Who is eligible to attend US public high schools?
<p>A teen who's a US citizen grew up and studied in a foreign country. He wants to return to US.</p>

<p>Would he be eligible to attend public high school in the US (grade 10-12)?</p>

<p>He isn't paying US tax (his parents aren't US citizens). But he's going to living in his friend's house though (who's a tax payer).</p>

<p>Public schools are open to all residents. There is no citizenship requirement and no "tax payer" requirement. Unless excepted for home schooling or attending a recognized private school, in most locations it would not only be allowed, but mandatory between certain ages.</p>

<p>The reason why anybody is entitled to go to public schools is spelled out in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12010798883027065807" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Plyler v. Doe</a>, 457 US 202, that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Illegal immigrants, and certainly citizens, are within the jurisdiction of that state. The court explained that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Equal Protection Clause directs that "all persons similarly
  circumstanced shall be treated alike." <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=137091912862174369&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,48" rel="nofollow noreferrer">F. S. Royster Guano Co. v.
  Virginia</a>, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (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." <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3500652126425075464&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,48" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tigner v. Texas</a>, 310 U. S. 141, 147 (1940). </p>
</blockquote>

<p>So the question is whether the courts should defer to a state law denying illegal immigrants access to public schools. This raises the question of the kind of scrutiny / deference appropriate to such a law. The court found that public education is an intermediate case, calling for intermediate scrutiny: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the
  Constitution. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13531894237346705488&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,48" rel="nofollow noreferrer">San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez</a>,
  411 U. S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental
  "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare
  legislation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That is, strict scrutiny is not appropriate, but "rational basis" is too weak. Having enumerated the consequence of denying students access to schools, the court concluded that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The goal set forth by the state was that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the classification at issue furthers an interest in the "preservation
  of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful
  residents."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One apparent colorable interest is that "the State may seek to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants". But the court concludes that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>While a State might have an interest in mitigating the potentially
  harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population, § 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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A second possibility is 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 court finds this also uncompelling, because</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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. As the District Court in No. 80-1934 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."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Finally it is suggested that "unlawful presence 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", but again the court rebuffs this argument</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The summary is that "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". The law was overturned because</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Public school's are not, under US Constitutional law, open to all residents. However, state laws and school district policies impose relatively few restrictions on enrollment. Washington state only allows discrimination based on age group, grade level, or enrollment capacity, and specifically disallows discrimination based on location of residence. It also allows (for common schools) a school age child who is otherwise eligible and residing in an Idaho home with a Washington postal address (that is a bit odd, but it happens) to be treated as a resident of the nearest Washington district.</p>

<p>It is highly likely that in the case you're describing the law already admits the student for free education, but you would have to check local laws to be 100% certain. If there <em>is</em> a requirement that free schooling is not available to people who are not living with their parent, or whose parents are not US citizens, there is the option of suing to get that law overturned. In light of Plyler v. Doe, it seems unlikely that there would even be any such law, unless it was recently passed to get the attention of SCOTUS. That would include an interpretation of "residency" for school purposes that assert that a child is a resident of the district where his parents or legal guardian lives (i.e. a child who is for other purposes a resident would be deemed a non-resident for the purpose of school attendance).</p>

united-states citizenship school