This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
No Child Left Behind
• Signed into law in January 2002 – This law provides the most extensive federal involvement in public schools in the history of the United States
Four Guiding Principles
• • • Schools must be held accountable for student achievement Parents must be given a greater degree of choice Selection of academic, intervention, and professional development programming must be based on scientifically researched evidence demonstrating effectiveness States and LEAs must be afforded added “flexibility and local control” to both facilitate funding acquisition and allocation and to use funds in a manner that best addresses locally specific educational needs
and science Adequate yearly progress targets Rewards and sanctions for performance States and LEAs must establish a system of monitoring and tracking data to ensure that all groups are meeting minimum levels of performance The State and the LEA must deliver assessment date to the public . mathematics.– Accountability • • • • • Yearly academic assessments of students between grades three and eight in reading.
– • • • • Adequate Yearly Progress Starting point or base year was 2001/2002 States established which indicator they use lowest achieving percentage for subgroups the school at the 20th percentile in the percentage of students meeting the proficient level States had the opportunity to establish how rigorous the standards are going to be • .
– • • Highly Qualified Teachers and Paraprofessionals Must be in affect by the 05/06 school year Paraprofessionals were also required to meet minimum qualifications – – – – Associates Degree Completion of a paraprofessional certificate (Praxis) Paraprofessionals hired before 1/8/02 had four years to meet these qualifications May not engage in direct instructional service without the supervision of the teacher .
– Disclosure • Assessments must be presented to the public in an understandable and practical manner .
Development. Transportation provided 2 additional years of non-performance and “corrective action” is taken – – – – – – Replacement of school staff Selection of new curriculum and Prof.– • • Sanctions 2 consecutive years of not making AYP and parents will be afforded school choice within the district. Establishment of decentralized management model Extension of the school day or school year Appointment of an external expert Restructuring the school organization .
and lists of highly qualified teacher and paraprofessionals – Parental Choice • • • . assessment data. especially in regards to non-performing schools Establishes the parents “right to know” Schools must notify parents yearly about student progress.– Programming Accountability • Reports must be submitted describing program impact and progress in meeting goals Gives parents more rights to school choice.
Early Reading First . i.e.– – – – – Focus on What Works – Greater emphasis on programs that have researched bases success Targeting Assistance – Provides funds to help students with the greatest academic needs Addressing Needs of Underperforming and Underrepresented Populations – Provides funds for traditionally underrepresented populations Building Instructional Capacity – Added emphasis on professional development Creating a Solid Learning Foundation – Stresses the importance of good foundation programs. Reading First.
federal and local disciplinary rules/laws – Flexibility and Local Control – Greater Flexibility = Increased Accountability – Eligibility – Lowered the % required to be eligible for “School Wide” Title I programs .– Creating a Safe Learning Environment – Provides additional money for Title IV and also established limit financial liability levels for teachers and other school personnel when enforcing state.
– Enhanced Data Monitoring and Communication Systems – Focus on using data to assist in decision concerning student academic and social needs – Greater Authority and Discretion over Programming – Relaxes the rules on federal programs to allow individualization for the LEA – Consolidation – Eliminated some paperwork but allowing consolidation of reports on Federal Programs .
in order to be counted toward meeting the 95 percent assessment participation requirement for AYP determinations for reading/language arts .New Regulations Limited English Proficiency/English Language Learner Rules Under the regulations. These LEP students still need to take the English language proficiency assessment. newly arriving limited English proficient students to the United States enrolled in school for fewer than twelve months are exempt from one administration of the reading/language arts assessment.
!" Beginning in the 2007-08 school year. newly arriving LEP students must also take state science assessments.While newly arriving LEP students still must take the mathematics assessment. their scores are not required to be included for AYP purposes. .
Conclusion – One of the most extensive pieces of education legislation in recent history – Only time will tell how will it will work and what types of lasting affects it will have on improving student achievement .
142. Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City. June 17. Ct. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2d 844. v. 1963 U. 119. 83 S. Decided ** Together with No. Ed. 374 U. 1963. LEXIS 2611. argued February 27. Schempp.Religious Influences and Accommodations in Public Schools Three landmark cases have been the “main-stay” in determining how schools deal with Religious activities at school Abington School Dist. 1560. 203. v. Murray et al.S. 1963. Curlett et al.S. No.. 1963. on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. ☼ – School Sponsorship of prayer violated the First Amendment • . 10 L. February 27-28. Argued.
8 L. April 3. Vitale.” The court has consistently held that state-sponsored religious expression violates the U.– Engel v.2d 1285. No. Decided ☼ • The court ended by quoting James Madison. 2d 601. Constitution. 1962. Ed.S.R.S. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 1261. 370 U. 468.S. “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. Argued. 2d 328. 82 S. 421.L. 20 Ohio Op. . Ct. LEXIS 847. June 25. 1962 U. 1962. 86 A.
Argued. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . LEXIS 85. Ed.S. . Decided ☼ • • • The statute must have a secular purpose. 411 U. April 2. 93 S. 1973 U. 1463. 1973. 36 L. and The statute must not foster excessive entanglement with religion. 1972. No. Kurtzman. 71-1470 . The primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion. 192.– Lemon v. November 8. Ct. 2d 151.S.
– Silent Prayer • • This takes place everyday. depending on how the school represents this time . and “of course” there is no way to prevent this from happening In some cases even moments of silence are questionable.
4723.S. Argued. 2d 467. Decided ☼ – This was very controversial decision especially for schools in the south (Bible Belt) . 577.S.W. 92 Daily Journal DAR 8669. No. Weisman. Daily Op. 2649. 60 U. 1992. 92 Cal. Service 5448. November 6. 90-1014 . June 24. 505 U. Ct. 1992 U.– • Voluntary Spoken Devotionals Lee v.S. LEXIS 4364. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . 120 L. 112 S.L. 1991. Ed.
S. . 1999. February 26. 168 F. 1999 U. Decided.3d 806. Santa Fe Indep. Reported at: 1999 U. App. – Question – has the school established and “open forum” for student expression in commencement exercises? » Doe v. 1999. No. 1999. App. LEXIS 6250. 9740150.S. Sch. LEXIS 3157. LEXIS 7492. Reported at: 1999 U. Certiorari Granted November 15. Dist. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 1999. As Revised March 17..– • Devotionals Initiated by Private Actors Courts will generally not allow students to deliver “proselytizing” graduation speeches.S. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 7.
• • Issue: Whether petitioner’s policy permitting student-led. the court interprets the Establishment Clause to prohibit the coercion of belief among school students. Once again. . student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
2002 U. 328 F. 2002.. June 26. March 14. United States Cong.S. 2003) Amended by. LEXIS 12576. Argued and Submitted. U. 2002 U. San Francisco. Rehearing denied by. 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7229. 2002) Amended by.S. 328 F. en banc. LEXIS 28040 (9th Cir. Filed.3d 772. App. 2002 Cal. App.. App.3d 597. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT . 292 F. Cal. Cong. United States Cong.. App. 2002) Stay granted by Newdow v. June 27.S. 2002. App. No.3d 466. 2003 U. denied by Newdow v. denied by Newdow v.S..3d 466.. LEXIS 12826 (9th Cir.• – “One Nation Under God” Newdow v. it promoted a believe in “monotheism” . 2002 U. LEXIS 3665 (9th Cir. United States Cong. Daily Op. 2003 U.. Rehearing. 321 F. Service 1724 (9th Cir.. United States Cong. Service 5700.S. Rehearing denied by. 2003 Cal. California. 2003) • 9th Court said that by including “Under God” in the pledge.S. Rehearing... Reprinted as amended at Newdow v. LEXIS 26867. en banc. Cal. Daily Op. 00-16423 .
. 542 U. 4457.S. LEXIS 4178. Ct. Argued. Dist. 2004 U. 23. June 14. 1.S. v. 72 U. Newdow. 124 S. LEXIS 4886 (U. 17 Fla. 2004. L.W. S 359. 21. v.S. 961. 159 L. 125 S. 159 L. Ed. 2004 U. 021624. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . 542 U. Decided. 2004. Dist. 2301. Weekly Fed. Newdow.S..– Elk Grove Unified Sch. Aug. Ed. he LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version. US Supreme Court rehearing denied by Elk Grove Unified Sch. March 24. 2004) • Supreme Court reversed 9th Circuit . 2d 851. No. Ct.S. 2d 98.S.L.
• The law is clear that you cannot require a student to recite the pledge. They cannot be punished for refusing to participate .
App. INC. PlaintiffsAppellants. ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO. 89-1014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 921 F. WHITE.Removal of Religiously Oriented Materials from Classrooms • KENNETH ROBERTS. Defendants-Appellees. Parent and Next Friend of Kelly White. Serv.. KATHLEEN MADIGAN and ADAMS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 19 Fed. v. R. 1990 U.S. 3d (Callaghan) 530 . 50. LEXIS 21683. and AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS. Parents and Next Friends of Kelly Nelson and Amy Nelson. Amici Curiae No. and ZAY NELSON.2d 1047. and DEBRA J. MARC NELSON.
LEXIS 2.– • Displaying the “Ten Commandments” Stone v. November 17.W. If taking this chance. 192. 1981. 39. No. Decided. be sure not to purchase with public funds . 80-321.S. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 3369. 2d 199. 49 U.L. – There is still great concern in this area. 1980 U. Ct. Petition for Rehearing Denied January 12.S. Graham. 101 S. Ed. 1980. 449 U.S. 66 L.
132 L. 753. 9 Fla. 2440. LEXIS 4465. 95 Daily Journal DAR 8540. Service 4990. ET AL. DONNIE A. Weekly Fed. Ed.L. 4684. 95 Cal. Ct. 2d 650.CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD. L. 115 S.W.. S 241 . 63 U. CARR AND KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN No. PINETTE.S. Daily Op. 1995 U. 94-780 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 515 U.S.S. PETITIONERS v. VINCENT J.
GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER.W. 106 L. 5045 .S. ET AL. 57 U.COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY ET AL. LEXIS 3468.L. 573. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. 1989 U. No.S. 109 S. Ct.S. Ed. 87-2050 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 492 U. v. 2d 472. 3086.
• – Student and Community Devotional Meetings During Non-instructional Time Equal Access Act • EAA – 1984 “If a federally assisted public secondary school provides a limited open forum for noncurriculum student group to meet during non-instructional time.” . school employees can attend only in a “non-participatory capacity” to maintain discipline. or philosophical content of their meetings.” “If the meetings have a religious orientation. it cannot deny access to specific student groups because of religious. political.
Ed. 2356. No.W. 88-1597 . 496 U. 1990.S. LEXIS 2880. of Educ. Argued. 2d 191. Ct.L. 1990. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . January 9. Decided ☼ .S. Sch. 226.• Bd. Mergens. 4720. of Westside Cmty. 58 U. v. 1990 U. 110 S. June 4.S. 110 L.
L. 2d 352. Argued.S. 61 U.W. 93 Daily Journal DAR 7045. 1993. LEXIS 4019.S. 91-2024. 1993.L. No. Ed.– • Meetings of Community Groups Lamb's Chapel v. 1993 U. 113 S. 384. Daily Op.. Weekly Fed. February 24. S 369. 124 L. 2141. 93 Cal. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Decided ☼ . 4549. June 7. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. 7 Fla. Dist. Ct. Service 4130.S. 508 U.
in his own inimitable way. wrote a concurring opinion that took exception to the reliance on the Lemon test: . Speech may not be proscribed. Justice Scalia.• The Court makes itself clear. simply because it is religious speech.
―Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being killed and buried. no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have. the Lemon test stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again. frightening little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. however. 577. 586-587 (1992). personally driven pencils through the creature’s heart” . 505 U. not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. was. conspicuously avoided using the supposed test but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. only last Term. Its most recent burial. Over the years. Weisman.S. to be sure. in their own opinions.
2001.S. Argued. S 337. 2093. 121 S. 150 L. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . C.. February 28.W. 2001 Cal. Decided ☼ . Milford Cent. 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5858. June 11. 2d 151.R. Weekly Fed. 2001 U. 2001. L. 69 U.L.• Good News Club v. 98.S. No. 99-2036 . J. 533 U.S. Ed. 14 Fla. 2001 Colo. Sch. 2934. 4451. Daily Op. Service 4737. LEXIS 4312. Ct.A.
Most schools have created a limited public forum and cannot discriminate against activities solely because they are religious in nature. under carefully crafted conditions. Schools and school systems are well advised to fashion policies which permit the use of facilities by outside groups. Note that the use of facilities was outside the normal school day. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. including religious groups. .• The case is related to Lamb’s Chapel.
– • • Distribution of Religious Literature Gideons Age makes a difference – Courts believe that the older children are more likely to be able to determine what is “school sponsored” .
Accommodations for Religious Beliefs • Release-Time Programs – Still may not use classrooms – Can be released from campus .
.S. even though the U.Devotional Activities in Public Schools Recommendations for Practice • Lower courts continue to render decisions all along the separation/ accommodation continuum. The Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asserted that school officials are placed "between a rock and a hard place in either obeying the interpretation of law from the administration. Department of Education is supporting greater government accommodation of religion in public schools than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. or following the dictates of their local federal courts. School personnel would be wise to adhere to court rulings in their respective jurisdictions when there is a direct conflict with the Department's Guidance.
The Supreme Court has espoused a separationist position in a few cases.• Rather than providing clarification regarding permissible religious activities in public schools. the federal Guidance may actually generate more litigation as courts and legislative bodies attempt to identify permissible religious influences and the appropriate church/state relationship in public schools." but it seems to be redefining the notion of governmental neutrality toward religion with an emphasis on equal treatment of religious and secular expression and groups. .
and there may be significant future implications.• Public schools already are experiencing some effects of the doctrine shift toward religious accommodation. Although the exact nature of the controversies cannot be predicted. asserting that they are unconstitutionally being subjected to the will of the religious majority. in turn. Observable religious activities in public schools will likely increase and reflect preferences of the community's dominant religious group. it seems assured that church/state disputes involving schools will continue to generate a steady stream of litigation in the foreseeable future. . This. may stimulate additional Establishment Clause challenges from members of minority sects.
legal developments to date provide some guidance for school personnel as they make daily decisions regarding permissible and impermissible religious activities in public schools. regardless of whether student participation is voluntary. • School-sanctioned prayer during the public school day violates the Establishment Clause. but school personnel cannot promote such silent devotionals.– Notwithstanding the evolving nature of the law in this domain. Students can engage in silent prayer in public schools. • .
proselytizing content would have to be eliminated. . where content based restrictions are not placed on students' speeches. including religious messages.• • • Public schools cannot sponsor religious observances in school events including graduation exercises and extracurricular activities. Graduation ceremonies can be (but do not have to be) designated a forum for student expression. If school authorities maintain control of graduation speeches.
• • • Public schools cannot allow students to determine by election to have student led prayers before athletic events. but they can recognize religious holidays in an objective manner. If a federally assisted high school has created a limited forum for non-curriculum student groups to meet during non-instructional time. Public schools cannot permanently display sectarian documents. all student groups. must be allowed equal access. . including religious groups.
• • Public schools cannot discriminate against religious viewpoints in creating a forum for community groups to use school facilities when classes are not in session. . whereas individual students have a free expression right to distribute such literature during non-instructional time in conformance with reasonable school regulations. School authorities would be wise to bar religious organizations from distributing sectarian literature in public schools. even if a religious group targets children attending the school.
• Teachers cannot proselytize students. but they can teach about religion. • Release-time programs in which students receive religious instruction off public school grounds during the school day do not violate the Establishment Clause. .
• Students can be excused from observances and instructional assignments in public schools for religious reasons if the exemption does not interfere with their educational progress or management of the school. • Teaching creationism or intelligent design in public school science classes advances religious beliefs. .
• Although the Establishment Clause restricts the promotion of theistic and antitheistic religious beliefs. . most claims that secular public school instruction advances anti-theistic doctrine have not been successful.
Religion in the Public School Curriculum • For much of the 20th century. Schempp are used continually to try and decide school district’s involvement with religion and the public school curriculum. Kurtzman and Abington v. this topic is in and out of the courts on a regular basis. religion has been a key part of the public school curriculum. Lemon v. To date. . In the 1960s the Supreme Court triggered a shift in the place of religion in public education.
whereas private speech is likely to be protected under the First Amendment unless it is disruptive to the educational environment.• Speech that appears to be sponsored or endorsed by the school can be restricted by school officials in order to maintain consistency with educational goals. .
• – Teaching about Religion in the Formal Curriculum Most Bible course taught in school will not withstand the tests of the First Amendment • Courses that have a great deal of material about the New Testament will have a harder time being approved by the courts that those courses that deal primarily with the Old Testament – Courts question the resurrection. and other miracles that take place . virgin birth.
it is almost certain to be in conflict with the First Amendment .• When schools allow community and religious groups to control the curriculum.
– • • • • • • If the school offers a Bible Course it should: Course content and materials should be controlled by the school Teachers should be selected in the same manner as other teachers Teachers should be certified The personal religious beliefs of the teacher should not be a selection criteria Teachers should not attempt to indoctrinate the children with a particular religious believe If money is taken from outside sources. this money should be accepted with no conditions .
• – Teachers’ Rights Regarding the Curriculum Courts are very concerned about teachers who teach and appear to endorse religion • Helland v.. Supp. LEXIS 555.. DECIDED. 2d 19. 1996. Certiorari Denied January 21.3d 327. Downing v. 2001. 1997.S. Haven Bd. App. LEXIS 20560. 1996 U. (BNA) 1621. Corp. August 15.201. 3:00 CV 525 (SRU). June 6. LEXIS 14373. August 24. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Dec. 71 Fair Empl. Cas. Reported at: 1997 U. 961079. W. Prac. (CCH) P44.S. ARGUED. 2001 U. Decided • . Prac. Civ. 93 F. Action No. of Educ. No.S. South Bend Community Sch. 68 Empl. 162 F. 1996. Dist. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
• Very important to remember that a teachers views are considered to be the schools views. Again. this becomes even more serious when working with elementary school students who have difficulty separating the “school views” from the “teachers views” .
– • Students’ Rights Regarding the Curriculum There is friction between the courts and what the Department of Education is saying about student rights concerning religion and the school.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandsch ools/prayer_guidance.html • . http://www. Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.ed.
02-CV-72802-DT . Reported at: 1993 U. Ann Arbor Pub. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. Rehearing Denied November 18. No. 1993. Schs. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.– • The heart of the issue is what if the student speech could be considered as “school sponsored”.S. LEXIS 36506. App. No. Filed. 1993. SOUTHERN DIVISION . Dist.3d 211. 293 F. December 5. LEXIS 36723. Merinelli. Reported in Table Case Format at: 12 F. 1993 U. Denooyer v. Hansen v. 2d 780. Supp. IF CITED.S. App. November 18. LEXIS 21920. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 24 LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. 92-2080. Filed • . 2003 U.S. A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT.S. 2003. LEXIS 30084. App.. PLEASE SEE RULE 24 BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 1993 U.
• In all cases the courts are concerned that the school district makes reasonable efforts to accommodate a student’s religious beliefs before imposing restrictions .
1993. Dist. App. Submitted. Filed . LEXIS 14673.3d 1373. October 6. San Francisco. 94 Cal. No. Daily Op. Service 4455. 94 Daily Journal DAR 8251.S. June 15. Argued. 9215772. Woodland Joint Unified Sch.. 1994. 27 F. California. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 1994 U.• – – Challenges to the Secular Curriculum Since the 60s public schools have been viewed as public bodies that are hostile to religion Many groups continue to sue schools because there is a perceived push toward “secular humanism” (An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values) • Brown v.
– Student Support Services. divorce. peer pressure. and Diversity Programs • Involved volunteer clergy to conduct group counseling on secular issues such as race. and drugs Court did not allow this because it did not provide the same opportunities to non-clergy volunteers Schools should be careful when dealing with Character and Diversity issues that they do not add a “religious” angle to the presentations • • . discipline. Character Development.
– Secular Holiday Programs and Challengers to the Music Curriculum • You cannot force students to participate in religious holidays or perform music that is in violation of their religious beliefs. the courts have left them alone. etc. Most vocal music contains or has some religious origin and the courts will not require them to be dropped from the curriculum Performing music in church settings has also been found to be legal.) • • • . (Better acoustics. As long as holiday activities are educational.
– Sex Education Programs • Sex education programs are legal in every state. It is a good idea to get parental permission that gives the parents an opportunity to opt out of the program When teaching abstinence. • . it is important to leave the religious reference out of the curriculum.
1968. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. some states have attempted to pass laws which require the equal treatment of creationism if evolution is taught . 7. October 16. and Academic Freedom Epperson v. Arkansas.S. 393 U. Argued. LEXIS 328. 1968. 97. 89 S. Creation Science.S. November 12. Ed.• – Evolution. Decided ☼ • The issue in this case is a popular object of contention. 266. No. 21 L. Ct. Most recently. 1968 U. 2d 228.
482 U. 1987. 1987 U. 1986.L. 96 L.S. LEXIS 2729. Decided ☼ • Even with the recent changes in First Amendment analysis. 578.S. 107 S. 2d 510. December 10.W. . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Argued. Ed.– Edwards v.S. No. 55 U. 4860. June 19. it is still unlikely that the courts will allow states to pass laws which further particular religious beliefs in the public schools. 851513. Aguillard. 2573. Ct.
Students. . Ed.L. Barnette. 624. This includes asking students to stand for the pledge.S. therefore.S. 147 A. have no right to interfere with the rights of participants. who do not wish to participate.R. Ct. they argue that the Free Exercise Clause entitles them to an exemption from the activity.• – Exemptions from the Secular Curriculum When parents find specific school-sponsored activities to be offensive to their religious beliefs. of Educ. 1943 U. • West Virginia State Bd. 319 U. they can be disciplined for disruption. June 14. 1178. v. 1943. Decided ☼ – The court clearly stated that educators cannot compel expression of belief. 1628. 63 S. 87 L. 674. March 11. Argued. 591. LEXIS 490. No. 1943. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
and Guidance from the Department of Education. While some rules may be extrapolated from these cases. as well as rulings from local jurisdictions when analyzing a specific issue.Recommendations for Practice – Decisions regarding what to include or exclude from the public school curriculum have always required value judgments. . school personnel are advised to consult the various legal standards for analyzing Establishment Clause and free exercise challenges. but today school officials are wise to make special efforts to consider the implications of these decisions from an even wider variety of perspectives.Religion in the Public School Curriculum .
some practical recommendations may be helpful in making daily decisions regarding the role of religion in the public school curriculum. the various sources will offer congruent interpretations. it is advisable to defer to the case law of the local jurisdiction. Nonetheless. . but when discrepancies arise.– Ideally.
• Public school personnel may not teach religion. . culture studies). comparative religion. involvement of religion in the secular curriculum has been recommended. but may teach about religion when material is presented objectively as part of a secular program of study (e.. In fact.g.
curriculum choices. or community groups control hiring decisions. . accounts of miracles are taught as literal truth. or implementation of the programs of study. staffing decisions should not be based on teachers' religious beliefs.• Courses that focus on the Bible are vulnerable to Establishment Clause challenges when the material includes religious doctrine. Even if public school officials control selection of teachers for such courses.
Role plays and other experiential activities should be presented in an historical context and should not resemble religious practice.g...g.• • Courses in religious practices (e. Anthroposophy) are likely to be unconstitutional. Transcendental Meditation) or instructional methods that are driven by religious beliefs (e. . Instruction and activities about religious rituals or practices must be academic.
. Similarly. Consequently. which can be regulated for legitimate educational reasons that do not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. teacher proselytizing is prohibited. teachers must not disregard portions of the prescribed curriculum that conflict with their own philosophical or religious beliefs.• Classroom speech is considered school sponsored expression.
Where possible. Student speech may be regulated when it causes. .• When student speech may reasonably be perceived as school-sponsored speech. or will foreseeable cause. a substantial disruption to the educational environment. school officials may regulate it when there are educational reasons for doing so and the regulation is viewpoint neutral. school personnel are advised to make efforts to accommodate student religious speech in an alternate forum.
School policies regarding the science curriculum should neither discredit evolution nor promote creation science. . Activities related to the study of holidays that have both religious and secular meanings are likely to withstand Establishment Clause scrutiny.• • Choral repertoires that incidentally include religious music or perform at religious venues for educational reasons are likely to be upheld. Teachers may address a variety of theories of the origin of humankind as long as the theories are presented objectively with supporting scientific evidence.
the policy is likely to be upheld even if there is an incidental burden to a student's religious beliefs.• • When school policies are neutral and generally applied. However. public school officials are cautioned to avoid excessive entanglement with religious groups in coordinating these opportunities for instruction. . Students may be released from the public school curriculum to receive religious instruction off school grounds.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Copyright Term Extension Act (The CTEA. The “Sonny Bono” Act) • Recent Copyright Legislation – – – .A.C.Copyright Law • The Exclusive Rights and Limitations of Copyright – – Exclusive Rights Fair Use T.H.E.
Copyright Laws . Students and staff must observe and adhere to the fact that there are restrictions on the use of copyrighted materials whether in hard copy or online. these institutions need to be proactive and unambiguous in their policies about institutional responsibilities. • • . Additional copyright protections may be available to creators of materials used in distance education and this information must also be listed in any school policy.Recommendations for Practice • Online access to copyrighted materials opens schools to limited liability.
Assume that Web-based material is copyrighted and investigate to make sure it is not. Prepare acceptable use policies for online and hard copy materials that offer proper guidance for copyright restrictions and provide sanctions for inappropriate activity.• • • Copyrighted materials may now have additional years of protection and school personnel may need to apply for continued permission to employ such creations or ensure that fair use is applicable. .
Charter Schools • Charter schools are public schools that are formed by a “charter” between a designated chartering authority and those who wish to operate a school. In exchange for this autonomy. charter schools must achieve the educational goals that are established in the charter. Failure to meet these goals may result in the closing of the school . State legislatures grant charter schools autonomy from many laws and regulations that apply to other public schools.
only if they are under the exclusive control of the state: California. Oklahoma. and New Mexico Twelve States only permit the funding of public schools: Connecticut. Missouri. New Jersey. Rhode Island. Michigan. SOUTH CAROLINA. Washington and Wyoming Four States permit funding of private schools. Delaware. Texas.– Are Charter Schools Public Schools • • • Five States prohibit funding of private schools: Alaska. Hawaii. Indiana. NORTH CAROLINA. Florida. New Mexico . Massachusetts.
Charter Schools and School Finance
– Charter Schools have made numerous pleas to the courts to allow them more funding, claiming that there rights under the “equal protection” clause have been violated
Charter Schools and Race
Care has to be taken that Charter Schools do not discrimination on the basis of race:
• Beaufort County Bd. of Educ. v. Lighthouse Charter Sch. Comm., Opinion No. 25583 , SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA , 353 S.C. 24; 576 S.E.2d 180; 2003 S.C. LEXIS 22, April 16, 2002, Heard; December 4, 2002, Reheard, January 27, 2003, Filed
Charter Schools - Recommendations for Practice
• Courts appear to agree that charter schools are public schools, despite their autonomy from state regulations. Legislators should monitor the economic impact of charter schools on school districts. Legislators should analyze whether charter schools have sufficient funding to provide for their students' educational needs.
• • • Policy makers should explain differences in employment law (such as collective bargaining) between charter schools and traditional public schools. . Charter schools that are located in segregated school districts probably have to adhere to the requirements of court ordered desegregation decrees even if they are sponsored by entities that are not under federal court supervision. Legislators should consider advising charter schools to adopt race-neutral approaches to ensure that their racial compositions are reflective of the surrounding school districts.
Collective Bargaining In Public Schools Discussion! Good or Bad….. For teachers For students For tax payers .
School Funding Litigation .
Affirmative Action These policies were designed to increase employment or educational opportunities for both underrepresented groups as well as those who faced historic discrimination .
• – Employment Affirmative Action plans that have been approved by the courts must be justified by a compelling government interest tailored narrowly to overcome historic patters of discrimination and developed to withstand careful scrutiny The courts used a four point test to describe “narrowly tailored: • • • • The test considered the necessity. flexibility and duration of the proposed relief The potential effectiveness of alternative remedies The goals and their relationship to the relevant market The impact of the relief on those impacted by the policy – .
– Education • The best policies utilized factors that were race neutral. race cannot be used as criteria for admission to school • . contained multiple criteria. and were narrowly tailored After desegregation has been obtained.
employment.• The legal battles today are framed in terms of affirmative action. . Courts have clearly stated that quotas. and admission to programs. which is a current campaign issue. based solely. on race are not permissible when making decisions related to contracts.
2325. Petitioner v. Weekly Fed.W. No. Prac.S. Ed. Service 5378.415. 156 L.S.L. 84 Empl. 306.S. LEXIS 4800. S 367 . 71 U.BARBARA GRUTTER. 2d 304. 2003 U. 02-241 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 539 U. LEE BOLLINGER et al. 16 Fla. Ct. Cas. (BNA) 1761. (CCH) P41. 2003 Cal. 123 S. L. Daily Op. Dec. 91 Fair Empl. 4498. Prac.
W.S. 05915). Argued . Weekly Fed.L.Parents Involved in Cmty. 05-908). 1. LEXIS 8670. L. (No. * Decided* . Ct. 2006.S. 2007 U. Sch. Ed.S. 127 S. Seattle Sch. 75 U. Dist. 701. 551 U. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. June 28. 4577. No. 20 Fla. 2738. S 490. 2007. 2d 508. 168 L. December 4. (No. v.
App. LEXIS 1006. 2005.03-2470 . Decided . January 18. City of Boston.• Boston's Children First v. 395 F. 2005 U. No.3d 10.S. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
must be narrowly tailored in promoting compelling state interests. When considering race conscious programs. Differences in employment and admissions standards were affected by past discrimination and racially biased practices. The prevailing standard of strict scrutiny. to be judicially successful. status quo positions. Remedies.Recommendations for Practice – Close examination of the policy environment surrounding the concept of affirmative action relating to education and employment created circumstances unlikely to be settled without court intervention. These differences were difficult to accommodate in the policy environment.Affirmative Action . compelling state interest. the following should be considered: . and narrowly tailored plans continued to serve as a parameter for determining the constitutionality of affirmative action plans. Competing forces vied for either more expedient race based remedies or more conservative.
• • The plans must be temporary in nature and terminate upon successful integration of workers or students. A lay off plan favoring minority teachers with less seniority than non-minority teachers was too intrusive and drastic to survive a challenge. . Hiring goals favorable to minority teachers could be acceptable because the denial of future employment opportunity was not as intrusive as the loss of an existing job.
• Districts under court orders to desegregate were not bound by the impermissible use of race in designing and implementing admissions policies. . If the purpose of a school's admissions process was narrowly tailored to serve the purpose of a state's compelling interest in improving the quality of education and remedying past discrimination. the use of race or ethnicity could be used as a factor.
the use of multiple criteria such as class rank or social economic status. thereby constituting a proven policy development direction. instead of race. In developing race neutral criteria for public school and public state university admissions policies. . could prove instructive.• Admissions policies built on a race neutral basis and multiple criteria could be applied fairly and equitably.
.– School administrators should immediately review and update admissions and student assignment plans that were designed to remedy past discrimination in school districts formerly under desegregation court orders.
School Desegregation during an Era of Judicial Disengagement ☼
On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court heard its most important educational case and made perhaps its most significant ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
Facts: This decision consolidated cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. A companion case, Bolling v. Sharp, ☼ dealt with the same issue in the District of Columbia, though under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs contended that the education being received under Plessy v. Ferguson was not equal and could not be made equal.
Issue: Whether separate but equal schools for African-Americans deprive African-American students of equal protection under the law, even when, under the Plessy standard, physical facilities and other tangible factors are equal.
the Delaware Court of Chancery had granted admission to schools previously attended only by Caucasian students on the grounds that the African-American schools were “inferior with respect to teacher training. the district court denied the requested relief. however. the court denied the requested relief. however. extracurricular activities.• Previous History: The district court in Kansas had denied relief. and transportation. On remand. the court found that “substantial equality had been achieved. and time and distance involved.” . In the South Carolina case. the court ordered equalization in physical plants. pupil-teacher ratio. physical plant.” In the Virginia case. In the Delaware case. the court did order equalization of the facilities. curricula.
” .Holding: Separate but equal schools for African-Americans are “inherently unequal.
however. it took a long time for the promise of Brown to be realized.Significance: Brown and its progeny ended segregation in public schools. .
1896 ☼ . May 18. 41 L. No. 1896 U.– Plessy v. 163 U. LEXIS 3390.S. 256. Ct. 537.S.. Argued April 13. 1896. Ferguson. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Ed. 16 S. 1138. 210.
Fourteenth. In 1871. .Desegregation – The Fourteenth Amendment • After the Civil War. Congress enacted and the people ratified the Thirteenth. Title VI and Title VII protect employees and students from discrimination. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many students and teachers have used section 1983 to gain access to federal courts because they believe that their civil rights have been violated. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871. and Fifteenth Amendments in order to protect the rights of former slaves.
of any State or territory or the District of Columbia. or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. ordinance. under the color of any statute. privileges. suit in equity.C. custom. and shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. or other proper proceeding for redress.42 U.S. or usage. regulation. subjects. or causes to be subjected. 1983 Any person who. . any citizen of the United States or other person residing within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights.
than the federal judges would mandate tax increases to pay for them ☼ . Jenkins (Jenkins 1) – – This case was more about taxes being mandated by the courts than it was about desegregation The courts determined that since the state would not pay for desegregation.• – Litigation Involving School Desegregation The 1990’s: Half A Step Backward • Missouri v.
.• – Missouri v. Jenkins (Jenkins II) The court reversed the authority of bestowed to the federal judges to impose taxes • This was the last case on desegregation heard by the Supreme Court.
” .“…Having taken a major step forward in Brown 1. the Nation cannot allow the progress tat was achieved to slip by returning to a time when many children suffered due to inequitable educational opportunities.
English Language Learners • This is a topic of great controversy throughout the United States. . American is currently divided over the needs of language minority students. There is great debate over English being established as the “official” language of this country.
• Methodological Definitions – There are many different types of programs to address the needs of ELL students. However. The current administration continues to decrease the amount of money allocated to help educate non-English speaking students. . the improvement of these programs regardless of philosophy is becoming hard to fund each year.
Utilizes two teachers that sometimes team-teach subjects in both languages. These are generally pull out programs that utilize ELS teachers or paraprofessionals that are not bilingual • – Immersion or Structured Immersion “Sheltered English” – the subject is taught in the target language “English”. or ESL Most often used when the population of non-English speaking students is small. Materials are modified and only Basic English skills are learned. This allows an enriching activity for all students in the class. • – Dual Immersion Probably the best method for both ELL students and English speaking students. .• – Bilingual education Focus is on transition bilingual education with an emphasis on rapid transition to English • – English as a Second Language.
Decided – Students have their a right to have their “language skill needs met as soon as possible” . 39 L. 1974. 1973. 72-6520 .• Foundational Legal Rights of English Language Learners – Lau v. Argued. 786. LEXIS 151. Ed. 2d 1. 1974 U. Nichols.S. No. 94 S. 563. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . January 21. Ct. 414 U.S. December 10.
schools will soon be litigated under the 14th amendment and Civil Rights statues.• Referenda Outlawing Bilingual Education – Is being used to allow schools the least expensive manner to deal with ELL students – Given the wording of these laws. .
.• The Equal Educational Opportunities Act and Castaneda: Defining Appropriate Action – If students continue to fail in public schools. and consequently are not able to obtain Adequate Yearly Progress. the question will become if schools are in violation of the equal protection laws.
1981 U. 1981 .S. June 23. FIFTH CIRCUIT. 792253. App.• – Equal Educational Opportunities Act Castaneda v.2d 989. Pickard. UNIT A. LEXIS 12063. No. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. 648 F.
has the program produced satisfactory results? .– Castaneda established a series of three questions used to determine whether “appropriate action” is being pursued to overcome language barriers: • Is the school system pursuing a program bases on an educational theory recognized as sound or at least as legitimate experimental strategy by some of the experts in the field? • Is the program reasonably calculated to implement that theory? • After being used for enough time to be a legitimate trial.
. the following features of effective early literacy programs are recommended for young ESOL students.English Language Learners Recommendations for Practice • Based on research in early literacy development and second language acquisition. – Oral language and literacy development is supported by the student's native language.
Development and learning begin at an early age, and the language young children have heard since birth is the language they have used to begin to construct their knowledge and form meaningful communicative relationships. All young children come to school with knowledge and learning from home. Successful early childhood programs acknowledge and build upon this prior knowledge. Wherever possible, young ESOL learners should receive their initial reading instruction in their native language. The body of research in second language acquisition shows that literacy learning is easiest when the initial instruction is in the student's native language because literacy skills are easily transferred from the first to the second language.
• Moreover, use of the native language builds a connection between the home and school. ESOL students' families should be encouraged to read and talk to their children in the family's native language if this is their strongest language. ESOL students' interaction with their families in their native language will give them the richest possible language foundation, advancing the learning of their first language as well as English, in both academic and social situations. These experiences will allow young children to associate reading with meaning from the very beginning so that they do not word call, that is, pronounce words from print when they do not understand them.
Adequate time is provided for students to acquire literacy skills in English.
It is well documented that all children learn at different rates. This principle is especially true for young ESOL learners, who follow developmental patterns that are distinctly different from those of native English speakers. Young ESOL learners should not be hurried prematurely into formal literacy instruction in any language or into moving from reading in their native language to reading in English. Oral or social language proficiency, which can be achieved within 2–3 years, should not be equated with academic proficiency or literacy in a language.
Of course. cognitive. hinder the students' chances for academic success. Research shows that for young children in particular. not all new English language learners or their families have had formal schooling opportunities. . the greater the academic success in English literacy development. Therefore. accountability systems that hold teachers and schools responsible for English literacy development for ESOL learners in an unrealistic time frame may. and conceptual development of ESOL students should be interlaced. especially when learned in formal schooling environments. in the long run. the stronger the native language foundation.• Literacy.
the materials that are used need to be comprehensible to the learner and meet their developmental.– • Instruction and materials are developmentally appropriate. and cultural needs. cognitive. other children. concrete materials. social. ESOL students who are at early stages of schooling (preK-Grade 2) need to experience developmentally appropriate instruction that will help them develop oral and written language proficiency in one or more languages. and print materials. . which for young ESOL learners include language proficiency. This kind of instruction engages children in meaningful inter-actions with adults. Moreover.
1997) and Integrating the ESL Standards Into Classroom Practice: Grades Pre-K-2 (TESOL. should be incorporated into developmentally appropriate practices. should be limited. and interact. students spend most of their time in rich language environments in which they observe. such as sitting quietly and listening for long periods. 2001). and based on oral language activities and personal experiences. listen. touch. playful. Early reading and writing instruction is largely informal. .• In developmentally appropriate classrooms. talk. as described in ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students (TESOL. Activities that typically challenge the attention span of young learners. Standards-based instruction. and printing neatly on fine-lined paper.
A balanced literacy program will teach skills within the context of meaningful interactions with texts that elicit students' emotional and intellectual responses to ideas. . A preponderance of isolated skills. will be a key part of any such program. ESOL learners need to understand why people read and write in order to be motivated to excel in their own literacy development. such as intensive phonics program that is not firmly grounded in books and stories. characters. does not foster overall reading comprehension. preferably from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds.– • Literacy programs are meaning-based and balanced. Using children's literature. and events.
.• Effective literacy programs seek both literacy and content development. and look beyond the classroom for literacy experiences. assert that students within the program are learning the same content as native-English-speaking children.
and writing content and style may be vulnerable to linguistic interference from the native language.– • Assessment is reliable. Assessments that only focus on phonics. and ongoing. valid. Many young children cannot demonstrate the knowledge and skills they possess if they are assessed with methods more appropriate to older learners or those designed for native English speakers. a variety of formal and informal tools should be used. spelling skills. . In order to more accurately assess the literacy development of young ESOL learners.
• Teachers should be aware that errors on assessments of English literacy skills can be developmental in nature and will disappear over time as students acquire English language proficiency. teachers are able to modify their instruction and tailor it to the individual needs of ESOL learners. as described in Scenarios for ESL Standards-based Assessment (TESOL. and fair assessments. Gathering classroom data on an ongoing basis. valid. . By continually using reliable. 2001) keeps teachers appraised of student progress toward the attainment of ESL standards.
• The presence of English language learners and culturally diverse classrooms—long a characteristic only of major cities—is more and more becoming the norm throughout the country. .– Professional preparation and development is continually provided for educators regarding linguistic and cultural diversity.
.• In order to face the challenges that come with a diverse classroom. all educators and administrators need to have both pre. It is also critical for the early childhood educator to understand the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of their children in order to facilitate learning and build cross-cultural understandings with their families. and in principles of first and second language development.and inservice training opportunities in linguistic and cultural diversity.
The End .