Parents enrolling students in Oklahoma schools will have to provide their child’s proof of citizenship or legal immigration status under a proposed rule unanimously approved by the state’s board of education on Jan. 28.
The rule, which must now go to the state’s Republican-controlled legislature and GOP governor, marks what legal experts and immigration advocates call one of the latest efforts to undermine and potentially overturn the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe that grants undocumented students the constitutional right to a free, public education. Such actions come at a time when President Donald Trump is prioritizing immigration enforcement across the country with a slew of executive orders and policy changes that impact K-12 schools.
Oklahoma isn’t alone. Earlier this month, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee introduced a bill that would require parents of undocumented students to “be charged tuition and fees in the same manner as tuition and fees are charged to pupils who do not reside in the county.” And conservative state lawmakers in Indiana introduced a bill that would deny public school enrollment to undocumented students.
In a report published last year, researchers from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, outlined long-term plans to overturn the Plyler decision, including calling on states to “require school districts to collect enrollment data by immigration status as part of their regular enrollment counts.”
“Any attack on [Plyler], especially in such unprecedented times, is concerning to us,” said Leslie Villegas, a senior policy analyst with the Education Policy program at the left-leaning think tank, New America.
Experts debate the impact of immigration data collection
The Oklahoma rule, championed by Ryan Walters, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, requires school districts to collect the number of enrolled undocumented students and then submit those totals to the Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Walters argued in the Tuesday board meeting that the data collection would not prohibit student enrollment but would assist districts in knowing how to allocate resources to serve students, including English-language acquisition services to students federally entitled to such supports.
In a statement published a day before the board vote, Walters referenced allowing immigration enforcement agents into schools as a means to support Trump’s enforcement efforts.
When asked by a state board member on Tuesday whether immigration data would be protected or shared information, Walters responded: “If a law enforcement official comes in and asks for information, we are legally required to give that information over.”
(On Jan. 14, Walters also filed a lawsuit against the outgoing the secretary of Homeland Security and outgoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deputy director for costs associated with educating undocumented students.)
Villegas, who has studied English-learner education and policy, which includes services for immigrant students, said legal immigration status is not a data point needed for schools to serve students.
“If the student is also an English learner, then the language access needs that come with that are identified through its own legal pathway right now,” Villegas said. “When a student is identified through the home language survey and the screener as needing additional services, that’s what puts the student on track to receive the support that they need academically, and it has nothing to do with their immigration status.”
A 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lau v. Nichols ruled that schools must provide English-language acquisition services to students who may not be able to access academic content otherwise.
Other organizations, including the advocacy group National Immigration Law Center, argue that efforts to collect immigration status data would lead to a chilling effect that would infringe on students’ right to an education.
“All children have a constitutional right to equal access to education regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. Requiring school districts to collect information about immigration status illegally chills access to this opportunity, interfering with their ability to focus on their core mission: to educate children and give all students the ability to grow, thrive, and participate fully in our democracy,” the NILC wrote in a public comment related to Oklahoma’s proposed rule.
In 2011, Alabama state leaders attempted to require schools to verify students’ and parents’ immigration status through broad anti-immigrant legislation. A legal settlement blocked most of the law’s provisions, including immigration data collection in schools.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, whose attorneys represented plaintiffs in the Plyler case, wrote in its public comment against the Oklahoma rule that the rule would deter students from enrolling and attending schools, including students from families with mixed immigration statuses.
It added that U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education in 2014 “clarified the intent of the Plyler ruling in a letter advising school officials that activities that deny or discourage students to attend school are unlawful.”
“In short, the proposal, despite the stated guarantee of the right to attend, could have a significant, detrimental, and undifferentiated impact on public education throughout the state of Oklahoma,” they added.
