Class Action

New state rules help get immigrants and foster children enrolled in school.

by Doron Taussig

In February, a graduate student at Temple University on a visa from India called the Philadelphia offices of the Education Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, looking for help. He had moved from Philadelphia to Upper Darby so his 6-year-old son could attend school there, but the district wouldn't let the boy enroll.

The district's registration office "kept asking for documents that had nothing to do with admission," says the father, who asked to remain anonymous. When challenged, an employee accused the father of not paying taxes—even though he does—and told him the district "doesn't accept the kind of visa my son has."

"I thought, if he's not able to go to school, his career and future will be ruined," the man recalls with agitation.

The ELC had heard this tale before, but they expect to hear it less often now. The organization operates a hot line, and it has received numerous complaints over the past two decades that Pennsylvania

school districts have illegally turned away students because of their immigration status. Foster children also struggle to gain admission: Their guardians have been asked to produce myriad documents and wait long periods of time before enrolling their wards.

So, the state Board of Education revised its rules to make enrollment easier for these two groups.

As of Oct. 23, a child's immigration status may not be considered in a school district's admission process. To assist foster kids, the board limited the document requirements and mandated that public schools must enroll students within five days of application.

"Pennsylvania is making clear to all its schools that they are not in the immigration enforcement business—they're in the business of educating childen," says Len Rieser, co-director of the ELC, which helped draft the language.

The law was technically on the immigrants' side before the recent revisions. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in Plyer v. Doe that all students may attend public school regardless of immigration status. But not all districts cooperated. Some, says Rieser, have just been in the dark about what the law really says. Others willfully disobeyed.

"I think there's a sense that we shouldn't have to educate these kids for free," he says, noting that this phenomenon is "well-scattered" throughout the state but occurs most "where kids from other countries show up," namely southeastern Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley. ELC saw an increase in complaints after 9/11.

"We have occasionally gotten calls from schools in Philadelphia. Until recently, the Philadelphia enrollment form actually asked for immigration information," Rieser says. "But in general, I think Philadelphia has been more in line with the law than some other districts."

Joe Lyons, a spokesman for the Philadelphia School District, says the district "probably already adheres to these regulations."

The ELC sent several letters explaining the law to the Upper Darby district on the Indian man's behalf. Shortly thereafter, his son was admitted, but not before the boy had missed three months of kindergarten. Such absences can be a major setback for a young student, particularly one from a home where English is a second language.

Will the new regulation change anything, considering that refusing admission on the basis of immigration status was already against the law?

"How well-known that law is is anyone's guess," says state Board of Education Executive Director Jim Buckheit. "The regulations are more visible than Supreme Court decisions. School district employees periodically review the state regulations. ... They're not going to say "Let me pull out Plyer v. Doe.'"

The new regulation also makes clear that districts may not ask for immigration information—a detail the Supreme Court did not cover—because immigrants may be intimidated by such questions.

Fourteen members of the state House of Representatives sent a letter to the Board of Education objecting to these changes.

People "should immigrate legally before reaping the benefits of this nation," the members wrote, citing the Plyer v. Doe dissenting opinion, which argued that "by definition, illegal aliens do not have any right to be in this country; therefore, they should not be permitted to participate in the rights enjoyed by legal aliens and citizens." Neither the dissenting opinion nor the members said what they thought should be done about the problems legal aliens have faced. In any case, dissenting opinions have no authority as law.

Unlike the immigration clause, the regulations affecting foster children are new policy altogether. Janet Stotland, the other director of the ELC, says that some school districts required guardians to produce documents about foster kids that weren't relevant, were difficult to come by, and subjected the students to long delays.

"Foster kids tend to have disabilities, particularly emotional disorders. Some [districts] may have been trying to discourage enrollment," explains Stotland. "They think, if you make life hard enough, an agency will say I'll put them in district X rather than district Y."

Guardians are now required to produce proof of a child's age, residence and immunizations, after which a district has five days to enroll that child. These changes, which passed without any major opposition, promise to affect many children from Philadelphia placed in foster homes outside city limits.

"What will be most useful is the deadline," says Frank Cervone, director of the Center for Child Advocates. "The five-day clock will create an expectation for proper enrollment."