Your search found 623 results.

Descriptors:
Exit Examinations; Testing; Low Income Groups; Court Litigation; State Courts; Legal Problems; Minority Group Students; Academic Standards; Resource Allocation; Educational Equity (Finance); Educational Finance

Abstract:
High school exit exam requirements are affecting a growing number of U.S. students--particularly low-income students and students of color. This article examines the policy and legal landscape of exit testing policy to shed light on some of the key issues facing local school leaders charged with implementing these policies. The article first analyzes federal and state court cases related to exit testing and examines the conditions under which courts have permitted and bounded their use. It then discuses the broader legal and legislative environment that has affected leaders' ability to respond to exit testing requirements. The article concludes with implications of high-stakes exit testing and policy considerations for local leaders as well as state policymakers. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Cues; Court Litigation; State Courts; Federal Courts; Search and Seizure; Student Rights; Urban Areas; Context Effect; Geographic Regions; Constitutional Law; Predictor Variables; Statistical Analysis; School Security; Legal Problems; Public Schools

Abstract:
This study examined federal and state court decisions related to student Fourth Amendment rights following the "New Jersey v. T.L.O." ruling in 1985. There has been minimal research in judicial treatment of students' Fourth Amendment rights across regions of the country and less to what extent regional rulings implicitly or explicitly transmit cues about acceptable administrative behavior. From data gathered from case law and the National Center for Education Statistics, the analysis examined the link between the characteristics of the school where the search occurred, aspects related to the search of the student, and the outcome of the case by national region. Catagorical analyses revealed a considerable regional effect associated with highly discretionary elements of Fourth Amendment law. Findings of note suggest a greater likelihood of students losing in court within urban contexts and considerable discrepancies in rulings between national regions with respect to search intrusiveness and the severity of the offense. Implications for legal decision-making and implementation are discussed. (Contains 5 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Violence; Weapons; Public Colleges; State Courts; State Legislation; Colleges; School Safety; Federal Legislation; Court Litigation; School Policy; Crime; Homicide; Compliance (Legal); Risk

Abstract:
Twenty-three State legislatures in 2011 considered bills to permit the carrying of firearms at their public institutions of higher education, and some public colleges in at least six states now allow weapons on college grounds or in college buildings. The lawful possession of guns on campus is a recent and limited phenomenon, but decisions by the Supreme Court, State courts and legislatures, and institutional trustees suggest that many colleges and universities may soon have to decide whether, and under what conditions, firearms will be permitted. This paper summarizes the current situation, analyzes the arguments both for and against weapons on campus, and presents recent data about gun ownership and violent campus crime including murder and manslaughter. It concludes with a discussion of why bitter pro-gun and anti-gun arguments are likely to persist in the future even in the absence of empirical data to support either position. (Contains 3 tables and 17 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (255K)

Descriptors:
Educational Vouchers; State Government; Enrollment Trends; Context Effect; State Programs; Court Litigation; State Courts; Private Schools; Family Income; Scholarships; Catholic Schools

Abstract:
As the 3,919 students who participated in the first year of Indiana's new, wide-reaching school voucher program near the end of the first semester in their new schools, the program faces its next challenge: A state court hearing opened on Dec. 19 on a lawsuit arguing the program violates Indiana's constitution. The Choice Scholarship program, one of a number of education changes enacted by Indiana's Republican-dominated state government during the 2011 legislative session, has drawn national attention for a number of bold components. It is the only active voucher program in the country that is not limited to low-income students or students who have attended a low-performing school, and the only one with no eventual cap on enrollment. With the program moving into full gear, public schools across the state are bracing for an outflow of funds from already-tight budgets, while private schools prepare for an increased demand for spaces in their classrooms. Meanwhile, debate still rages over the initiative as schools and families consider the financial, educational, and social consequences of a program that is projected to grow substantially. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Judges; Decision Making; State Courts; Court Litigation; Public Education; Context Effect; United States History; Parent Rights; Compulsory Education; Role of Education; Educational Change

Abstract:
Background/Context: Though the impact of the legal system in shaping public education over the last sixty years is unquestioned, scholars have largely overlooked the impact of the legal system on the early development and trajectory of public schools in America. Scholars have given particularly little attention to the period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when states began passing laws requiring that children attend school for some portion of the year. These laws brought an end to the era of voluntary schooling in America while posing a difficult set of legal and educational questions for judges who had to interpret and apply them. The evolving logic of these decisions subsequently shaped the role, purpose, and form of education in America. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This article offers a legal history of compulsory education in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In doing so, it seeks to understand the role that courts played in shaping the character and development of the modern school system by examining court cases that stemmed from the passage of compulsory schooling laws. By examining decisions from both before and after the passage of these laws, it is possible to trace shifts in judicial thinking about the role and purpose of these laws and to recognize the role that these rulings played in developing a specific vision--and particular grammar--of schooling. Research Design: This article is a historical analysis that focuses exclusively on cases brought in state courts relating to the rights of parents to control the education of their child before and after the passage of compulsory schooling laws. Though the rulings examined were issued by individual state courts and state supreme courts, attention is paid to the sharing of ideas between courts from different states and the collective vision of the purpose of compulsory school laws that resulted. Conclusions/Recommendations: The shift from voluntary to compulsory schooling that occurred at the turn of the century was attended by an equally dramatic shift in the educational vision articulated by judges. The courts began the period with a view of the aims of education as being synonymous with learning, only to end the period with a view of education as being synonymous with attendance at school--a change that represents a shift from educational substance to educational formalism. Thus, this article argues, the history of compulsory education is also the history of the rise of educational formalism, and the courts played an important, and as yet unrecognized, role in legitimating and facilitating a vision of schooling that privileged certainty and order over substance and complexity. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Equal Education; State Courts; Finance Reform; Educational Finance; Academic Achievement; Educational Equity (Finance); State Standards; Public Schools; Court Litigation; State Legislation

Abstract:
Equity issues in public school finance have been discussed in terms of three waves. The first wave was a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court to provide equal education to all students as a fundamental right. After a ruling against the plaintiffs in "San Antonio v Rodriguez" (1973), the fight shifted to a second wave in the state courts. The third wave has addressed issues of adequacy for all students. Now California is on the verge of a fourth wave that would combine equity and adequacy to focus on student achievement in relation to state curriculum standards. These four waves are discussed in relation to the recent history of declining resources and student achievement in California. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Court Litigation; Public Schools; Educational Equity (Finance); Funding Formulas; State Courts

Abstract:
Beginning in the early 1970s, plaintiffs initiated a veritable tidal wave of litigation over financing public education in states with unequal funding for students in poor school systems. In the only case on school finance to reach the United States Supreme Court, "San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez" (1973), the justices rejected a challenge to Texas' method of funding public schools on the basis that education is not a federally protected constitutional right. In so ruling, the Court opened the floodgates of litigation. Plaintiffs in the majority of states have succeeded in reforming about one-half of the school funding systems in the United States. In the most recent school finance case, "Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell" ("Rell" 2010), a plurality of justices held that since the plaintiffs' challenge to the state's system of funding was subject to judicial review, the dispute had to be remanded for a trial on the merits of their claims. In this article, the author provides an overview of school finance litigation and discusses the "Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell" case which represents the third round of litigation to reach the state's supreme court on the adequacy of financing public schools. As well-intentioned as the plurality's judgment in "Rell" appears to be in its quest to provide a quality education for all public school students in the state, its remanding the case for a trial opens a proverbial "can of worms" for three reasons. The author discusses these points which can serve as part of a cautionary tale for school business officials and others who are interested in public education. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (213K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Equal Education; School Construction; State Courts; Court Litigation; School Buildings; Financial Support; Statewide Planning; Educational Facilities; Innovation; Educational Quality; State Standards; Role; Guidelines; Decision Making; Accountability; Academic Achievement; Political Influences

Abstract:
For over ten years, the State of Arizona has implemented an innovative statewide process for financing and building school facilities and purchasing other capital items for its schools. Spawned by an education quality lawsuit, the 1998 Students FIRST Act established the School Facilities Board, which succeeded in helping rural, suburban, and urban communities build and improve their school buildings. This was no small task because Arizona has been one of the fastest growing states in the nation during these years. In a state whose population increased from 5.1 to 6.5 million people from 2000 to 2008, the growing number of school-aged children fueled construction at the average rate of 35 new schools every year. This article briefly recounts the education quality litigation and remedy that led to a novel standards-based school facilities boon in Arizona. It documents the subsequent years of implementation, including standards setting, financing, assessment, deficiency corrections, and related initiatives. Weaknesses that have emerged in the remedy--primarily underfunding--are also summarized. Finally, this article considers the success of the Arizona education quality litigation and its remedy by applying the "successful-remedies model" postulated by Michael A. Rebell in his book, "Courts and Kids: Pursuing Educational Equity Through the State Courts." Using this framework facilitates analysis of the Arizona experience as to the role of the courts and examination of the impact of the state's changes to facilities financing and decision making on standards, funding, accountability, public involvement, and student performance. (Contains 1 figure, 4 tables and 92 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (701K)

Descriptors:
Parent Rights; American Indians; State Courts; Child Welfare; Child Custody; Tribes; Federal Legislation; Adoption; American Indian Culture; Cultural Influences; Law Enforcement; Court Litigation

Abstract:
In 1978 Congress passed an astonishing piece of legislation that gave Native American tribes a considerable amount of jurisdiction over matters of child custody and the adoption of their children. In 1976, the Association of American Indian Affairs gathered statistics relevant to the adoption of Indian children that Congress found "shocking [and that] cries out for sweeping reform at all levels of government." The statistics revealed that Indian children were roughly 20 percent more likely than non-Indian children to be taken from their Native homes, and the vast majority of these children were placed with non-Indian families. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) sought to remedy this situation by vesting jurisdiction with tribal courts when one of their children was in danger of leaving the tribal community through state or private efforts to terminate an Indian parent's parental rights. In this commentary, the author outlines the procedures set out in the ICWA, explores jurisdictional issues that arise when an Indian child custody case evoking the ICWA is brought to court, investigates successful attempts of the state courts in diminishing the strength of the act through judicially created exceptions--namely the "existing Indian family exception" and the "good cause" exception, and analyzes the tribes' equally successful attempts to use tribal custom as a tool in formulating their own unique rule of law in governing the affairs of their children. (Contains 67 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Transportation; Laws; Agricultural Occupations; State Courts; Court Litigation; United States History

Abstract:
This article is divided into three parts. The first examines specific fencing policies in Kansas, Nebraska, and other Plains states, highlighting the transformation from the "fence-out" to "fence-in" (herd laws) policies. The second part discusses the coming of the railroads to the Great Plains and the farmers and the ranchers as beneficiaries who soon became victims. And finally, the third section analyzes railroad fence laws passed in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, the litigation over loss of livestock, and the unfavorable position the state courts generally took toward the railroads, based upon the dual nature of the railroad fence law. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website