The NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education) blog yesterday reported on an Illinois school district’s loss of $3.5M in state funding due to the district’s lawsuit over having to enroll students of questionable immigration status.
In short, the Supreme Court has ruled that public schools must serve students without regard to whether they are documented or undocumented aliens. However, the district’s dilemma fell into a gray area: although the students in question were in this country legally, it was not clear whether or not they were residents of that school district. One student was on a tourist visa, and the district argued that they were not bound to enroll tourists (see the Chicago Tribune for details) who would presumably be there only for a short time.
While one could argue that visitors and undocumented immigrants contribute to the tax base that funds public schools, one has to wonder if the rationale behind the district’s fight might have been based in something else: since No Child Left Behind requires the inclusion of specific sub-groups — minorities, low-income, special education and students who speak English as a second language (if at all) — in mandated testing that carries significant penalties for failure, any district would have reason to not enroll more students in those sub-groups than they have to.
One of the challenges faced by schools in the NCLB mandates is the problem of students who move between districts, and the length of time that the school has to impact the student’s learning before the tests. It’s not just an immigrant issue; it also applies to a child who moves between school systems where the curriculum standards are different. For example, if a child moves in the middle of 5th grade from a district that emphasizes life science in 5th grade, to a district that covers physical science in 5th grade and life science in 6th, the student would be tested on physical science while his or her emphasis had been on life science for most of the year. Thus, a lower score would be expected. If the student does not read or speak the language in which the test is given, the results are even worse.
The principles of NCLB are noble and good, but do understand the objections frequently heard from the education community. The very reason for breaking out sub-group results is that we know those students are more difficult to educate, but that their lower scores are generally masked when reported as part of the total school population.
We often see correlation between students who fall into the NCLB sub-groups and those who move frequently between school districts, doubling the challenge: more difficult to educate, and less time to show results.
In the long run, there’s no question that we as a nation will benefit from our immigrant children — legal or illegal — being educated and able to contribute positively to society. Schools however, have to also conern themselves with the short term reality of NCLB requirements, expenses, and penalties. It’s a dilemma that is coming soon to a school near you.
