike most of the classifications that we have recognized as suspect, entry into this class, by virtue of entry into this country, is the product of voluntary action. Indeed, entry into the class is itself a crime. In addition, it could hardly be suggested that undocumented status is a "constitutional irrelevancy." With respect to the actions of the Federal Government, alienage classifications may be intimately related to the conduct of foreign policy, to the federal prerogative to control access to the United States, and to the plenary federal power to determine who has sufficiently manifested his allegiance to become a citizen of the Nation. No State may independently exercise a like power. But if the Federal Government has, by uniform rule, prescribed what it believes to be appropriate standards for the treatment of an alien subclass, the States may, of course, follow the federal direction. See De Canas v. Bica, (1976).

[ Footnote 20]

Because the State does not afford noncitizens the right to vote, and may bar noncitizens from participating in activities at the heart of its political community, appellants argue that denial of a basic education to these children is of less significance than the denial to some other group. Whatever the current status of these children, the courts below concluded that many will remain here permanently, and that some indeterminate number will eventually become citizens. The fact that many will not is not decisive, even with respect to the importance of education to participation in core political institutions. "[T]he benefits of education are not reserved to those whose productive utilization of them is a certainty. . . ." 458 F.Supp. at 581, n. 14. In addition, although a noncitizen

"may be barred from full involvement in the political arena, he may play a role -- perhaps even a leadership role -- in other areas of import to the community."

[ Footnote 21]

If the constitutional guarantee of equal protection was available only to those upon whom Congress affirmatively granted its benefit, the State's argument would be virtually unanswerable. But the Equal Protection Clause operates of its own force to protect anyone "within [the State's] jurisdiction" from the State's arbitrary action. See supra. The question we examine in text is whether the federal disapproval of the presence of these children assists the State in overcoming the presumption that denial of education to innocent children is not a rational response to legitimate state concerns.

[ Footnote 22]

Appellant School District sought at oral argument to characterize the alienage classification contained in § 21.031 as simply a test of residence. We are unable to uphold § 21.031 on that basis. Appellants conceded that, if, for example, a Virginian or a legally admitted Mexican citizen entered Tyler with his school-age children, intending to remain only six months, those children would be viewed as residents entitled to attend Tyler schools. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32. It is thus clear that Tyler's residence argument amounts to nothing more than the assertion that illegal entry, without more, prevents a person from becoming a resident for purposes of enrolling his children in the public schools. A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State. C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 340 (1912). Appellants have not shown that the families of undocumented children do not comply with the established standards by which the State historically tests residence. Apart from the alienage limitation, § 21.031(b) requires a school district to provide education only to resident children. The school districts of the State are as free to apply to undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission.

[ Footnote 23]

[ Footnote 24]

The courts below noted the ineffectiveness of the Texas provision as a means of controlling the influx of illegal entrants into the State. See 628 F.2d at 460-461; 458 F.Supp. at 585; 501 F.Supp. at 578 ("The evidence demonstrates that undocumented persons do not immigrate in search for a free public education. Virtually all of the undocumented persons who come into this country seek employment opportunities, and not educational benefits. . . . There was overwhelming evidence . . . of the unimportance of public education as a stimulus for immigration") (footnote omitted).

[ Footnote 25]

Nor does the record support the claim that the educational resources of the State are so direly limited that some form of "educational triage" might be deemed a reasonable (assuming that it were a permissible) response to the State's problems. Id. at 579-581.

JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring.

"by the unique status accorded public education by our society, and by the close relationship between education and some of our most basic constitutional values. "

Page 457 U. S. 231

"the constitutional and societal importance of the interest adversely affected and the recognized invidiousness of the basis upon which the particular classification is drawn."

JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.

I join the opinion and judgment of the Court.

The "fundamental rights" aspect of the Court's equal protection analysis -- the now-familiar concept that governmental classifications bearing on certain interests must be closely scrutinized -- has been the subject of some controversy. Justice Harlan, for example, warned that

"[v]irtually every state statute affects important rights. . . . [T]o extend the 'compelling interest' rule to all cases in which such rights are affected would go far toward making this Court a 'superlegislature.'"

"a state law that impinges upon a substantive right or liberty created or conferred by the Constitution is, of course, presumptively invalid, whether or not the law's purpose or effect is to create any classifications."

Page 457 U. S. 232

Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, , (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring). See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. at (Harlan, J., dissenting). Still others have suggested that fundamental rights are not properly a part of equal protection analysis at all, because they are unrelated to any defined principle of equality. [ Footnote 2/1]

These considerations, combined with doubts about the judiciary's ability to make fine distinctions in assessing the effects of complex social policies, led the Court in Rodriguez to articulate a firm rule: fundamental rights are those that "explicitly or implicitly [are] guaranteed by the Constitution." 411 U.S. at -34. It therefore squarely rejected the notion that "an ad hoc determination as to the social or economic importance" of a given interest is relevant to the level of scrutiny accorded classifications involving that interest, id. at , and made clear that "[i]t is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws." Id. at .

I joined JUSTICE POWELL's opinion for the Court in Rodriguez, and I continue to believe that it provides the appropriate model for resolving most equal protection disputes. Classifications infringing substantive constitutional rights necessarily will be invalid, if not by force of the Equal Protection Clause, then through operation of other provisions of the Constitution. Conversely, classifications bearing on nonconstitutional interests -- even those involving "the most basic economic needs of impoverished human beings," Dandridge v. Williams, , (1970) -- generally are not subject to special treatment under the Equal Protection Clause, because they are not distinguishable in any relevant way from other regulations in "the area of economics and social welfare." Ibid.

With all this said, however, I believe the Court's experience has demonstrated that the Rodriguez formulation does

Page 457 U. S. 233

not settle every issue of "fundamental rights" arising under the Equal Protection Clause. Only a pedant would insist that there are no meaningful distinctions among the multitude of social and political interests regulated by the States, and Rodriguez does not stand for quite so absolute a proposition. To the contrary, Rodriguez implicitly acknowledged that certain interests, though not constitutionally guaranteed, must be accorded a special place in equal protection analysis. Thus, the Court's decisions long have accorded strict scrutiny to classifications bearing on the right to vote in state elections, and Rodriguez confirmed the "constitutional underpinnings of the right to equal treatment in the voting process." 411 U.S. at , n. 74. Yet "the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right," id. at , n. 78. See Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, , (1966); Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at , n. 2 (Stewart, J., concurring). Instead, regulation of the electoral process receives unusual scrutiny because "the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights." Reynolds v. Sims, , (1964). See Dunn v. Blumstein, , (1972). In other words, the right to vote is accorded extraordinary treatment because it is, in equal protection terms, an extraordinary right: a citizen [ Footnote 2/2] cannot hope to achieve any meaningful degree of individual political equality if granted an inferior right of participation in the political process. Those denied the vote are relegated, by state fiat, in a most basic way to second-class status.

It is arguable, of course, that the Court never should have applied fundamental rights doctrine in the fashion outlined above. Justice Harlan, for one, maintained that strict equal protection scrutiny was appropriate only when racial or analogous

Page 457 U. S. 234

classifications were at issue. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. at -663 (dissenting opinion). See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 377 U. S. 590-591 (Harlan, J., dissenting). But it is too late to debate that point, and I believe that accepting the principle of the voting cases -- the idea that state classifications bearing on certain interests pose the risk of allocating rights in a fashion inherently contrary to any notion of "equality" -- dictates the outcome here. As both JUSTICE POWELL and THE CHIEF JUSTICE observe, the Texas scheme inevitably will create "a subclass of illiterate persons," post at (POWELL, J., concurring); see post at , (BURGER, C.J., dissenting); where I differ with THE CHIEF JUSTICE is in my conclusion that this makes the statutory scheme unconstitutional, as well as unwise.

Page 457 U. S. 235

This conclusion is fully consistent with Rodriguez. The Court there reserved judgment on the constitutionality of a state system that "occasioned an absolute denial of educational opportunities to any of its children," noting that

"no charge fairly could be made that the system [at issue in Rodriguez] fails to provide each child with an opportunity to acquire . . . basic minimal skills."

"involv[ing] the most persistent and difficult questions of educational policy, . . . [the] Court's lack of specialized knowledge and experience counsels against premature interference with the informed judgments made at the state and local levels."

Id. at . Thus Rodriguez held, and the Court now reaffirms, that "a State need not justify by compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population." Ante at . Similarly, it is undeniable that education is not a "fundamental right" in the sense that it is constitutionally guaranteed. Here, however, the State has undertaken to provide an education to most of the children residing within its borders. And, in contrast to the situation in Rodriguez, it does not take an advanced degree to predict the effects of a complete denial of education upon those children targeted by the State's classification. In such circumstances, the voting decisions suggest that the State must offer something more than a rational basis for its classification. [ Footnote 2/3]

Page 457 U. S. 236

regulating immigration, the class of children here is not a monolithic one. Thus, the District Court in the Alien Children Education case found as a factual matter that a significant number of illegal aliens will remain in this country permanently, 501 F.Supp. 544, 558-559 (SD Tex.1980); that some of the children involved in this litigation are "documentable," id. at 573; and that "[m]any of the undocumented children are not deportable. None of the named plaintiffs is under an order of deportation." Id. at 583, n. 103. As the Court's alienage cases demonstrate, these children may not be denied rights that are granted to citizens, excepting only those rights bearing on political interests. See Nyquist v. Mauclet, (1977). And, as JUSTICE POWELL notes, the structure of the immigration statutes makes it impossible for the State to determine which aliens are entitled to residence, and which eventually will be deported. Post at -241, n. 6. Indeed, any attempt to do so would involve the State in the administration of the immigration laws. Whatever the State's power to classify deportable aliens, then -- and whatever the Federal Government's ability to draw more precise and more acceptable alienage classifications -- the statute at issue here sweeps within it a substantial number of children who will in fact, and who may well be entitled to, remain in the United States. Given the extraordinary nature of the interest involved, this makes the classification here fatally imprecise. And, as the Court demonstrates, the Texas legislation is not otherwise supported by any substantial interests.

Because I believe that the Court's carefully worded analysis recognizes the importance of the equal protection and preemption interests I consider crucial, I join its opinion as well as its judgment.

[ Footnote 2/1]

See, e.g., Perry, Modern Equal Protection: A Conceptualization and Appraisal, 79 Colum.L.Rev. 1023, 1075-1083 (1979).

[ Footnote 2/2]

I use the term "citizen" advisedly. The right to vote, of course, is a political interest of concern to citizens. The right to an education, in contrast, is a social benefit of relevance to a substantial number of those affected by Texas' statutory scheme, as is discussed below.

[ Footnote 2/3]

JUSTICE POWELL, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court, and write separately to emphasize the unique character of the cases before us.

Page 457 U. S. 237

The classification in question severely disadvantages children who are the victims of a combination of circumstances. Access from Mexico into this country, across our 2,000-mile border, is readily available and virtually uncontrollable. Illegal aliens are attracted by our employment opportunities, and perhaps by other benefits as well. This is a problem of serious national proportions, as the Attorney General recently has recognized. See ante at -219, n. 17. Perhaps because of the intractability of the problem, Congress -- vested by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting our borders and legislating with respect to aliens -- has not provided effective leadership in dealing with this problem. [ Footnote 3/1] It therefore is certain that illegal aliens will continue

Page 457 U. S. 238

to enter the United States and, as the record makes clear, an unknown percentage of them will remain here. I agree with the Court that their children should not be left on the streets uneducated.

Our review in a case such as these is properly heightened. [ Footnote 3/2] See id. at . Cf. Craig v. Boren, (1976). The classification at issue deprives a group of children of the opportunity for education afforded all other children simply because they have been assigned a legal status due to a violation of law by their parents. These children thus have been

Page 457 U. S. 239

singled out for a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these unique circumstances, the Court properly may require that the State's interests be substantial and that the means bear a "fair and substantial relation" to these interests. [ Footnote 3/3] See Lalli v. Lalli, , (1978) ("classifications based on illegitimacy . . . are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment if they are not substantially related to permissible state interests"); id. at ("[a]s the State's interests are substantial, we now consider the means adopted").

Page 457 U. S. 240

nature of their residency in the particular Texas school district. [ Footnote 3/4] The Court of Appeals and the District Courts that addressed these cases concluded that the classification could not satisfy even the bare requirements of rationality. One need not go so far to conclude that the exclusion of appellees' class [ Footnote 3/5] of children from state-provided education is a type of punitive discrimination based on status that is impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

In reaching this conclusion, I am not unmindful of what must be the exasperation of responsible citizens and government authorities in Texas and other States similarly situated. Their responsibility, if any, for the influx of aliens is slight compared to that imposed by the Constitution on the Federal Government. [ Footnote 3/6] So long as the ease of entry remains inviting,

Page 457 U. S. 241

and the power to deport is exercised infrequently by the Federal Government, the additional expense of admitting these children to public schools might fairly be shared by the Federal and State Governments. But it hardly can be argued rationally that anyone benefits from the creation within our borders of a subclass of illiterate persons, many of whom will remain in the State, adding to the problems and costs of both State and National Governments attendant upon unemployment, welfare, and crime.

Page 457 U. S. 242

[ Footnote 3/1]

Article I, 8, cl. 4, of the Constitution provides: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." The Federal Government has

"broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization."

[ Footnote 3/2]

I emphasize the Court's conclusion that strict scrutiny is not appropriately applied to this classification. This exacting standard of review has been reserved for instances in which a "fundamental" constitutional right or a "suspect" classification is present. Neither is present in these cases, as the Court holds.

[ Footnote 3/3]

THE CHIEF JUSTICE argues in his dissenting opinion that this heightened standard of review is inconsistent with the Court's decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, (1973). But in Rodriguez, no group of children was singled out by the State and then penalized because of their parents' status. Rather, funding for education varied across the State because of the tradition of local control. Nor, in that case, was any group of children totally deprived of all education, as in these cases. If the resident children of illegal aliens were denied welfare assistance, made available by government to all other children who qualify, this also -- in my opinion -- would be an impermissible penalizing of children because of their parents' status.

[ Footnote 3/4]

The State provides free public education to all lawful residents whether they intend to reside permanently in the State or only reside in the State temporarily. See ante at , n. 22. Of course, a school district may require that illegal alien children, like any other children, actually reside in the school district before admitting them to the schools. A requirement of de facto residency, uniformly applied, would not violate any principle of equal protection.

[ Footnote 3/5]

The classes certified in these cases included all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing in the school district, see ante at , or the State. See In re Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F.Supp. 544, 553 (SD Tex.1980). Even so, it is clear that neither class was thought to include mature Mexican minors who were solely responsible for violating the immigration laws. In 458 F.Supp. 569 (ED Tex.1978), the court characterized plaintiffs as "entire families who have migrated illegally." Id. at 578. Each of the plaintiff children in that case was represented by a parent or guardian. Similarly, the court in In re Alien Children Education Litigation found that "[u]ndocumented children do not enter the United States unaccompanied by their parents." 501 F.Supp. at 573. A different case would be presented in the unlikely event that a minor, old enough to be responsible for illegal entry and yet still of school age, entered this country illegally on his own volition.

[ Footnote 3/6]

In addition, the States' ability to respond on their own to the problems caused by this migration may be limited by the principles of preemption that apply in this area. See, e.g., Hines v. Davidowitz, (1941). In De Canas v. Bica, (1976), the Court found that a state law making it a criminal offense to employ illegal aliens was not preempted by federal authority over aliens and immigration. The Court found evidence that Congress intended state regulation in this area. Id. at ("there is evidence . . . that Congress intends that States may, to the extent consistent with federal law, regulate the employment of illegal aliens"). Moreover, under federal immigration law, only immigrant aliens and nonimmigrant aliens with special permission are entitled to work. See 1 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure, 1.34a, 1.36, 2.6b (1981). Because federal law clearly indicates that only certain specified aliens may lawfully work in the country, and because these aliens have documentation establishing this right, the State in De Canas was able to identify with certainty which aliens had a federal permission to work in this country. The State did not need to concern itself with an alien's current or future deportability. By contrast, there is no comparable federal guidance in the area of education. No federal law invites state regulation; no federal regulations identify those aliens who have a right to attend public schools. In addition, the Texas educational exclusion requires the State to make predictions as to whether individual aliens eventually will be found to be deportable. But it is impossible for a State to determine which aliens the Federal Government will eventually deport, which the Federal Government will permit to stay, and which the Federal Government will ultimately naturalize. Until an undocumented alien is ordered deported by the Federal Government, no State can be assured that the alien will not be found to have a federal permission to reside in the country, perhaps even as a citizen. Indeed, even the Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot predict with certainty whether any individual alien has a right to reside in the country until deportation proceedings have run their course. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting.

Were it our business to set the Nation's social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children -- including illegal aliens -- of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly -- and wrong -- to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language. [ Footnote 4/1] However, the Constitution does not constitute us as "Platonic Guardians," nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, "wisdom," or "common sense." See TVA v. Hill, , -195 (1978). We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today.

The Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress' lack of "effective leadership" in dealing with the serious national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of illegal aliens across our borders. [ Footnote 4/2]

Page 457 U. S. 243

The Court's holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of "remedies" for the failures -- or simply the laggard pace -- of the political processes of our system of government. The Court employs, and, in my view, abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver. That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others.

I

In a sense, the Court's opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.

I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically "within the jurisdiction" of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this "only begins the inquiry." Ante at . The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons. Jefferson v. Hackney, , (1972); Reed v. Reed, , (1971); Tigner v. Texas, , -148 (1940).

The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons

Page 457 U. S. 244

who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there. The distinction the State of Texas has drawn -- based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies -- is not unconstitutional.

The Court acknowledges that, except in those cases when state classifications disadvantage a "suspect class" or impinge upon a "fundamental right," the Equal Protection Clause permits a state "substantial latitude" in distinguishing between different groups of persons. Ante at -217. Moreover, the Court expressly -- and correctly -- rejects any suggestion that illegal aliens are a suspect class, ante at , n.19, or that education is a fundamental right, ante at , . Yet by patching together bits and pieces of what might be termed quasi-suspect-class and quasi-fundamental-rights analysis, the Court spins out a theory custom-tailored to the facts of these cases.

In the end, we are told little more than that the level of scrutiny employed to strike down the Texas law applies only when illegal alien children are deprived of a public education, see ante at -224. [ Footnote 4/3] If ever a court was guilty of an unabashedly result-oriented approach, this case is a prime example.

Page 457 U. S. 245

on "innocent" children. Ibid. See also ante at -239 (POWELL, J., concurring). [ Footnote 4/4] However, the Equal Protection Clause does not preclude legislators from classifying among persons on the basis of factors and characteristics over which individuals may be said to lack "control." Indeed, in some circumstances, persons generally, and children in particular, may have little control over or responsibility for such things as their ill health, need for public assistance, or place of residence. Yet a state legislature is not barred from considering, for example, relevant differences between the mentally healthy and the mentally ill, or between the residents of different counties [ Footnote 4/5] simply because these may be factors unrelated to individual choice or to any "wrongdoing." The Equal Protection Clause protects against arbitrary and irrational classifications, and against invidious discrimination stemming from prejudice and hostility; it is not an all-encompassing "equalizer" designed to eradicate every distinction for which persons are not "responsible."

Page 457 U. S. 246

The Court does not presume to suggest that appellees' purported lack of culpability for their illegal status prevents them from being deported or otherwise "penalized" under federal law. Yet would deportation be any less a "penalty" than denial of privileges provided to legal residents? [ Footnote 4/6] Illegality of presence in the United States does not -- and need not -- depend on some amorphous concept of "guilt" or "innocence" concerning an alien's entry. Similarly, a state's use of federal immigration status as a basis for legislative classification is not necessarily rendered suspect for its failure to take such factors into account.

The Court's analogy to cases involving discrimination against illegitimate children -- see ante at ; ante at -239 (POWELL, J., concurring) -- is grossly misleading. The State has not thrust any disabilities upon appellees due to their "status of birth." Cf. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., , (1972). Rather, appellees' status is predicated upon the circumstances of their concededly illegal presence in this country, and is a direct result of Congress' obviously valid exercise of its "broad constitutional powers" in the field of immigration and naturalization. U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4; see Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, , (1948). This Court has recognized that, in allocating governmental benefits to a given class of aliens, one "may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country." Mathews v. Diaz, , (1976). When that "relationship" is a federally prohibited one, there can, of course, be no presumption that a state has a constitutional duty to include illegal aliens among the recipients of its governmental benefits. [ Footnote 4/7]

Page 457 U. S. 247

The second strand of the Court's analysis rests on the premise that, although public education is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, "neither is it merely some governmental benefit' indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation." Ante at . Whatever meaning or relevance this opaque observation might have in some other context [Footnote 4/8] it simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. Indeed, it is never made clear what the Court's opinion means on this score.

The importance of education is beyond dispute. Yet we have held repeatedly that the importance of a governmental service does not elevate it to the status of a "fundamental right" for purposes of equal protection analysis. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, , (1973); Lindsey v. Normet, , -74 (1972). In San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, JUSTICE POWELL, speaking for the Court, expressly rejected the proposition that state laws dealing with public education are subject to special scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, the Court points to no meaningful way to distinguish between education and other governmental benefits

Page 457 U. S. 248

in this context. Is the Court suggesting that education is more "fundamental" than food, shelter, or medical care?

Once it is conceded -- as the Court does -- that illegal aliens are not a suspect class, and that education is not a fundamental right, our inquiry should focus on and be limited to whether the legislative classification at issue bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Vance v. Bradley, , (1979); Dandridge v. Williams, , -487 (1970); see ante at . [ Footnote 4/9]

Page 457 U. S. 249

The State contends primarily that § 21.031 serves to prevent undue depletion of its limited revenues available for education, and to preserve the fiscal integrity of the State's school-financing system against an ever-increasing flood of illegal aliens -- aliens over whose entry or continued presence it has no control. Of course such fiscal concerns alone could not justify discrimination against a suspect class or an arbitrary and irrational denial of benefits to a particular group of persons. Yet I assume no Member of this Court would argue that prudent conservation of finite state revenues is, per se, an illegitimate goal. Indeed, the numerous classifications this Court has sustained in social welfare legislation were invariably related to the limited amount of revenues available to spend on any given program or set of programs. See, e.g., Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. at -551; Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at . The significant question here is whether the requirement of tuition from illegal aliens who attend the public schools -- as well as from residents of other states, for example -- is a rational and reasonable means of furthering the State's legitimate fiscal ends. [ Footnote 4/10]

Page 457 U. S. 250

Without laboring what will undoubtedly seem obvious to many, it simply is not "irrational" for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very presence in the state and this country is illegal as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state. [ Footnote 4/11] In De Canas v. Bica, , (1976), we held that a State may protect its

"fiscal interests and lawfully resident labor force from the deleterious effects on its economy resulting from the employment of illegal aliens."

And, only recently, this Court made clear that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its schools and "the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis." Vlandis v. Kline, , (1973) (emphasis added). See also Elkins v. Moreno, , -668 (1978). The Court has failed to offer even a plausible explanation why illegality of residence

Page 457 U. S. 251

in this country is not a factor that may legitimately bear upon the bona fides of state residence and entitlement to the benefits of lawful residence. [ Footnote 4/12]

It is significant that the Federal Government has seen fit to exclude illegal aliens from numerous social welfare programs, such as the food stamp program, 7 U.S.C. § 2015(f) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) and 7 CFR § 273.4 (1981), the old-age assistance, aid to families with dependent children, aid to the blind, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, and supplemental security income programs, 45 CFR § 233.50 (1981), the Medicare hospital insurance benefits program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-2 and 42 CFR § 405.205(b) (1981), and the Medicaid hospital insurance benefits for the aged and disabled program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o and 42 CFR § 405.103(a)(4) (1981). Although these exclusions do not conclusively demonstrate the constitutionality of the State's use of the same classification for comparable purposes, at the very least they tend to support the rationality of excluding illegal alien residents of a state from such programs so as to preserve the state's finite revenues for the benefit of lawful residents. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. at ; see also

The Court maintains -- as if this were the issue -- that "barring undocumented children from local schools would not necessarily improve the quality of education provided in those

Page 457 U. S. 252

schools." Ante at . See 458 F.Supp. 569, 577 (ED Tex.1978). [ Footnote 4/13] However, the legitimacy of barring illegal aliens from programs such as Medicare or Medicaid does not depend on a showing that the barrier would "improve the quality" of medical care given to persons lawfully entitled to participate in such programs. Modern education, like medical care, is enormously expensive, and there can be no doubt that very large added costs will fall on the State or its local school districts as a result of the inclusion of illegal aliens in the tuition-free public schools. The State may, in its discretion, use any savings resulting from its tuition requirement to "improve the quality of education" in the public school system, or to enhance the funds available for other social programs, or to reduce the tax burden placed on its residents; each of these ends is legitimate.'" The State need not show, as the Court implies, that the incremental cost of educating illegal aliens will send it into bankruptcy, or have a "`grave impact on the quality of education,'" ante at ; that is not dispositive under a "rational basis" scrutiny. In the absence of a constitutional imperative to provide for the education of illegal aliens, the State may "rationally" choose to take advantage of whatever savings will accrue from limiting access to the tuition-free public schools to its own lawful residents, excluding even citizens of neighboring States. [Footnote 4/14]

Denying a free education to illegal alien children is not a choice I would make were I a legislator. Apart from compassionate considerations, the long-range costs of excluding any children from the public schools may well outweigh the costs of educating them. But that is not the issue; the fact

Page 457 U. S. 253

that there are sound policy arguments against the Texas Legislature's choice does not render that choice an unconstitutional one.

II

Page 457 U. S. 254

assess the "social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests." Ante at ; see ante at -224. While the "specter of a permanent caste" of illegal Mexican residents of the United States is indeed a disturbing one, see ante at -219, it is but one segment of a larger problem, which is for the political branches to solve. I find it difficult to believe that Congress would long tolerate such a self-destructive result -- that it would fail to deport these illegal alien families or to provide for the education of their children. Yet instead of allowing the political processes to run their course -- albeit with some delay -- the Court seeks to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction. It is not unreasonable to think that this encourages the political branches to pass their problems to the Judiciary.

The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is to defer to the political processes, unpalatable as that may be to some.

[ Footnote 4/1]

It does not follow, however, that a state should bear the costs of educating children whose illegal presence in this country results from the default of the political branches of the Federal Government. A state has no power to prevent unlawful immigration, and no power to deport illegal aliens; those powers are reserved exclusively to Congress and the Executive. If the Federal Government, properly chargeable with deporting illegal aliens, fails to do so, it should bear the burdens of their presence here. Surely if illegal alien children can be identified for purposes of this litigation, their parents can be identified for purposes of prompt deportation.

[ Footnote 4/2]

The Department of Justice recently estimated the number of illegal aliens within the United States at between 3 and 6 million. Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1981) (testimony of Attorney General Smith). Other estimates run as high as 12 million. See Strout, Closing the Door on Immigration, Christian Science Monitor, May 21, 1982, p. 22, col. 4.

[ Footnote 4/3]

The Court implies, for example, that the Fourteenth Amendment would not require a state to provide welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

[ Footnote 4/4]

[ Footnote 4/5]

[ Footnote 4/6]

Indeed, even children of illegal alien parents born in the United States can be said to be "penalized" when their parents are deported.

[ Footnote 4/7]

It is true that the Constitution imposes lesser constraints on the Federal Government than on the states with regard to discrimination against lawfully admitted aliens. E.g., Mathews v. Diaz, (1976); Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, (1976). This is because "Congress and the President have broad power over immigration and naturalization which the States do not possess," Hampton, supra, at , and because state discrimination against legally resident aliens conflicts with and alters

"the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states."

[ Footnote 4/8]

In support of this conclusion, the Court's opinion strings together quotations drawn from cases addressing such diverse matters as the right of individuals under the Due Process Clause to learn a foreign language, Meyer v. Nebraska, (1923); the First Amendment prohibition against state-mandated religious exercises in the public schools, Abington School District v. Schempp, (1963); and state impingements upon the free exercise of religion, Wisconsin v. Yoder, (1972). However, not every isolated utterance of this Court retains force when wrested from the context in which it was made.

[ Footnote 4/9]

This "rational basis standard" was applied by the Court of Appeals. 628 F.2d 448, 458-461 (1980).

[ Footnote 4/10]

The Texas law might also be justified as a means of deterring unlawful immigration. While regulation of immigration is an exclusively federal function, a state may take steps, consistent with federal immigration policy, to protect its economy and ability to provide governmental services from the "deleterious effects" of a massive influx of illegal immigrants. De Canas v. Bica, (1976); ante at , n. 23. The Court maintains that denying illegal aliens a free public education is an "ineffectual" means of deterring unlawful immigration, at least when compared to a prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens. Ante at -229. Perhaps that is correct, but it is not dispositive; the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate that a state choose either the most effective and all-encompassing means of addressing a problem or none at all. Dandridge v. Wiliams, , -487(1970). Texas might rationally conclude that more significant "demographic or economic problem[s]," ante at , are engendered by the illegal entry into the State of entire families of aliens for indefinite periods than by the periodic sojourns of single adults who intend to leave the State after short-term or seasonal employment. It blinks reality to maintain that the availability of governmental services such as education plays no role in an alien family's decision to enter, or remain in, this country; certainly, the availability of a free bilingual public education might well influence an alien to bring his children, rather than travel alone for better job opportunities.

[ Footnote 4/11]

The Court suggests that the State's classification is improper because "[a]n illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen." Ante at . However, once an illegal alien is given federal permission to remain, he is no longer subject to exclusion from the tuition-free public schools under § 21.031. The Court acknowledges that the Tyler Independent School District provides a free public education to any alien who has obtained, or is in the process of obtaining, documentation from the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. See ante at , n. 2. Thus, Texas has not taken it upon itself to determine which aliens are or are not entitled to United States residence. JUSTICE BLACKMUN's assertion that the Texas statute will be applied to aliens "who may well be entitled to . . . remain in the United States," ante at (concurring opinion), is wholly without foundation.

[ Footnote 4/12]

The Court's opinion is disingenuous when it suggests that the State has merely picked a "disfavored group" and arbitrarily defined its members as nonresidents. Ante at , n. 22. Appellees' "disfavored status" stems from the very fact that federal law explicitly prohibits them from being in this country. Moreover, the analogies to Virginians or legally admitted Mexican citizens entering Texas, ibid., are spurious. A Virginian's right to migrate to Texas, without penalty, is protected by the Constitution, see, e.g., Shapiro v. Thompson, (1969); and a lawfully admitted alien's right to enter the State is likewise protected by federal law. See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, (1948). Cf. Zobel v. Williams, ante, p. .

[ Footnote 4/13]

The District Court so concluded primarily because the State would decrease its funding to local school districts in proportion to the exclusion of illegal alien children. 458 F.Supp. at 577.

[ Footnote 4/14]

I assume no Member of the Court would challenge Texas' right to charge tuition to students residing across the border in Louisiana who seek to attend the nearest school in Texas.

[ Footnote 4/15]

Professor Bickel noted that judicial review can have a "tendency over time seriously to weaken the democratic process." A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 21 (1962). He reiterated James Bradley Thayer's observation that

"'the exercise of [the power of judicial review], even when unavoidable, is always attended with a serious evil, namely, that the correction of legislative mistakes comes from the outside, and the people thus lose the political experience, and the moral education and stimulus that comes from fighting the question out in the ordinary way, and correcting their own errors. The tendency of a common and easy resort to this great function, now lamentably too common, is to dwarf the political capacity of the people, and to deaden its sense of moral responsibility.'"

Id. at 22 (quoting J. Thayer, John Marshall 106-107 (1901)).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plyler v. Doe No. 80-1538 Argued December 1, 1981 Decided June 15, 1982* 457 U.S. 202 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights. We serve student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems.

# data[].attributes.headline
Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity to EL Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity to EL Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
civil rights; federal aid; federal programs; national origin discrimination; racial discrimination;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity to Limited-English Proficient Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Title VI regulatory requirements have been interpreted to prohibit denial of equal access to education because of a student's limited proficiency in English.

# data[].attributes.headline
Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 

# data[].attributes.subject
Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview of Lau v. Nichols decision of the United States Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
language acquisition; limited english proficient; national origin discrimination; parent rights; special education; track system (education);

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DHEW Memo Regarding Language Minority Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This May 25, 1970 Memorandum establishes policy on issues concerning the responsibility of school districts to provide equal educational opportunity to national origin minority group children deficient in English language skills.

# data[].attributes.headline
Detailed information about Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

# data[].attributes.subject
Detailed information about Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
discrimination; english (second language); language proficiency; laws;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FAQS on Limited-English Proficient Students -- Office for Civil Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frequently asked questions with answers concerning the rights of Limited-English Proficient Students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this excerpt from Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice ( Caslon, 2010), Wayne Wright summarizes the landmark U.S. court cases that have had significant implications for ELLs. In particular, Wright focuses on cases relating to segregation, the right of communities to teach their native languages to children, and the linguistic and education needs of ELLs.

Note: For information about Plyler vs. Doe, which gives all children a right to a free, public education regardless of immigration status, see this related resource section.

Important Court Decisions and Legislation

Historical reluctance by many states throughout the country to provide equitable educational opportunities to ELL and other minority students and controversies over the use of languages other than English in public schools have sparked a large number of lawsuits that address these issues. The court decisions that grew out of these lawsuits have led to legislative changes that have helped to shape the policy climate of today. In this section we briefly review some of these cases and related legislation.

First, however, we must consider the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, declares in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Many of the cases discussed in this section are based on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Addressing Segregation

Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education

In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its now infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" public facilities, including school systems, are constitutional. Although the decision was related to the segregation of African American students, in many parts of the country Native American, Asian, and Hispanic students were also routinely segregated. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed Plessy v. Ferguson 58 years later in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.

Independent School District v. Salvatierra, Alvarez v. Lemon Grove, and Méndez v. Westminster School District

A few lesser known lower-level cases concerning the segregation of Hispanic student predate Brown. In Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930), Mexican American parents in the small border town of Rio, Texas, brought suit against the school district over segregation. The court sided with the school district that argued the segregation was necessary to teach the students English. This argument did not hold, however, for two similar cases in California: Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931) and Méndez v. Westminster School District (1947). The judge in Alvarez noted that segregation was not beneficial for the students' English language development (Trujillo, 2008), and the success of the Méndez case helped set the stage for Brown.

Like Plessy, Brown v. Board of Education focused on the segregation of African American students. But by ruling that states are responsible for providing "equal educational opportunities" for all students, Brown made bilingual education for ELLs more feasible.

Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson and Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District

In some instances, however, desegregation efforts made it more difficult. In San Francisco, for example, Chinese Americans fought a desegregation order that would force students out of neighborhood schools that provided bilingual English-Chinese programs for newcomer Chinese ELL students. The Chinese community took the case to court in 1971 in G uey Heung Lee v. Johnson, and it was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974, the court ruled against the Chinese community, declaring simply Brown applies to races.

Despite significant progress in the half century since Brown, the practice of segregation in public schools remains widespread (Kozol, 2005). School districts that provide bilingual education and ESL programs constantly struggle to balance the need for separate classes where the unique needs of ELL students can be addressed against the need to avoid prolonged segregation of ELLs from other students.

The Right of Communities to Teach Their Native Languages to Their Children

Meyers v. Nebraska

Three important cases have addressed the issue of private language-schooling for language-minority students. In the early 1900s, German communities typically ran their own private schools where students received instruction in both German and English. Then, in 1919, Nebraska passed the Siman Act, which made it illegal for any school, public or private, to provide any foreign language instruction to students below the 8th grade. Roman Catholic and Lutheran German parochial schools joined together to file suit against the act under the 14th Amendment.

The state court ruled that the act could not prevent schools from providing German language instruction outside of the hours of regular school study. In response, the parochial schools taught German during an extended recess period. Language restrictionist policymakers sought to close the loopholes in the law and fined Robert Meyers $25 fine for teaching Bible stories to 10-year-old children in German. The case, Meyers v. Nebraska (1923), went to Supreme Court, which consolidated this case with similar cases from Ohio and Idaho.

In a major victory for language-minority parents and communities, the Supreme Court struck down the states' restrictive legislation, ruling, in essence, that whereas state governments can legislate the language used for instruction in schools, states may not pass laws that attempt to prevent communities from offering private language classes outside of the regular school system.

Meyers is an important case because it makes clear that the 14th Amendment provides protection for language minorities. As the legal expert Sandra Del Valle (2003) points out, however, this decision did not give language minorities additional rights and privileges but simply ensured that "laws not be used as a rationale for denying them the same rights accorded others" (p. 39). Furthermore, because the focus of this case was on parochial schools, the decision was not an endorsement of bilingual education.

Farrington v. Tokushige

In a similar case handed down in Hawaii in 1927, Farrington v. Tokushige, the court offered further protections of after-school community language programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs.

In a similar case handed down in Hawaii in 1927, Farrington v. Tokushige, the court offered further protections of after-school community language programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs.

Despite these victories, as Del Valle observes, these cases were essentially about parents' rights rather than language rights. In addition, within the court's decision there were still signs of negative attitudes toward the "foreign population." Indeed, Hawaii tried yet again to limit private foreign language instruction. When the Chinese communities after World War II sought to restart their private language schools, the state passed the "Act Regulating the Teaching of Foreign Languages to Children." Part of the state's rationale was the need to "protect children from the harm of learning a foreign language" (Del Valle, 2003, p. 44).

Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po

In Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po (1947), the state court struck down the statute, rejecting the state's claim and arguing that, at least for "the brightest" students, study of a foreign language can be beneficial. The case was decided on the basis of Farrington and, once again, had more to do with parents' rights in directing the education of their children than with language rights.

Xenophobia toward German and Japanese Americans during World War I and World War II succeeded where attempts at language restrictive legislation failed. When Germany and later Japan became war enemies of the United States, the number of U.S. schools that provided instruction in these languages dropped dramatically, largely because of fears by members of these communities that such instruction would lead others to question their loyalty to the United States (Tamura, 1993; Wiley, 1998).

Nevertheless, the legacy of these cases, despite agreement in the courts about the need for states to Americanize minorities and their right to control the language used for instruction in public schools, is that minority communities have a clear right to offer private language classes in which their children can learn and maintain their home languages. Thus, the common practice of language-minority communities today in offering heritage language programs after school and on weekends is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Addressing the Linguistic and Educational Needs of ELL Students

Case law concerning the linguistic and educational needs of ELL students has had a major impact on federal and state policy for ELL students, their families, and their communities. Since the early 1970s, conflict and controversy have surrounded the issue of what constitutes an appropriate education for ELLs. Some rulings provide support for bilingual education; others erode that support. Some cases involve suits filed against bilingual education; others involve suits filed against anti-bilingual education voter initiatives.

Equal Educational Opportunities for ELLs

Lau v. Nichols

The 1974 Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols resulted in perhaps the most important court decision regarding the education of language-minority students. This case was brought forward by Chinese American students in the San Francisco Unified School District who were placed in mainstream classrooms despite their lack of proficiency in English, and left to "sink or swim." The district had argued that it had done nothing wrong, and that the Chinese American students received treatment equal to that of other students. Justice William Douglass, in writing the court's opinion, strongly disagreed, arguing:

Under these state-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.... We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.

The influence of Lau on federal policy was substantial. After the court's decision, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights created the Lau Remedies. Whereas Title VII Bilingual Education Act regulations applied only to funded programs, the Lau Remedies applied to all school districts and functioned as de facto compliance standards.

The Office of Civil Rights used the Lau decision to go after districts that, like San Francisco, were essentially ignoring the needs of its LEP students. Even though the court decision does not mandate any particular instructional approach, the Lau Remedies essentially require districts to implement bilingual education programs for LEP students. James Lyons (1995), former president of the National Association for Bilingual Education, explains further:

The Lau Remedies specified proper approaches, methods and procedures for (1) identifying and evaluating national-origin-minority students' English-language skills; (2) determining appropriate instructional treatments; (3) deciding when LEP students were ready for mainstream classes; and (4) determining the professional standards to be met by teachers of language-minority children. Under the Lau Remedies, elementary schools were generally required to provide LEP students special English-as-a-second-language instruction as well as academic subject-matter instruction through the students' strongest language until the student achieved proficiency in English sufficient to learn effectively in a monolingual English classroom. (pp. 4-5)

The essence of Lau was codified into federal law though the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), soon after the case was decided. Section 1703(f) of this act declares: "No state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by ... (f) the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs."

At the time of its passage, this section of the EEOA was viewed as a declaration of the legal right for students to receive a bilingual education, under the assumption that this is what Lau essentially mandated (Del Valle, 2003). Although other legal actions have since made it clear that the Supreme Court never did mandate bilingual education, the EEOA remains in effect and several subsequent lawsuits have been based on this important legislation.

Rulings that Support Bilingual Education

United States v. Texas

United States v. Texas (1971, 1981) includes mandates that affect all Texas schools. The court ordered the district to create a plan and implement language programs that would help Mexican American students learn English and adjust to American culture and also help Anglo students learn Spanish. The court relied heavily on the testimony of José Cardenas and his theory of incompatibilities, which blames the educational failure of students on the inadequacies of school programs rather than on students themselves. (For a complete discussion of the theory, see Cardenas & Cardenas, 1977.)

Serna v. Portales

Serna v. Portales (1974) was the first case to raise the issue of bilingual education outside of the context of desegregation (Del Valle, 2003). The case dealt with a White-majority school in New Mexico that failed to meet the unique needs of "Spanish-surnamed students." It was argued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" in any program that receives federal funding. The court found the school's program for these students to be inadequate. The judge declared, "It is incumbent on the school district to reassess and enlarge its program directed to the specialized needs of the Spanish-surnamed students" and to create bilingual programs at other schools where they are needed. This case was first decided in 1972. Later it was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and decided in 1974 just six months after Lau. Like Lau, it makes clear that schools cannot ignore the unique language and educational needs of ELL students.

Aspira v. New York

Legal action taken by Puerto Rican parents and children in New York in Aspira v. New York (1975) resulted in the Aspira Consent Decree, which mandates transitional bilingual programs for Spanish-surnamed students found to be more proficient in Spanish than English. The Aspira Consent Decree is still in effect and has been a model for school districts across the country, though it is frequently under attack by opponents of bilingual education.

Bilingual education in New York received a further boost a few years later in Rios v. Reed (1978). The case was argued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the EEOA. Puerto Rican parents brought suit claiming that many so-called bilingual education programs were not bilingual but based mainly on ESL. The federal court found the district's bilingual programs to be woefully inadequate, pointing to the lack of trained bilingual teachers and the absence of a clearly defined curriculum, clear entrance and exit criteria, and firm guidelines about how much instruction should be in the native language of the students. Although the court issued no specific remedies, the federal Office of Civil Rights came in to ensure that the district made improvements. This case is significant because it made a strong case for offering bilingual education and for doing it right.

Rulings That Erode Support for Bilingual Education

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

Another Texas case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), although not directly related to bilingual education, had some serious implications for it. It dealt with inequalities in school funding, with the plaintiff charging that predominantly minority schools received less funding than schools that served predominantly White students. The case was argued under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to an education guaranteed by the Constitution. Indeed, if there is no constitutional right to an education under the 14th Amendment, as Del Valle (2003) points out, "there is clearly no constitutional right to a bilingual education" (p. 234, emphasis in original).

Flores v. Arizona and Williams v. California

Because of this case, all subsequent cases over inadequacies in school funding have had to be argued under state constitutions. Some of these cases, such as Flores v. Arizona (2000) and Williams v. California (settled in 2004), include or specifically address inadequacies related to the education of ELL students. But despite court orders in Flores to increase funding for ELL students, state legislators and educational leaders have used a wide variety of stall tactics and legal maneuvering to avoid fully complying with the court's order.

In 2009 the Arizona legislature and the state superintendent of public instruction appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court essentially agreed with the state leaders that the situation in Arizona for ELLs had changed substantially since the original lower court ruling, and thus the lower courts must take these changes into consideration. Although the ruling was disappointing to the plaintiffs, it nonetheless keeps the legal battle alive, with the attorney and advocates in the state gathering new evidence of the harm caused by recent state policies and the underfunding of ELLs' education. This case demonstrates that even when courts issue decisions with specific mandates, changes do not happen immediately and are often resisted by political figures who disagree with the decision.

Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District

In the 1980s, in the wake of Lau, support for bilingual education was eroded by the courts. For example, a case in Colorado, Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District (1980), failed in the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain a court order for bilingual education. The plaintiffs wanted a plan for its Mexican American students like the one based on the testimony of Cardenas that was recommended by the court in United States v. Texas (1971) even though they made up a small number of students in the district, and less than 3% could even speak or understand Spanish. As in United States v. Texas, the court's decision made it clear that despite Lau, there is no constitutional right to bilingual or bicultural education (Del Valle, 2003).

Keyes v. School District No. 1

In another Colorado case, Keyes v. School District No. 1 (1983), the court also rejected a Cardenas-like plan on the basis that Lau did not mandate bilingual education and that according to the decision in Rodriguez there is no constitutional right to education. The bilingual education component was just one part of this complicated desegregation case. Del Valle suggests that the court seemed content that the district was simply offering a "number of programs" for ELLs, without examining the adequacy of these programs. This issue of program adequacy, however, was addressed in subsequent lawsuits.

Castañeda v. Pickard

The right to bilingual education suffered a further blow in 1981 in Castañeda v. Pickard. The case originated in Texas, where plaintiffs charged that the Raymondville Independent School District was failing to address the needs of ELL students as mandated by the EEOA. The federal court ignored the old assumption that Lau and the EEOA mandated bilingual education. Nevertheless, it did find that Raymondville fell far short of meeting the requirements of the EEOA. A major outcome of this case is a three-pronged test to determine whether schools are taking "appropriate action" to address the needs of ELLs as required by the EEOA.

The Castañeda standard mandates that programs for language-minority students must be (1) based on a sound educational theory, (2) implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel, and (3) evaluated to determine whether they are effective in helping students overcome language barriers (Del Valle, 2003). Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lau, two other lawsuits have been decided in the high court that, while not related to bilingual education, nonetheless undermine the original legal argument of Lau. [These two cases are Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Alexander v. Sandoval (2001).] Thus, the Castañeda standard, which encapsulates the central feature of Lau - that schools do something to meet the needs of ELL students - has essentially become the law of the land in determining the adequacy of programs for ELLs.

Del Valle (2003), however, points out the shortcomings of the Castañeda test. Referring to prongs 1 and 2, she notes that nearly any program can be justified by an educational theory and that some approaches require very little in the way of staff or funding. Of even greater concern is that, under prong 3, a certain amount of time must pass before a determination can be made about the adequacy of the programs. Thus, many students may be harmed before inadequate programs are identified and rectified.

Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education

Despite these shortcomings, a case 6 years after Castañeda - Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education (1987) - demonstrated the value of the Castañeda test in legal efforts to rectify inadequate programs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit relied heavily on Castañeda in its decision and gave state boards of education the power to enforce compliance with the EEOA. The court declared, in a ruling much like Lau, that school districts have a responsibility to serve ELL students and cannot allow children to just sit in classrooms where they cannot understand instruction. However, as in Lau, the court did not mandate any specific program models.

Recent Lawsuits

Between 1995 and 2001, opponents of bilingual education in a few communities filed lawsuits against their school districts (e.g., Bushwick Parents Organization v. Mills [1995] in New York). Del Valle (2003) suggests that through these cases opponents of bilingual education attempted to turn the original purpose of bilingual education on its head by charging that a program that was developed to ensure that ELL students have the same educational opportunities as all other students was actually preventing equal educational opportunities for ELL students.

These cases also illustrate that attacks on bilingual education are rarely grass-roots efforts by Latino parents but rather are orchestrated by powerful outsiders who mislead parents into joining their cause and in the process often create divisions within Latino communities. Although these legal attacks on bilingual education failed, opponents of bilingual education have scored major victories in the court of public opinion through the English for the Children voter initiatives described earlier.

These voter initiatives, however, have not gone uncontested. Five cases in California were based on challenges to Proposition 227: Quiroz v. State Board of Education (1997); Valerie G. v. Wilson (1998); McLaughlin v. State Board of Education (1999); Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1999); California Teachers Association v. Davis (1999). At least two cases in Arizona were based on challenges to Proposition 203: Sotomayor and Gabaldon v. Burns (2000) and Morales v. Tucson Unified School District (2001). Although some of these resulted in small victories, none has succeeded in overturning the voter initiatives.

Summary

Case law has had a major impact on federal and state policy for ELL students and their families and communities. While the courts have been reluctant to mandate a particular educational model or approach or to give language minorities fundamental rights directly related to the use of their native languages, the courts have nonetheless made it clear that schools may not ignore the unique needs of ELL students.

Any program for ELLs, regardless of the language of instruction or the models used, must do two very important things: teach English and teach academic content. Schools must provide instruction in English for ELLs because they are not yet proficient in English, and because they need fluency in English to succeed in mainstream classrooms and to be successful in life in general in the United States. At the same time, schools cannot focus just on teaching English. Students must also learn the same academic content their English proficient peers are learning, in such subjects as language arts, math, science, social studies, music, art, and physical education. In Chapter 4 we review the different program models for ELL students and how these programs address the legal requirements for teaching English and the content areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landmark Court Rulings Regarding English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this excerpt from Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice ( Caslon, 2010), Wayne Wright summarizes the landmark U.S. court cases that have had significant implications for ELLs. In particular, Wright focuses on cases relating to segregation, the right of communities to teach their native languages to children, and the linguistic and education needs of ELLs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The page or document you were trying to reach has moved.

Please use the menu navigation, search box or Resource Library to find it here.

Note that the public WIDA website address changed to https://wida.wisc.edu on August 15, 2018. If you have bookmarked any pages or documents from the old website - www.wida.us - please update them.

We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your interest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The page or document you were trying to reach has moved. Please use the menu navigation, search box or Resource Library to find it here. Note that the public WIDA website address changed to https://wida.wisc.edu on August 15, 2018. If you have bookmarked any pages or documents from the old website - www.wida.us - please update them.

# data[].attributes.body
VDOE Title III site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your browser does not support JavaScript! This site uses JavaScript but is fully functional without it.

Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

News & Announcements

NEW: SLIFE Guidebook

Virginia is home to many students with limited and/or interrupted education (SLIFE). The SLIFE Guidebook (PDF) that outlines the new statewide definition with a detailed description of each component. The document also includes leadership and instructional resources.

Page Contents

ESSA

Title III ESSA Guidance

Civil Rights Compliance

English Learner (EL) Tool Kit

Newcomer Tool Kit

English Learner Family Tool Kit

Educator Toolkit

EL Entrance and Exit Procedures

SLIFE (Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education) Resources

Title III Parent, Family, and Community Engagement

Special Education and ELs

Title III Fiscal Requirements

Technical Assistance
VDOE Title III English Learner Professional Development Resources Padlet

Technical Assistance Academy for Coordinators

Title III Statewide Consortium Conference Presentations

Civil Rights Compliance for EL Education

VDOE One Page Briefs

Special Education Coordinators

Administrators

Registrars

LIEP Teachers

About Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for English Learners & Immigrant Students

Federal funds awarded under Title III support programs to address English language proficiency and academic achievement of English Learners (ELs), including the provision of language instruction educational programs (LIEPs) and activities that increase the knowledge and skills of teachers who serve ELs. Title III programs also provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youths.

Federal Law

ESSA

Title III ESSA Guidance

Civil Rights Compliance

USED Tool Kits

English Learner (EL) Tool Kit

The English Learner Tool Kit was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights' and the U.S. Department of Justice's Dear Colleague Letter "English Learner Students and Limited English Proficient Parents," published in January 7, 2015, and outlines SEA and LEA obligations to ELLs under civil rights laws and other federal requirements.

The following links download PDF files from the U.S. Department of Education website:

Chapter 1: Identifying All English Learner Students (PDF, 1.5MB)

Chapter 2: Providing English Learners with a Language Assistance Program (PDF, 800KB)

Chapter 3: Staffing and Supporting an EL Program (PDF, 921KB)

Chapter 4: Meaningful Access to Core Curricular, Extra Curricular Programs (PDF, 1.75MB)

Chapter 5: Creating an Inclusive Environment and Avoiding Unnecessary Segregation (PDF, 910KB)

Chapter 6: Addressing English Learners with Disabilities (PDF, 1.27MB)

Chapter 7: Serving English Learners who Opt-Out of EL Programs (PDF, 386KB)

Chapter 8: Monitoring and Exiting English Learners from EL Programs and Services (PDF, 1.23MB)

Chapter 9: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Districts EL Program (PDF, 907KB)

Chapter 10: Ensuring Meaningful Communication with Limited English Proficient Parents (PDF, 1.26MB)

Newcomer Tool Kit

The Newcomer Tool Kit provides (1) discussion of topics relevant to understanding, supporting, and engaging newcomer students and their families; (2) tools, strategies, and examples of classroom and schoolwide practices in action, along with chapter-specific professional learning activities for use in staff meetings or professional learning communities; and (3) selected resources for further information and assistance, most of which are available online.

The following link download PDF files from the U.S. Department of Education website:

EL Family Tool Kit

The English Learner Family Tool Kit (PDF) is meant to support families of English learners (ELs) in the U.S. education system. Each topic has five parts: (1) Overview, (2) Family and Student Rights, (3) Questions to Ask School Staff, (4) Tips, and (5) Resources. Information varies for each topic, though some information may be repeated.

Educator ToolKit

Using Educational Technology-21st Century Supports for English Learners : This toolkit is for all educators-including teachers and administrators-who want to use technology to help their English learners gain proficiency in English and meet academic goals.

State Guidance

Code of Virginia

Title III Statewide Consortium

VDOE Title III Resources

EL Entrance and Exit Procedures

SLIFE (Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education) Resources

Title III Parent, Family, and Community Engagement

School divisions are required to inform parents annually regarding their child's placement in a language instruction education program within 30 days after the beginning of the school year, or within two weeks of the child's placement within a program.

Special Education and ELs

Title III Fiscal Requirements

Technical Assistance

Title III Data

The Student Record Collection system enables the commonwealth and its school divisions to comply with the information and reporting requirements of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The system also reduces the reporting burden on school divisions and ensures continuity and validity in all enrollment-based data collections. Title III, Part A, allocations are based on the Fall Student Record Collection.

Language Reports

Enrollment

Title III Allocations

Division program coordinators should contact their program specialist for information about the application for federal funds.

Memoranda from Virginia State Superintendent to school division superintendents:

2020-2021

2019-2020

2018-2019

Equitable Services to Private School Students

The ESEA includes separate provisions governing equitable services for eligible private school students, teachers and other educational personnel, and families under Title I and programs covered under Title VIII, Part F, Subpart 1, Uniform Provisions- Private Schools.

See: Title VIII: Equitable Services

Assessing ELs

Virginia ELP Assessments

As required in Section 1111 (b) of ESSA, school divisions must annually assess the English proficiency of ELs in kindergarten through grade 12.

Virginia Standards of Learning

As required in Section 1111(3)(C)(v) of the ESSA, English Learners ELs must participate in state content assessments in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 9 through 12.

Parent and Family Resources

Education Northwest Parent Guide for English learners

Title III Statewide Consortium

EL Education and Instruction

The commonwealth and its public schools provide specialized instructional programs for ELs.

VDOE Teacher Direct

Migrant Education

Federal Program Monitoring

Superintendent's Memos

Virginia Title III Coordinators

VDOE Title III Staff and Assignments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
educational information for parents and students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Title III: Language Instruction for English Learners & Immigrant Students