Danielle Arellano
Dr. Brendan Shapiro
Writing 39C F16
26 November 2016
Can you take a look at my solutions section and the counterarguments and rebuttals I provide? Do you think these are strong? What could I improve here? Should I make a separate section for the counterarguments?
Does my conclusion give a good summary and address a call to action?
Does my thesis address both solutions and is it clear what I am advocating for?
The Right to an Education: Improving Immigrant Children’s Education in the US
I. Problem:
In a country that prides itself on providing equal opportunity for all, there remains a widening gap between immigrant and non-immigrant families with regard to their children’s level of education and social mobility. The immigration debate has been a long-lasting issue for the nation, and even more so for states like California, which border other countries. For years, the topic of immigration, specifically those emigrating from Latin America, has generated a heated debate among politicians who argue whether or not it is the country’s responsibility to provide the same resources to these “illegal aliens,” or more politically correct and less dehumanizing, “undocumented immigrants” (NPR). Immigration is nothing new, but it has grown into a larger problem for the nation and has had a greater effect on border states such as California.
Early on, Latino immigrants did not have to worry about their immigration status and immigration was welcomed in the US. Both immigration and equal rights to education have a long drawn history, but it is necessary to get both histories to understand the problem of immigrant children’s right to an education. Although people have migrated for centuries, modern immigration began in post WWII to help U.S. society with the war effort. The Bracero Program was an agreement between Mexico and the U.S. where immigrant laborers were welcomed into the U.S. to aid in farm work while America was at war. Immigration began to become an issue between the 1980s and 90s when migration patterns shifted and the U.S. enforced a naturalization process for immigrants to become citizens (USCIS). This shift in immigration policy had a significant impact on states like California that saw huge numbers of immigrants crossing its borders.
In 1994, California added new legislation to its ballot that opposed immigration. The legislation was known as Prop 187 or the “Save our State” Initiative and barred state and other local agencies from providing public education, health care, and a variety of other social services to immigrants (CalVoter). The proposition was passed and legalized; however, health care providers and schools did not require proof of legal residence to provide services. Many saw the denial of public education as unconstitutional because it had been the topic of a Supreme Court case in 1982.
At the same time as immigration was being reformed, the debate over immigrant children’s education was also in a state of uncertainty. In 1982 a Supreme Court Case prohibited states from denying free education to immigrants and charging tuition based on immigration status in Plyler v. Doe (American Immigration Council). The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny education to these children because it violated the equal opportunity clause from the Fourteenth Amendment. In more recent times, the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2002 to ensure that all children receive an equal opportunity to get an education (Department of Education). Despite the policy, many immigrant children still do not receive a quality education or live in the fear of being deported. This trend also coincides with the fact that immigrant children earn less as adults, and their wages have been steadily falling since the 1940s. Figure 1 shows the differences in wage distribution as of 2000, but it is projected that their wages will continue to slowly decline over the next decade (Haskins). This decrease in wages would eventually affect the overall economy because immigrants would then have to rely on more social services to help provide for their families. Education plays a key role in the lives of immigrant children and their futures.
II. Debate
There are two main sides to the argument: those who support education for all and believe that these children will eventually contribute into the system, and those who oppose immigrant education and argue that it is a waste of resources. In support of education for immigrants is Lisa Garcia Bedolla, a professor in education and political science from UC Berkeley. She argues that immigrant children deserve to receive an education because it would not only help with their own socioeconomic mobility, but it would also help the U.S. economy. In her research, she projects that the lack of educational attainment in Latino immigrants will ultimately decrease national per capita income by two percent by 2020 (24). Not only does immigration affect the overall education of the children, but a lack of education will ultimately leave its mark on U.S. society. Her findings reveal that a lack of education for immigrants would negatively affect per capita income, consequently placing a burden on the economy.
On the other hand there are several think tanks against immigration reform. These think tanks express concern over child immigration as do many other opponents including prominent Republicans. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigrant Studies, argues that providing the resources for education for immigrants would waste taxpayer’s money. He believes that providing education for immigrant children only opens the door for more illegal immigration. Policy in favor of immigrant children’s education would only allow children to reap the benefits of education while their parents would still remain without contributing to society (Jost). Also against education for immigrant children are several members from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Like Krikorian, they also argue that providing education for immigrant children is not a good use of taxpayer’s dollars because too much school spending goes into language programs. Because English is not immigrant children’s first language, most are categorized with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and are placed in special school programs. The cost of funding such programs places an added strain on schools. Additionally, 10% or more of students in California schools are enrolled in LEP programs and the programs are growing faster than the schools can keep up with. Most of the school budgets go towards language programs and less is spent on funds for new textbooks or science programs (Ferris and Raley). Overall, taxpayers are left with the burden of funding language and other programs put in place to aid immigrant children’s education. Increased immigration places a burden on the taxpayers, but also on the schools that struggle to keep up with the programs and provide for the rest of their students. Opponents of the debate have valid arguments; however, there is an obligation to the welfare of these children and this includes allowing them an equal education. In order to provide an education for immigrant children, a two part solution can be put in place.
III. Thesis
In order to solve the problem of providing an adequate education and resources to immigrant children, the solution must be two-fold and deal with lower and postsecondary education. If these children are to remain in the US, there must be a system for educating them well enough that they can later contribute back to society and reciprocate the time and resources that have been invested in them. For lower education, children should have to the opportunity to remain in the US so long as they are full-time students enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade. The second part of this solution deals with higher education. Upon completion of high school, immigrant children should be eligible to remain in the US and pursue higher education or work. If these students graduate with a two or four year degree, serve in the military, or own a successful business then they can be granted full citizenship. Both of these solutions are necessary to help improve immigrants’ economic mobility, which relies heavily on a person’s level of education.
IV. Solution 1: English Language Learner Programs
To help solve the problem, there is a two part solution that can be put in place to help immigrant children in both kindergarten through 12th grade education and in pursuing higher education. For K-12 education, school districts that serve large populations of immigrant children, or those who tend to serve a large immigrant community, can set aside emergency funds. These emergency funds would help to provide the necessary resources for these children and wouldn’t take away from the children already enrolled in school. Districts that serve many immigrant students and have an “English Learner Program” should also consider removing the time restriction it has on students to complete the program. Most schools have a set amount of years that a student can be enrolled in the English Learner program before they are deemed “proficient” and “complete” the program. Kicking students out of the program when they should be proficient doesn’t mean that they necessarily understand English and can complete their coursework. The limit to which they are in the program can create a greater disparity in their education (Migration Policy Institute). In California alone, there are approximately 1.4 million English learners, and about 84% speak Spanish (CDE). This large population of non-English speakers, the majority of which are also immigrants, need a specialized program that helps integrate them into the school system and provides them with the resources to succeed.
Not only are EL programs necessary to serve a large immigrant population, but the programs that have been put in place in California have had success in improving EL students’ test scores. According the Public Policy Institute of California, students who have completed the EL program tend to do better on tests than those who are still classified as English Language Learners. Figure 2 shows the difference upon completion of the program. Children who are able to finish the program do much better in standardized tests than those who are still learning English (PPIC). For this reason, funds should be set aside to continue to support these programs. They are necessary for the education of immigrant children because they ultimately help in mastering the English language which in turn leads to a better understanding of schoolwork, and therefore completion of school.
Economically speaking, most states already have a budget plan for educating EL students. Even though there is some sort of a budget set for EL students, some states use different mechanisms to fund these programs. According to policy analyst Maria Millard, there are three types of funding that states use: formula, categorical, and reimbursement. The main difference between these three types of funding mechanisms is that formula funding and reimbursement funding do not guarantee that funds are going to EL programs, while categorical funding does (ECS). In order to fund EL programs, it would be best to use categorical funding because it ensures that the funds are going directly into the programs. Because the funds are already set to go towards these programs, there wouldn’t be an additional burden to fund the students. However, there still remains the question of where the emergency money would come from if a wave of immigrant, EL students unexpectedly flooded a school.
In support of EL education, was Proposition 58 which passed on California’s 2016 election ballot. Prop 58, also known as California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education, brought back bilingual education to California meaning that students do not have to be taught in English-only programs. Instead, students are able to learn from teachers who speak both their native language and English. If the measure is requested by enough parents, the schools are required to offer certain EL programs (Ballotpedia). With the passage of this measure, it would make it easier for immigrant students who do not speak English to learn and master the language. According to several democratic supporters, the proposition would allow students to learn English faster. They would also have a better chance at succeeding in school because they are not restricted to just speaking English in the classroom.
Although there are several supporters of EL education, there is a large group of opponents to the idea including Republicans and other groups in support of stricter immigration reform. Of these opponents are those from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. According to FAIR US, immigrant education is the number one cost to taxpayers and the burden of those taxes are placed on the state and local governments. Educating immigrants is too much of a cost and burden to taxpayer’s and there should not be an obligation to educate these children. Although, FAIR does make a valid point about the cost to taxpayers, providing an education to immigrant students will eventually allow them to get jobs and become taxpayers themselves.
The continued support and implementation of English language programs has shown steady progress and success in the past in several schools. In a report done by Norm Gold, from an educational consulting firm based out of Berkeley, CA , there have been six successful model schools in California that have shown an improvement in their English language learners in the past. The students in all six of these programs showed an improvement in their test scores and made steady progress in the state’s Academic Performance Index, a measure of a school’s students’ academic progress (Successful Bilingual Schools). The progress and data collected from this research shows that these EL programs are successful and beneficial to the students in the program, despite the tax burden that some opponents may argue. The programs do help immigrant students learn English and these language skills will help them get through school and get a job later in life.
V. Solution 2: Student and Work Visas
With the implementation of EL programs in schools, students will have a better chance at understanding their schoolwork, graduating high school, and then have the opportunity to pursue higher education. For the second part of the solution, immigrant children brought to the US should be able to apply for education and work visas under certain conditions. A special educational visa should be implemented that allows students to remain in the US as long as they are in school full-time between kindergarten and high school. After completing their high school education, they should be eligible for post-secondary education and/or work. If these students graduate with a two or four year degree, complete at least two years in the military, or own a successful business, then the they can be granted full citizenship (American Enterprise Institute). Ultimately, the children will be able to contribute back into society after time and an education has been invested in them.
Currently, there are several visas that students can apply for in order to receive an education in the US. These are mainly for students to pursue higher education through F-1 and M-1 visas. These allow foreign, or immigrant students, to attend traditional US schools or vocational schools depending on the visa (DHS). However, these visas do not guarantee permanent residence nor do they guarantee legal work status. They also do not address the students who were brought to the US as minors. There are additional visa applications that allow people to work with employers who participate in the US’s E-verify program (Bureau of Consular Affairs). This system allows employers to background check their employee’s immigration and visa status, limiting employment to those who are in the US as undocumented immigrants. Because of the lengthy process, and multiple steps that need to be taken to get from education to work to possible legal citizen, there should be a special visa for students that would consolidate this process.
This special visa system seems to be the most tangible, short-term option for the time being. It would not place any extra financial strain on the economy, and according to several experts including law professor at Chapman University School of Law Francine J. Lipman, “Unauthorized workers are a critical component of our micro and macro economies today and in the projected next several decades as almost 78 million boomers prepare to retire and leave the work force” (ProCon.org). As Lipman argues, it would only benefit our economy to allow immigrants to work in the US. By allowing immigrant children education and work visas, the US would reap the benefits of their education by receiving more skilled workers to contribute to the economy. Also in favor of the immigration education/work visa system are several politicians from the democratic and libertarian parties. One such proponent is Hillary Clinton who, in response to immigration states, “The American people support comprehensive immigration reform not just because it’s the right thing to do—and it is—but because they know it strengthens families, strengthens our economy, and strengthens our country. …” (HillaryClinton.com). The visa system is a way to help immigration reform and, as Clinton states, it will strengthen several aspects of the US.
In opposition to this idea are several members of the Republican party who are opposed to allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for visas in the US. Many immigrants in the US previously came to the US on a visa but overstayed their welcome and become “illegal.” Several republicans believe these immigrants should be penalized and criminalized for overstaying their welcome and should not be allowed to reapply for visas. One such Republican opposed to the visa system is Senator Ted Cruz who believes that allowing immigrants to apply for visas will pose a national security issue and open the door for increased immigration (ProCon.org). Although Senator Cruz makes valid points, allowing immigrant children to apply for educational and work visas would help to document many undocumented immigrants. As many proponents of the idea suggest, letting children get an education and work in the US would positively impact the economy and ultimately help the US.
However, there is another even more prominent Republican that could make these solutions harder to implement. The newly elected Trump would pose a great obstacle to these proposed solutions and could make this nearly impossible on the national level. There is a possibility, however, that EL education could still be implemented on the state level in those states, like California, that support immigrant education. It will only be a matter of time until these children will find out if they are eligible for an education and can remain in the US. Like many proponents have stated, immigration is an asset to the country, and is a larger help to the US than it is a burden.
VI. Conclusion
Ideally, the implementation of both solutions can help aid the problem of providing an education to immigrant children. However, the most feasible and realistic solution for the time being is creating a new set of visas that allow immigrants to attend school under certain conditions and then work or receive post-secondary education upon completion of high school. This route will give immigrant children the resources to get an education and then allow the US to reap the benefits of their education. The children entered the US illegally, but promoting this visa system will help document these children and give them an education that they can use to repay the time and resources that has been given to them. The immigration debate will remain a long-standing issue; however, it is necessary that the needs of the children that are caught in this debate are tended to.
Works Cited
"CalEd Facts." California Department of Education. N.p., 29 Sept. 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
Demby, Gene. "In Immigration Debate, 'Undocumented' Vs. 'Illegal' Is More Than Just Semantics." NPR. N.p., 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2016
"Every Student Succeeds Act." U.S. Department of Education. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Garcia Bedolla, Lisa. "Latino Education, Civic Engagement, and the Public Good." Review of Research in Education (2012): n. pag. SagePub. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
This is an educational article that discusses Latino education and the barriers Latino students and immigrants face in obtaining an education. The journal article is written by Lisa Garcia Bedolla, a professor in education and political science at UC Berkley. Bedolla discusses the challenges immigrant children face in education and how the country has a moral obligation to help these students. She provides statistics and information on the number of children who go without a high school education and the few that are able to seek higher education. Bedolla’s work is useful to my research and would help support my argument that immigrant children do deserve to be provided with the resources for an education.
Gold, Norm. “Successful Bilingual Schools: Six Effective Programs in California.” San Diego: San Diego County Office of Education (2006).
Haskins, Ron. "Immigration: Wages, Education and Mobility." Brookings. The Brookings Institution, 25 July 2007. Web. 9 Oct. 2016.
This article comes from the Brookings Institute, a nonprofit think tank that focuses on pressing issues. The article is written by Ron Haskins, the senior fellow on Economic Studies at the Brookings Institute. He discusses the economic implications a lack of education would have on immigrants and how this would affect the economy overall. He uses figures and statustsic to support his findings. This article will prove helpful in showing some of the background to the problem and how immigrant education can ultimately affect he economy if it isn’t addressed.
Hill, Laura. "California's English Learner Students." Public Policy Institute of California. N.p., Sept. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
"Immigration Reform." Hillary Clinton. Hillary for America, 5 May 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.
Jost, Kenneth. "Immigration Conflict." CQ Researcher 9 Mar. 2012: 229-52. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
This article comes from CQ researcher, an editorial research engine that provides articles on today’s issues. The article is written by Kenneth Jost, a research fellow who graduated from Georgetown Law. Jost gives the opposing opinion in his article about immigrant education and how it would negatively affect the economy. He gives the opinion of Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies. He argues that allowing immigrant kids to an education just allows for more illegal immigration. The article was written in 2012, making it fairly recent. This information can be used in my debate section and give some possible counterarguments for my proposed solutions.
"Late Twentieth Century." U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. N.p., 4 Feb. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
Martin, Jack, and Erick A. Ruarck. "The Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers." Federation for American Immigration Reform. N.p., 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.
Mayer, Matt A. "Getting Immigration Reform Right." American Enterprise Institute. N.p., 12 July 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.
This is a nonpartisan public policy think tank that focuses on today’s issues as well as possible solutions to those issues. The article is written by Matt A. Mayer, a public policy expert who graduated from Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Mayer has written for various public policy think tanks including the Heritage Foundation. Mayer argues that immigrant children should be allowed to receive an education in the US through special education and work visas. Children would have the opportunity to stay in the US as long as they are full-time students and then would be eligible to work to help put back into the system. Mayer compares the US’s immigration problems to Brexit’s and uses this to support his arguments. This article was published in July of this year and proves very helpful because he proposes possible solutions to the problem that I am trying to address.
Millard, Maria. "State Funding Mechanisms for English Language Learners." Education Commission of the States. N.p., Jan. 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.
"New Infographic Helps Explain the Difference between F and M Students." Department of Homeland Security. N.p., 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
"Prop 187: Illegal Aliens. Ineligibility for Public Services." The California Voter Foundation. N.p., 6 Aug. 1996. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.
"Public Education for Immigrant Students: States Challenge Supreme Court’s Decision in Plyler v. Doe." American Immigration Council. N.p., 15 June 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
"Should Immigrants in the United States Illegally Have Access to Social Services Such as Health Care and Public Education?" ProCon.org. N.p., 2 Apr. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
"Should Overstaying a Visa Be Considered a Federal Crime (vs. a Civil Offense)?" ProCon.org. N.p., 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 19 Nov. 2016
Sugarman, Julie. "Funding and Equitable Education for English Learners in the US." Migration Policy Institute. N.p., Aug. 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.
This is nonpartisan nonprofit think tank dedicated to the analysis of migration worldwide. The article is written by Julie Sugarman, a writer of public policy whose work focuses on issues related to immigrant and English Language Learners. Sugarman argues that the English Language learner program should be reformed in order to help immigrant students succeed in school. She argues that school should not put a cap on the amount of time a student is in the program and thinks districts should put aside emergency funds for language programs and resources. She supports her argument by giving statistics and information on English language learners and the lack of resources they have. This piece was written in August in 2016 and I can use it to add to my solution for my problem.
"US Visas." Bureau of Consular Affairs. US Department of State, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.