Articles in the School Law category

Expanding School Choice: An Education Revolution or Diversion?

Patte Barth,  director of the Center for Public Education at the National School Boards Association, penned  the following column for the Huffington Post:

House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) was speaking recently at the release of the Brookings Institution’s latest report on Education Choice and Competition. Calling these policies “an education revolution,” the House leader baldly stated, “school choice is the surest way to break [the] vicious cycle of poverty.”

Not “a solid education.”  School choice.

The Brookings’ report ranks 100 large districts on their school choice policies. Their report came out in advance of National School Choice Week whose organizers boast 5,500 scheduled events across the country beginning January 26, 2014. Both share a goal to drum up more support for funneling tax dollars into educational options — whether they be charters, magnets, private, or virtual schools.  The rationale is that a free marketplace will force schools to innovate in order to compete for students. Popular schools will equate with “good schools” and unpopular ones will close. And thus, in Brookings words, we will raise “the quality of the product.”

Unfortunately, that’s one mighty big assumption.

Most choice advocates defend their position by pointing to successful charter schools in New York City and elsewhere. Others extol the promise of virtual learning. What they all provide, for the most part, is anecdote, intuition and belief. When they do cite data, it basically shows that choice policies work in some places with some students some of the time.  Truth is, the evidence is much spottier than the champions for choice would have us believe.

Charter schools, for example, are the most studied “choice” reform.  Charter schools are public schools that have certain requirements waived so they can try out new ideas.  There is much to commend successful charters and what they are learning about effective practices. But according to a 2013 study from Stanford researchers, these are the exception. Only one in four charter schools outperforms its traditional public school counterpart in reading. About one in five performs significantly worse. In math, it’s nearly one in three.

The quality of research on voucher programs is notoriously uneven and often contradictory. Nonetheless, there seems to be general agreement that vouchers may have had a modest impact on some low-income and minority youth in some urban districts. But the findings are inconclusive as to their effect overall.  And the general efficacy of virtual schools is a big unknown, largely because districts lack the infrastructure to sufficiently track student performance in online environments.

Ironically, the Brookings report card itself illustrates the disconnect between choice policies on one hand and student performance on the other.  One does not necessarily follow the other.

Only three districts earned A’s on Brookings choice and competition rankings:  Louisiana’s Recovery District, Orleans Parish and New York City. Along with its Brookings “A,” Orleans Parish earned an “A” on Louisiana’s report card for district performance.  Yet the state gave the Recovery District an F. New York City’s A- from Brookings bears little relation to its math scores on NAEP, a national assessment. The city’s scores were at the average for large cities, and below average in terms of gains over the last decade.

Then there’s the low end of the rankings. Atlanta was given an “F” by Brookings. Yet the city boasts fourth-graders who perform above the national “large city” average in reading and posted more than twice the gains their peers made nationwide.  Charlotte, North Carolina, and Austin, Texas, are among the highest performing urban districts in both math and reading. Brookings gave them a C and D respectively.

see full data tables

 

So what does this tell us? That high-achieving, high-gaining districts can have “choice and competition” or not. Either way, it shows it’s a mistake to claim, as Rep. Cantor does, that choice is “the surest way to break the cycle of poverty.”

Contrary to popular perception, public schools have been steadily improving over the last twenty years. Math performance and graduation rates, in particular, are at all-time highs. Neither are public schools the monolithic creature some of the choice advocates make them out to be. Many districts across the country already offer alternatives in the form of charter and magnet schools, and continue to diversify instructional programs in traditional neighborhood schools, too. But parents and students need assurance that the choices they are offered are good ones, something choice for choice’s sake has not done, as the research shows.

In addition, it’s one thing to offer alternatives. It’s quite another to encourage public schools to compete with each other for students which could send the wrong messages. We need only look to our colleges and universities who, in their race to attract students, build football teams and state-of-the-art facilities at the expense of investments in teaching.  I really doubt that’s the kind of marketplace we want to create for public schools.

Far from an education revolution, the political attention given choice and competition is diverting us from the hard work of making sure public schools prepare every child for their next steps after graduation.  This means continuing to invest in those things that an abundance of evidence shows consistently work  – access to high-quality pre-kindergarten, effective teachers, rigorous curriculum and individualized instruction for students. It also means learning from successful schools — including schools of choice — about what works with different students in which situations, and bringing those practices to scale.  When we get that right, districts will earn the grades that really matter.

Joetta Sack-Min|January 22nd, 2014|Categories: Center for Public Education, Educational Legislation, Educational Research, Federal Advocacy, Governance, Legislative advocacy, Religion, School Law, School Reform, School Vouchers, Student Achievement|Tags: , , , , , , |

NSBA urges high court to review “I Heart Boobies” case

The National School Boards Association (NSBA), joined by other leading education groups and a state school boards association, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to accept Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. B.H for review and to reverse the appellate court’s decision as contrary to well-established Supreme Court precedent.

The case focuses on a school district decision to require two female  students at a Pennsylvania middle school  to remove bracelets with the slogan, “I  ♥ Boobies KEEP A BREAST,” because of reports that the bracelets were causing a distraction for students, including instances of possible sexual harassment.

NSBA is joined by AASA, the School Superintendents Association; the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) in asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and reaffirm that school officials have authority to determine that messages such as “I Y Boobies” disrupt the school environment and interfere with the rights of others.

“NSBA is representing the voices of parents and others who want their children focused on education and protected from lewd speech while attending public schools,” said NSBA Executive Director Thomas J. Gentzel. “This important amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to recognize the authority of school officials to regulate student speech during the school day if such speech disrupts the school environment or interferes with the responsibility of schools to teach civil discourse as an inherent democratic value and to protect the rights and sensibilities of other students.”

“The Third Circuit ruling forces school officials to jettison educational judgments for highly legalistic ones in a way that jeopardizes the day-to-day work of public schools and potentially harms students,” said NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negrón, Jr. “This ruling misreads Supreme Court precedent recognizing that school officials have the authority to determine what is appropriate speech in schools and to limit student expression that is contrary to their educational mission.”

The appellate court introduced a new standard that conflates language from two separate Supreme Court cases in a way that leaves school officials subject to litigation and restricts their ability to maintain harassment-free school environments. It replaces well-established precedents with a legally complex test that requires school officials to discern whether the student speech is “plainly lewd” or “ambiguously lewd.” If the speech falls into the latter category, it may not be regulated if it could be interpreted as political or social commentary.

Joetta Sack-Min|January 6th, 2014|Categories: Discipline, Federal Advocacy, Governance, Leadership, School Law|Tags: , |

NCSBA lawsuit challenges constitutionality of voucher law

The following story was written by the North Carolina School Boards Association (NCSBA):

A lawsuit filed on Monday, Dec. 16, 2013 in Wake County Superior Court challenges the constitutionality of legislation passed earlier this year that creates a private school voucher program using public funds. Under the legislation, which takes effect in the 2014-15 school year, a private school can receive up to $4,200 in public funding for each eligible student that it enrolls. The legislation does not require that a student struggle academically or attend a poorly performing public school in order to receive a voucher. It also does not require any assurance that public funds will be spent to provide students with an adequate education and one that is offered on a non-discriminatory basis.

The suit was filed by four individual taxpayers, three of whom have children attending public schools, and the North Carolina School Boards Association (NCSBA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership association that represents all 115 local boards of education in the state and the Board of Education of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation.

The legislation initially appropriates $10 million in public funds. The complaint alleges that public funding will rise to $50 million in future budget cycles.

“This challenge raises important questions about the use of public funds and our commitment to North Carolina’s students,” said Shearra Miller, president of the NCSBA and a member of the Cleveland County Board of Education. “By diverting funding from the public schools, vouchers have the potential to significantly damage individual school systems, particularly in smaller districts. As a local board member, I am concerned about the impact that will have on our students. In addition, the voucher program does not ensure that private schools that receive public funding will adhere to our constitution’s promise that students will have the opportunity to receive a sound basic education and will not face discrimination. Given all of these issues, the NCSBA Board of Directors felt strongly that the organization should raise these questions in court.”

The complaint asserts that the legislation violates the state constitution by:

• Using public dollars for a non-public purpose—private education opportunities outside of the constitutionally required “general and uniform system of free public schools;”

• Failing to require participating private schools to adhere to any substantive educational standards or practice non-discriminatory admissions;

• Diverting public dollars from the State School Fund, which is to be used “exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of public schools;” and

• Creating a system of selective secondary educational opportunities that denies students equal opportunities.

 

Staff|December 19th, 2013|Categories: Board governance, Educational Finance, Policy Formation, School Boards, School Law, School Vouchers, State School Boards Associations|Tags: , , |

NSBA addresses new report on cloud computing in public schools

The rapidly-evolving web-based services that have enabled school districts to streamline record keeping and make timely, data-driven decisions are also creating big challenges for safeguarding student information and preventing unauthorized use by third-party providers, a new report says.

“Cloud computing” services have helped school districts store and manage vast amounts of information, says the study released Friday by the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham Law School. But “we’re worried about the implications for students over time, how their information can be used or misused,” Joel R. Reidenberg, a Fordham law professor and the report’s lead author, told The New York Times.

The issue also concerns National School Boards Association’s (NSBA) Council of School Attorneys (COSA), which earlier this year set up a Cloud Computing and Student Privacy Working Group that plans to issue two resources in the coming months: the first a comprehensive legal primer for school attorneys, and the second an issue-spotting guide for school board members. Both publications aim to raise operational awareness for policy makers. COSA Director Sonja H. Trainor participated in a forum on the issue at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society in November and was among about 20 education, industry, and data experts asked to discuss the report’s recommendations at Microsoft’s Washington, D.C., offices.

The report, Privacy and Cloud Computing in Public Schools, notes that many school districts employ cloud-based services, but cautions that policies and contracts are not transparent to the public, and appear to lack some important privacy protections. It is based on information provided by 20 school districts.

The report estimated that 95 percent of the reporting school districts “rely on cloud services for a diverse range of functions, including data mining related to student performance, support for classroom activities, student guidance, data hosting, as well as special services such as cafeteria payments and transportation planning.” Yet the report estimated that 20 percent of the reporting districts do not have policies governing the use of online services, and many districts have significant gaps in their contract documentation no student privacy provisions.

Only 25 percent of the responding districts inform parents that they are using cloud services to store information, the report said. “Fewer than 7 percent of the contracts restrict the sale or marketing of student information by vendors,” the report said, “and many agreements allow the vendors to change the terms without notice.”

In an interview with School Board News Today, N. Cameron Russell, the Fordham Law Center’s Executive Director and a member of the research team, said the report is based on contracts and other documents received from the 20 school districts studied, which vary in size and are located throughout the country. He emphasized that the practices concerning safeguarding of information often go beyond the language in the contracts — something the Software and Information Industry Association emphasized in commenting on the study.

Still, the report’s authors expressed concern over the lack of specific language in many vendor contracts regarding such issues as maintaining the privacy of student data and preventing its commercial use.

Rapidly evolving web-based technologies such as cloud computing offer the potential for significant advances in individualized instruction and assessment – and many school districts are on the cutting edge of these innovations, said NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negrón Jr.

“Schools want to help students succeed, and web-based technology is helping them do this in innovative and creative ways,” Negrón said. “At the same time, it is important to inform and engage parents and communities about these developments and ensure vendor contracts protect student privacy and address restrictions on third-party use of data.”

The report concluded with several recommendations for school districts. Among them are putting “the existence and identity of cloud service providers and the privacy protections for student data’ on district websites and “establishing policies and implementation plans for the adoption of cloud services by teachers and staff,” including in-service training and an easy mechanism for teachers to adopt and propose technologies for instructional use.

 

Lawrence Hardy|December 16th, 2013|Categories: Board governance, Computer Uses in Education, Council of School Attorneys, Data Driven Decision Making, Educational Technology, Governance, School Law, School Security|

NSBA, NEA, and AASA issue FAQs to help schools and their employees understand same-sex marriage benefits

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) impacted more than a thousand federal laws providing benefits to spouses. To help school districts across the nation better understand this important ruling and the changes they will need to make, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) has led an effort to develop a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) in partnership with the National Education Association (NEA) and the AASA, the School Superintendents Association, on school district employers’ and employees’ issues related to the DOMA ruling.

The new document, “The Dos and Don’ts of DOMA: FAQs for school systems and employees on the United States Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage” reviews how employee benefits and plan and policy administration are affected by the ruling, including every policy and benefit that defines or refers to marriage or spouses in the application of a federal benefit. As U.S. school districts employ nearly 6.2 million individuals, the ruling has extensive reach.

“School districts are collectively the largest employers in the U.S. and they need to be aware of how this pivotal ruling changes employee benefits and benefit administration,” said NSBA Executive Director Thomas J. Gentzel. “This is a major breakthrough in federal employment law, and this document will help clarify the many questions school systems and employees will have as the Court’s ruling is implemented.”

Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages, and the ruling will impact certain federal benefits and rights in all states and could impact collective bargaining agreements. Federal agencies are currently reviewing the ruling under direction from President Obama to implement the Court’s decision “as quickly as possible.”

“The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor was a major milestone in American history—a monumental decision and a huge step forward for civil rights,” said National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel. “The National Education Association in partnership with other national labor organizations filed an amicus in the case to document the need for the Court to end the substantial economic discrimination DOMA inflicted on lawfully married same-sex couples. In the wake of the Windsor decision, NEA is pleased to collaborate with the National School Boards Association and the School Superintendents Association on the DOMA Do and Don’ts publication to make sure that school districts and their employees understand how the Windsor decision affects their benefits.”
Key to the DOMA ruling is that employees in a same-sex marriage must receive the same benefits provisions as employees in an opposite-sex marriage, regardless of the state in which they live.

“Married couples should have access to fundamental benefits such as health care and social security,” said Daniel A. Domenech, Executive Director of AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “We were pleased to collaborate with the National School Boards Association and the National Education Association on this document because it provides important information for school system leaders and their employees about an important issue that affects many individuals and their families.”

Alexis Rice|October 30th, 2013|Categories: School Boards, School Law, Teachers|Tags: , , , , |

COSA seminar guides school attorneys on newest legal trends and challenges

School attorneys from across North America learned about new topics and trends in education law at the National School Boards Association’s Council of School Attorneys’ 2013 School Law Practice Seminar, held Oct. 10-12 in Nashville, Tenn.

“The event’s program gave school attorneys an opportunity to dive deep into issues they face every day in their busy practices, and to look at some issues from a fresh perspective,” said COSA Director Sonja Trainor. “Our attendees were particularly engaged in the networking events, where they interacted with colleagues and corporate partners facing the same issues.”

Hot topic sessions tackled student privacy in the cloud computing era, armed guards in schools, and the latest on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The student privacy panel included technology law expert and COSA member Dotti Bollinger, Microsoft’s Steve Mutkoski and COSA board member Phil Hartley, who guided the audience through the evolving legal standards affecting student data privacy in the cloud. Former COSA Chair Tom Wheeler and COSA member Joe Tanguma provided an overview of liability standards for schools faced with violence, and noted the widely differing approaches taken by various states regarding arming school staff.

COSA member Chris Stevenson and NSBA Senior Staff Attorney Leza Conliffe presented attendees with an update on employer-related issues of the ACA, known as Obamacare. They discussed the implications of the employer mandate, a.k.a. the “Pay or Play” penalties, and the upcoming requirements the latest IRS rules place on school districts, as employers, in the areas of collecting and disclosing information about insurance coverage of all of its employees, their spouses and dependents, and the collection of an additional Medicare tax for a district’s high wage earners.

Attendees also addressed every-day issues such as involuntary resignation and constructive discharge, intellectual property creation and fair use, and litigation practice – including a poignant session on working with child witnesses. They heard COSA member D. Scott Bennett, whose son suffers from a severe form of autism, describe the fears and priorities of parents of disabled students.

“Autism presents unique challenges, and the parents’ well-being tends to ebb and flow depending on the child’s symptoms and behavioral condition,” Bennett wrote in a recent research paper. He advised school attorneys and educators to collaborate with parents and show them multiple strategies to foster the best educational experiences for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and other disabilities.

Attendees also participated in interactive sessions addressing recent guidance from federal agencies on issues such as participation of students with disabilities in athletics and the appropriate use of pre-employment criminal background checks.

State school board association attorneys attended pre-seminar meetings on Oct. 10. At a lunch event on Oct. 11, attendees found their way to roundtable discussions on many different topics. Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, student data and cloud computing, international student travel, and labor negotiations were particularly popular discussion topics.

NSBA Executive Director Tom Gentzel noted the integral role COSA plays in the advocacy work of NSBA at the opening general session of the conference. NSBA President David Pickler, a practicing attorney, joined his colleagues at the practice seminar. At the seminar reception hosted by Lewis King Krieg & Waldrop and the Tennessee Council of School Board Attorneys, he welcomed attendees to his home state and invited COSA attorneys to join NSBA’s grassroots work to support public education.

NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negrón Jr. updated school attorneys on NSBA’s Legal Advocacy Agenda. He highlighted NSBA’s amicus work in recent and upcoming Supreme Court cases addressing diversity in student assignment and employer liability for claims of discrimination. He also noted NSBA’s recent amicus work in federal courts of appeal in student-related cases in which the Departments of Justice and Education have filed amicus briefs opposing the school district’s position.

COSA members and NSBA staff also took a moment to remember former NSBA General Counsel Gus Steinhilber, who passed away in August. He was remembered as a kind and generous friend, an avid outdoorsman, and a lifelong supporter of public schools and the attorneys who advocate on their behalf.

For more information on COSA events, go to www.nsba.org/SchoolLaw/COSA.

Joetta Sack-Min|October 18th, 2013|Categories: Affordable Care Act, Conferences and Events, Council of School Attorneys, Diversity, School Law|Tags: , , |

COSA annual conference examines diversity, school law issues

Special education, employment law, school safety and diversity are the hot topics this week at the National School Boards Associations’ (NSBA) Council of School Attorneys’ (COSA) annual School Law Practice Seminar in Nashville, Tenn.

“COSA’s fall seminar is our chance as attorneys to dig deep into the weeds of school law issues facing our public school clients, to discuss approaches and solutions with colleagues, and to get an update on the national legal advocacy work of the National School Boards Association,” said Allison Schafer, the 2013-14 COSA Chair and Legal Counsel for the North Carolina School Boards Association.

In the opening discussion, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Superintendent Jesse Register will discuss his plans to move beyond desegregation litigation to a groundbreaking diversity management plan. The accompanying panel will also discuss the broader issue of diversity in school settings after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin as well as upcoming cases for the 2013-14 term.

Other COSA sessions will be led by experienced school attorneys on relevant issues such as “Student Privacy Concerns in the Cloud Computing Era,” “Responding to the EEOC’s Guidance on Criminal Background Checks,” “the NSBA Legal Advocacy Agenda,” and “Adventures in Ethics.”

Joetta Sack-Min|October 9th, 2013|Categories: Announcements, Board governance, Conferences and Events, Council of School Attorneys, School Law, School Security|Tags: , |

New school law webinars examine the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

The National School Boards Association’s (NSBA) Council of School Attorneys (COSA)  is hosting a two-part webinar series on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FEPRA). Register today to learn more about this important topic.

Here are details on the sessions:

September 11, 2013 – FERPA Session 1: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Inside and Out

Veteran in-house counsel Margaret-Ann Howies presents an engaging look at FERPA through the lens of a very real and traumatic school shooting. Here’s your chance to learn – or brush up on – the ins and outs of the federal law that permeates school district operations, FERPA. We’ll start with the basics: What is an education record covered by FERPA? When can personally identifiable information about a student be released and to whom? Are emails education records? Then, we’ll move into recent questions: May a school district store student records in “the cloud?” When does an “emergency” cease, thereby triggering the consent requirement? What if the student is deceased? What if the student has changed names? Become FERPA conversant in just over an hour.

1:00 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. (EDT)

Host: Sonja Trainor, Director, NSBA Council of School Attorneys

Presenter: Margaret-Ann Howie, General Counsel, Baltimore County Public Schools

January 15, 2014 – FERPA Session 2: School Videos and Student Privacy – What’s the Final Rule?

Few issues have caused such widespread consternation for school districts and their attorneys than the following: to what extent are school videos education records covered by FERPA? NSBA requested clarification from the U.S. Department of Education years ago. Join a seasoned school lawyer for a distillation of the current state of the law and “unofficial” guidance from the Department’s Family Policy Compliance Office.

Time: 1 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. (EST)

Host: Sonja Trainor, Director, NSBA Council of School Attorneys

Presenter: Sarah Craven Clark, Deputy Director of Legal Services, Ohio State Association Counsel

Learn more and register now.

 

 

Joetta Sack-Min|September 10th, 2013|Categories: Council of School Attorneys, Federal Programs, Governance, School Law|Tags: , , , , |

School Boards urge U.S. Supreme Court to review Kentucky student “Miranda” case

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) and the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Kentucky state supreme court decision that would force schools to issue Miranda warnings to students when questioned by school officials in the presence of school resource officers.

NSBA and KSBA are joined by 15 other education groups, including the American Association of School Administrators and the National Association of School Resource Officers, and local educational cooperatives in an amicus brief to the high court in Commonwealth of Kentucky v. N.C. The brief maintains a recent ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court is too rigid and restricts school administrators’ ability to react quickly to dangerous situations. The ruling also mischaracterized the role of school resource officers, who perform numerous duties such as student counseling, instruction, and public safety and law enforcement functions, and it limits their abilities to keep schools secure.

“School officials must be allowed to use their professional judgment to handle student disciplinary matters and maintain safety in the unique and often complex school environment,” said NSBA Executive Director Thomas J. Gentzel. “School boards must be vigilant about protecting all students’ safety, and this decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court undermines their abilities.”

The case involves a student who had confessed to a school principal, with a school resource officer present, that he had given a banned substance to another student. Ignoring a lengthy list of other decisions regarding the role of school officials and the use of Miranda rights in the context of a K-12 school environment, the Kentucky high court ruled that the student was not read his Miranda rights and thus his confession could be suppressed.

It is particularly important for school administrators and school resource officers to build lines of communications with their students, who are usually their primary source of information about issues that impact school safety, such as drugs or weapons, so that they can preserve a safe school climate. By forcing school resource officers to read Miranda rights, this ruling would intimidate students and chill these important sources of information.

“School resource officers have become integral preventive safety tools in hundreds of Kentucky schools. They interact every day with administrators and students alike,” said David Baird, Interim Executive Director of KSBA. “Our members feel the court ruling unjustly drives a wedge in this process that could keep critical safety information from being shared by students with principals or security officers.”

Alexis Rice|August 29th, 2013|Categories: Discipline, School Law|Tags: , , , , |

LSBA: U.S. Justice Dept. action in Louisiana vouchers shows weakness of law

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Louisiana to stop a voucher program spending millions in taxpayer funds to send low-income students to private and religious schools, saying that the vouchers have impeded long-standing desegregation orders in many of the state’s school districts.

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) joined the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA) in a lawsuit last year challenging the legality of the voucher plan, which was pushed by Gov. Bobby Jindal and GOP lawmakers. The LSBA lawsuit ultimately prevailed when the state’s Supreme Court found the funding mechanism to be unconstitutional but the GOP-led legislature is attempting to keep the program alive through alternative funding sources.

LSBA has closely monitored desegregation litigation in Louisiana for many years. LSBA Executive Director Scott Richard noted that many school boards have spent millions of dollars in order to attain unitary status and freedom from federal oversight due to past discriminatory practices—and this latest round of legal problems with the Louisiana voucher program only exacerbates the issues raised in the recent state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the law and highlighted the program’s illegal funding schemes.

“The fact that the U.S. Department of Justice has to get involved at this point again punches holes in the flawed legislation,” Richard said. “It is irresponsible that state government in Louisiana, with all of the legal resources available, would move forward with this effort fully knowing that many school districts continue to be under federal desegregation orders – basically ignoring federal law.”

Proponents for the voucher plan have decried the federal government’s move and argued that the vouchers help low-income students “escape failing schools.” However, LSBA and other education groups have countered that the plan actually allows kindergarteners zoned for high-achieving public schools—those graded A or B—to receive vouchers as well.

Thirty-four school districts, of which 22 send students to private schools using voucher funds, would be subject to the Justice Department’s ruling, according to the New Orleans Times Picayune.

 

 

 

Joetta Sack-Min|August 28th, 2013|Categories: Educational Finance, Governance, Privatization, School Boards, School Law, School Reform, School Vouchers, State School Boards Associations, Uncategorized|Tags: , , |
Page 2 of 2212345...1020...Last »