Download
1 / 32
320 likes | 357 Views
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. FEDERAL LAW. FEDERAL LAW. During the past two centuries, Congress has become increasingly involved in education Education is the responsibility of each state Federal involvement in education is a function of the “general welfare” clause.
E N D
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FEDERAL LAW
FEDERAL LAW • During the past two centuries, Congress has become increasingly involved in education • Education is the responsibility of each state • Federal involvement in education is a function of the “general welfare” clause The United States federal government does not assume full responsibility or even major responsibility for the education of its citizens
HIGHER EDUCATION THE MORRILL ACT 1862 • AUTHORIZE LAND GRANDS THAT THE STATES WERE TO USE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTEIN AGRICULTURAL AND MACHANICAL COLLEGES • TODAY THESE COLLEGES PRODUCE GRADUATES IN SPECIALIZED FIELDS THE SERVICEMEN’S READJUSTMENT ACT1944 • ANABLED RETURNING VETERANS TO PAY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • IT INCREASED COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT 1964 • PROVIDED FUNDS FOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES, INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT, AND TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
ELEMENTRYANDSECONDARY SCHOOLS THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCES 1785 • THE EARLIEST FEDERAL LAND GRANT. THE ORDINANCES EVENTUALLY GRANTED PUBLIC LANDS TO 39 STATES • GRANTS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WERE THE FIRST INSTANCE OF FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LANHAM ACT 1950 • PROVIDED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING SCHOOLS IN AREAS WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES • THE INTENT WAS TO HELP LOCAL AREAS AVOID FINANCIAL PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LARGE ENROLLMENT OF THE CHILDREN OF ADULTS IN FEDERAL SERVICES
THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT 1946 • PROVIDED FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL USE IN ESTABLISHING, OPERATING, AND MAINTEINING SCHOOL CAFETERIAS AND LUNCH PROGRAMS • DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD TO SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS THE SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM 1954 • FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED FOR THE PURCHASE OF MILK THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT (HEAD START PROGRAM) 1964 • PREPAREING YOUNG CHILDREN FOR ENTRY INTO SCHOOL • HELPING INCREASE THEIR ACHIVMENT IN THE PRIMARY GRADES • LONG TERM RESULTS: CHILDREN WERE SUBSTANTIALLY BEHIND NATIONAL NORMS • VISTA- PROGRAM PROVIDES VOLUNTEERS TO COMMUNITY AGENCIES HAT ARE DEVELOPING LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS CAUSED BY RURAL AND URBAN POVERTY
CIVIL RIGHTS THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 • FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS TO HELP EDUCATORS DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATED TO DESEGRAGATION • THE ACT PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION BASED ON COLOR, RACE, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND SPECIFICALLY FORBADE DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING THE EDUCATION AMEDMENTS OF THE INDIAN EDUCATION ACT 1972 • ESTHABLISHED OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION • ATTEMPTED TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS • REDUCED THE UNACCEPTABLY HIGH LEVELS OF ILLITERACY • PROHIBITED SEX BIAS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTRY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS AS CWELL AS IN ADMISSION TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS FOR ANY PROGRAM RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT 1973 • ALSO CALLED BUCKELY AMENDMENT • PROTECTS STUDENTS FROM HAVING THEIR GRADES OR RECORDS DISCLOSED • SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT CHECKING OF PAPERS BY STUDENTS PEERS IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE • ADVISES TEACHERS NOT TO PUT DEFAMATORY COMMENTS IN A STUDENT’S FILE THE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT 1974 • CREATED A NATIONAL CENTER THAT COLLECTS DATA ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT • CONDUCTS RESEARCH AND TRAINING MATERIALS THE STUDENT RIGHT TO KNOW AND CAMPUS SECURITY 1990 • POST SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS THAT RECIVE FEDERAL AID ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH INFORMATION ABOUT GRADUATION RATES OF STUDENTS ATHLETES • SCHOOLS WERE TO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ECURITY SERVICES AND FILE ANNUAL CRIME REPORTS
EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATION THE EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN ACT 1958 • PROVIDED FUNDS FOR TRAINING TEACHERS OF THE HANDICAPPED ELEMENTRY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 1968 • PROVIDED REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN • SERVICES FOR BLIND OR DEAF CHILDREN • INFORMATION RESOURCES FOR THE HANDICAPPED • SUPPORT FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS • DROP-OUT PREVENTION PROGRAM THE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN’S EARLY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT • ALLOCATED FOUNDS FOR PROGRAMS FOR HANDICAPPED KIDS AGE 0-6
44 SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT 1973 • IT PROVIDES FOR CHILDREN WHO HAVE OR HAVE HAD A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY OR IS REGARDED BY OTHERS AS DISABLE • THIS LAW FORBADE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST STUDENTSBECAUSE OF HANDICAPPED EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN - IDEA 1975 • PROVIDES FREE AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AGES 3 AND 18 • CONSISITS OF SIX MAJOR CONCEPTS 1. ZERO REJECT 2. NONDISCRIMINATORY EVALUATION 3. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAN PROGRAM (IEP) – WRITTEN PLAN INCLUDING CURRENT PERFORMANCE,GOALS, SERVICES TO BE RENDERED, AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THE RESULTS WILL BE MEASURE 4. LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE) - THE REQUIREMENT THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, A HANDICAPPED CHILD MUST BE EDUACTED WITH NONHANDICAPPED CHILDREN, THAT IS, IN A MAINSTREAMED ENVIRONMEND 5. DUE PROCESS – PROCEDURES INTENDED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY 6. PARENT/GUARDIAN PARTICIPATION – PARENTS ARE ENTITLED TO SEE THAIR CHILDREN’S RECORDS AND TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IEP
COMPENSATORY EDUCATION EDUCATION CONSOLIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT (ECIA) 1981 • COMBINED 42 PROGRAMS INTO SEVEN BLOCK GRANTS • GRANTS THAT ALLOW STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE FUNDS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE FEDERAL LAW • THUS BEGAN THE EFFORT TO USE CATEGORIAL GRANTS • GRANTS THAT ALLOW STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY TO APPORTION THE FUNDS ACCORING TO THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 2001 • MASSIVE EDUCATIONAL OMNIBUS • THE GOAL IS TO HAVE ALL CHILDREN PROFICIENT READERS BY THE SCHOOL YEAR 2013-2014 • IT MANDATES TESTING IN READING AND MATH (3-8 GRADE ONCE A YEAR AND GRADES 10-12 ONCE IN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS) • REQUIRES EACH STATE TO DEVELOP STANDARDS AND OBJECTIVES FOR ALL ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY GRADES AND THEN ADMINISTER HIGH-STAKES TESTS • HIGH- STAKES TESTS – STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENTS TESTS THAT ARE USE FOR PROMOTION, GRADUATION, OR ASSIGNMENT OF SCHOOL GRADES AND THAT CARY PENALTIES FOR POOR SCHOOLWIDE PERFORMANCE. THUS THEY HAVE SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT MEET PREDETERMINED CRITERIA
CHALENGES TO THE LAW DURING THE PAST HALF CENTURY,THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME THE FINAL ARBITER IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES THAT AFFECT BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EDUCATION THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT CASES WITH WHICH YOU SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH
INTEGRATION PLESSY V. FERGUSON “SEPARATE AND EQUAL” On June 7, 1892, HOMER PLESSY boarded a car of the East Louisiana Railroad that was designated for use by white patrons only. Although Plessy was born a free person and was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, under a Louisiana law enacted in 1890, he was classified as an African-American, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car. When, in an act of planned disobedience, Plessy refused to leave the white car and move to the colored car, he was arrested and jailed. U.S. Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until…
INTEGRATION BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL SEGREGATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL “SEPARATE AND EQUAL” On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous court: We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does
INTEGRATION SWEATT V. PAINTER 1951 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL WAS REQUIRED TO ADMIT AFRICAN AMERICANS Herman Sweatt, a black, prospective law student filed suit against administrators of the University of Texas after being denied admission because of his race. Defendants argued that separate law schools for blacks were opening soon. The court maintained the separate but equal doctrine, but ruled that black schools were inferior to white ones. As for the ruling, the university was found guilty of violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
INTEGRATION SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG 1971 NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATION BUSING WAS ORDERED TO ACHIVE DESEGRAGATION After Brown, it had ended segregation with a school assignment plan based on neighborhoods that was approved by the Court. However, when Charlotte consolidated school districts from the city itself and a surrounding area totaling 550 square miles, the majority of black students (who lived in the central Charlotte) still attended mostly black schools as compared with majority white schools further outside the city.
CHURCH AND STATE ENGEL V. VITALE 1962 THE COURT DECIDED THAT GOVERNMENT-DIRECTED PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE) REGARDING THE CHURCH AND STATE The case was brought by the families of public school students in new Hyde Park, New York who complained the prayer to "almighty god" contradicted their religious beliefs. they were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, ethical culture, and Judaic organizations
CHURCH AND STATE ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARIS 2002 HANNAH PERKINS SCHOOL V. SIMMONS-HARIS TYLOR V. SIMMONS-HARIS A school voucher program that serves a fraction of this city's 77,000 students has become the Supreme Court's test case for deciding whether taxpayer dollars may be used for religious school tuition. "This program is not about religion, its about providing educational opportunities to children who desperately need them" On June 27, 2002, the Court determined that Cleveland's scholarship program did not offend the 1st Amendments Establishment Clause.
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 1972 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA It was a case against the District of Columbia that declared that students with disabilities must be given a public education, and that financial limits were a moot point in providing education to these students. It set a precedent that educational services must be made based on children's needs, not on the schools’ fiscal capabilities to provide such services.
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN PENSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (PARC) V. PENSYLVANIA 1972 This case occurred as a result of the dissatisfaction of PARC regarding the conditions of services being provided for students (children) with disabilities. EDUCATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR ALL CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HANDICAP The court required that the state educate them in the least restrictive environment, pay for private school education if the state could not meet children’s needs
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN HONIG V. DOE 1988 Official hearing must be held before disruptive students With disabilities can be removed from their placement as Indicated on an IEP. For instance, they cannot be placed Homebound instruction, suspended, or expelled prior to The hearing
STUDENT DIVERSITY LAU V. NICHOLS 1974 A civil rights violation case that was brought by Chinese American students living in San Francisco, California who had limited English proficiency. The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English, help which they argued they were entitled to. Court found that the lack of linguistically-appropriate accommodations e.g. educational services in Chinese effectively denied the Chinese students equal educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity. In practice, the major ethnic group that benefited from this ruling was Hispanics. Language-based discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination.
Civil rights GOSS V. LOPEZ 1975 RIGHT TO EDUCATION IS A “PROPERTY RIGHT” Case held that the school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Suspending a student from school without holding an appropriate hearing was considered by the Court to be a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Civil rights INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT 1977 This case presents questions concerning the use of corporal punishment in public schools: First, whether the paddling of students as a means of maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, second, to the extent that paddling is constitutionally permissible, whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Civil rights REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE 1978 The quota system in college admissions was prohibited, but the constitutionality of granting advantages to minors was upheld HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUHLMEIER 1988 school officials are permitted to regulate school newspapers
