# data[].attributes.body
After completing the Masters of Education in Guidance and Counseling, I hope to be employed as a school counselor in a classical charter school catering to the needs of a small K-12 campus.

("ASU," 2012).

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 3, Slide 1 - Education Week

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 3, Slide 1 - Education Week

# data[].attributes.body
A news article in Education Week (Walsh, 2018) describes the current president's decision to abrogate a set of guidance documents created by the Obama administration. Trump's Departments of Justice and Education declare the documents, which support the accounting of race in school and college placement, to go above the requirements of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Walsh, 2018). The president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, Roger Clegg, supports the rescinding of the documents which, in his opinion, support bad law and policy (Walsh, 2018). Others, such as John B. King, the former second education secretary for Obama, believes that the guidance documents helped support the promise of Brown v. Board of Education with it's innovative suggestions for the advancement of diversity (Walsh, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump's administration has rescinded several guidance documents issued under President Barack Obama that emphasized permissible ways for schools and colleges to take race into account to promote student diversity.

The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education issued a "Dear Colleague" letter July 3 that said they "have reviewed the documents and have concluded that they advocate policy preferences and positions beyond the requirements of the Constitution," as well as provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that promote desegregation and bar discrimination based on race (and other factors) in federally funded schools.

The action rescinds Obama administration guidance documents issued in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2016, several of which were interpretations of then-recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions about the use of race in college admissions.

"The Supreme Court has determined what affirmative action policies are constitutional, and the court's written decisions are the best guide for navigating this complex issue," Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a statement. "Schools should continue to offer equal opportunities for all students while abiding by the law."

Beyond advocating policy positions that go beyond legal requirements, the "Dear Colleague" letter says, the Obama-era documents "prematurely decide, or appear to decide, whether particular actions violate the Constitution or federal law."

"By suggesting to public schools, as well as recipients of federal funding, that they take action or refrain from taking action beyond plain legal requirements, the documents are inconsistent with governing principles for agency guidance documents," the letter states.

With the Trump administration's action, the three most recent presidential administrations have sought to put their gloss on the legal landscape for the consideration of race in education.

Interpreting Supreme Court Rulings

It should be kept in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has had much to say about the permissible uses of race in K-12 and higher education, and courts examining a race-conscious program would be bound by those rulings more than by guidance documents issued by the departments of Education and Justice.

The Supreme Court spoke most recently on diversity in higher education in 2016, when the justices ruled 4-3 in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin to uphold the race-conscious admissions plan at the flagship campus. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who retired from the court, wrote the majority opinion.

In the K-12 arena, the court in 2007 sharply limited the use of race in assigning students to schools in districts that were no longer, or never had been, under court supervision.

Kennedy joined the judgment in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District that invalidated voluntary race-conscious assignment plans in the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., school districts. But he wrote a significant concurrence that said it could still be a compelling interest for a school district to seek a diverse student population.

"Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered," Kennedy wrote.

In 2008, President George W. Bush's administration released guidance building on the Parents Involved decision that said, "The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools."

In 2011, President Barack Obama's administration issued guidance documents for both K-12 and higher education that offered its own interpretation, one that was more open to the use of race than the Bush administration's view.

The K-12 document expanded on areas Kennedy had cited in his Parents Involved concurrence as ones where schools could continue to take race into account if it were narrowly tailored. These included school siting decisions, feeder patterns, and admission to competitive K-12 schools and programs.

The Trump administration has signaled its position against the use of race in college admissions by supporting a lawsuit by a private group that challenges Harvard University's admissions program, which takes race into account.

The retirement of Kennedy from the high court has sparked abundant speculation that a likely more conservative replacement by Trump would eventually lead to a reversal on race-conscious admissions plans.

Advocates React

Groups on both sides of the question of using race in education responded quickly to the news of the Trump administration's move.

Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Washington-based group that has long opposed race-conscious programs, said in a statement: "The Obama guidance in this area was bad law and bad policy, and it's good news if it is indeed being withdrawn. ... The federal government should not be going out of its way to encourage such discrimination, which is what the Obama guidance did."

Advocates for educators, though, were worried the move could undermine efforts nationwide to ensure that school districts reflect the diverse populations they serve.

"It is imperative that the nation's school system leaders have the flexibility they need in addressing the racial and economic diversity of their schools and students," said Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive director for policy and advocacy at AASA, the School Superintendents Association, in an email. "Given that guidance is non-binding and does not have the power of the law, AASA errs on the side of equity, diversity and flexibility, and opposes the Trump administration's latest proposal."

Meanwhile, John B. King Jr., who served as Obama's second education secretary and now leads the Education Trust, a civil rights organization, said rescinding the guidance sends the wrong message at a moment when schools and colleges are becoming increasingly diverse.

"More than 60 years later, our nation still has not fulfilled the promise of Brown v. Board of Education," King said. "Research shows the benefits of diversity for all students; and innovative practices in schools, on campuses, and in communities to advance diversity can help protect the future prosperity of our nation and the long-term health of our economy."

Published in Print: July 18, 2018, as Trump Rescinds Obama-Era Guidance on Diversity at Schools

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Rescinds Obama-Era Guidance on Diversity at Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump's administration has rescinded several guidance documents issued under President Barack Obama that emphasized permissible ways for schools and colleges to take race into account to promote student diversity. The U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 3, Slide 2 - Education Week

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 3, Slide 2 - Education Week

# data[].attributes.body
Sawchuk (2018), questions the timing of the lawsuit, a class action against Rhode Island, which argues the Constitutional right of education given that it is prerequisite to other Constitutional provisions such as voting, free speech, and jury service. Though the U.S. Supreme Court may not be politically aligned to favorably look upon the case, Sawchuk (2018) believes that the social context of today's political atmosphere may bring positive outcomes. The trending public outcry for deeper civic education mimics the lawsuit, providing a public force behind the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A much-anticipated lawsuit argues that, despite nowhere mentioning the word education, the U.S. Constitution does guarantee the provision of an education for the intuitive reason that it is impossible to vote, exercise free speech, or serve on a jury without one.

Filed last month in federal court in Rhode Island on behalf of more than a half-dozen students, the lawsuit faces very long odds on its way to lawbook fame, particularly given the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But from another vantage point, the timing is spot on, reflecting a resurgence of interest in civics education, as well as general concern over the strength and resilience of America's civic institutions.

"On the one hand, for the legal question, this moment in time may not be the best for the plaintiffs, but the social context might be a really good time to raise this question in the public court, given just how bad people's knowledge of civic institutions are and just how much they are under threat," said Mark Paige, an associate professor in the public-policy department at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth with expertise in education law.

In the K-12 world, Massachusetts recently became the first state to require secondary students to engage in civics projects as part of the curriculum. And Washington state, Illinois, and New York state have also recently passed laws or convened panels to reassess how they prepare students for citizenship.

Here's a look at the key questions in A.C. v. Raimondo -and what comes next for the plaintiffs.
What's this lawsuit about again? And what are its odds?
The lawsuit is shaped as a class action against Rhode Island. Lawyers for the plaintiffs allege that, among other things, the state doesn't require students to complete any civics or history classes or exams, doesn't provide enough extracurricular civic opportunities for students, and does not provide English-learners with strong instruction, all of which hinder their civic development.

There's one major obstacle to establishing the principle that the Constitution guarantees some level of education: the Supreme Court's decision in a 1973 case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. In that case, the court ruled that the Constitution's equal-protection clauses didn't extend to school district finance inequities.

But the case also left open the question of whether the document might guarantee some minimum level of education, and the architects of the current lawsuit hope to force an answer to that question. Importantly, the case isn't directly about school finance, although any remedy, like revamping civics education across the nation, would inevitably incur costs.

In addition, federal district courts are often reluctant to read new rights into the Constitution.

And when the legal theories underpinning the case were being developed, the political landscape looked a lot different. President Donald Trump's appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court gave conservatives a majority and makes a victory there unlikely.

Nevertheless, pointed out Derek W. Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, the lawsuit echoes widespread concern about the state of civic knowledge, and so the outcome remains a bit of a wild card. Trump's election "has made an enormous swath of the judiciary concerned about the rule of law, the operation of our democracy, and citizens' ability to make informed decisions far more important than it was," he noted.
After years of state education adequacy lawsuits, why are we seeing federal action again?
Status: Pending

Several other lawsuits are testing out related legal theories, though those cases, like the one filed in Michigan focusing on student literacy, are more narrowly tailored.

Legal experts point to a slowdown in state-level education equity cases following bruising battles in Washington state and Kansas, among other places, as one reason behind the interest in a federal education case.

It's unclear whether the spate of federal litigation could affect potential state-level action, the legal experts said. Some feel that it won't, while others suggest that state courts might not want to make any sudden moves on school finance or equity until the federal question is resolved.
Why do the plaintiffs cite an obscure provision of the Constitution-Article 4, Section 4?
Nearly all previous education equity lawsuits at the federal level have been brought on the grounds of equal protection or due process under the 14th Amendment. This lawsuit includes those claims, too, but also cites this portion of the founding document, which contains a guarantee that every state will establish "a republican form of government."

The clause has been more or less ignored for 200 years, but was the basis of a Stanford Law Review article Black published earlier this year.

In it, he notes that under that clause, and subsequently under the 14th Amendment, the U.S. government forced Southern states to include public education in their own state constitutions as a condition of rejoining the Union after the Civil War.

The plaintiffs' decision to include the unusual historical argument gives the courts additional options to consider-particularly for those judges worried about extending the definition of equal-protection rights, already a well-developed part of constitutional law.

"They may have some concerns about a precedent here, what it will mean for equal-protection cases," Black said. "But the republican guarantee, if they hold it, applies only to education. It's not going to apply to anything else."
What happens if the plaintiffs succeed?
The plaintiffs seek legal clarity, rather than any specific remedy for the students, which means that if the courts uphold the principle in question, they would then require policymakers to develop a program for schools that would supply adequate preparation for citizenship.

"There may well be 50 different approaches, or more than that, taken among the different school districts," said Michael Rebell, the lead counsel on the case and an education law professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. "We're not going to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to come up with a laundry list of what should be in a civics course or what extracurricular opportunity should be afforded to students. A lot of that depends on context, and it's not the kind of nuts-and-bolts work the Supreme Court would want to be involved in."

The plaintiffs' brief contains some clues about what they feel should happen: teacher training; a curriculum that includes media literacy, civic experiences both inside and outside of the classroom; and supports for students learning English.
Could this lawsuit be settled?

Possibly. A spokeswoman for the Rhode Island attorney general said she could not comment on pending litigation.
What happens if the lawsuit is dismissed?
It would throw cold water on the legal arguments advanced in the litigation, making them harder to use for other test cases. That does worry other education law experts.

"The risk, of course, is that a federal court could say no, and then we have another Rodriguez problem," Paige said. "I worry slightly that it would foreclose a theory that might be viable in a different context."

Published in Print: December 12, 2018, as New Legal Strategy: Civics Education Is a Constitutional Right

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the Time Right to Make Education a Constitutional Right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A much-anticipated lawsuit argues that, despite nowhere mentioning the word education, the U.S. Constitution does guarantee the provision of an education for the intuitive reason that it is impossible to vote, exercise free speech, or serve on a jury without one.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 4, Slide 1 - The School Law Handbook: What Every Leader Needs to Know (Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca, 2004.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 4, Slide 1 - The School Law Handbook: What Every Leader Needs to Know (Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca, 2004.)

# data[].attributes.body
The first issue explored school safety and the use of searches by administration and school resource officers (SRO). As described by Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca (2004), in the case of New Jersey v. T. L. O., the legal standard was set for administrators to rightly search students based on reasonable suspicion. Importantly, SRO retain police standards of needing probable cause in order to search students. In all instances, both administrators and SRO may search students without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause if given personal permission.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 4, Slide 2 - The School Law Handbook: What Every Leader Needs to Know (Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca, 2004).

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 4, Slide 2 - The School Law Handbook: What Every Leader Needs to Know (Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca, 2004).

# data[].attributes.body
The second issue evolved around part-time admission of students in public schools. At times, families elect for private or homeschool education and later find a lack of activities in these environments. For this reason, they may look to public schools to fill gaps. In most cases, the decision of whether to admit part-time admission falls on the shoulders of local school boards instead of state lawmakers (Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca, 2004).

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Interest: Part-Time Admission of Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Interest: Part-Time Admission of Students

# data[].attributes.body
As a former homeschooler who experienced turmoil involving part-time admission, researching the legality behind this issue proved of great personal interest. I am interested to see what monetary, ethical, and legal issues persist in an age of growing school choice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Researching Part-Time Admission of Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Researching Part-Time Admission of Students

# data[].attributes.body
Within the Angelo State University Library, a search of the topic brought the following peer-reviewed article in which the author, John T. Plecknik, explores the rights of of nonpublic students to participate in public school programs (.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.body
No longer a minor fringe group, the number of nonpublic students continues to rise as school choice remains a hot-topic among families of school-age children (Plecnik, 2007). Many nonpublic students look to public schools to fill in gaps that exist in their choice of academic setting. Some of these gaps may include AP courses and extracurricular activities such as musical programs or athletics. The decision of whether to allow part-time admission to nonpublic school students stirs up “financial, educational, political, and philosophical issues” (Bosher, Kaminski, & Vacca, 2004, p.137).

The decision of part-time admission is localized, often falling to school administrators and school boards. Local educators must engage in the discussions of part-time admittance and take in consideration the positive and negative ramifications of allowing additions of nonpublic students to public programming. In Indiana, the debate surges as Indiana law allows part-time admission to public schools upon the schools local permission (Schmidt, 2014). In North Carolina, Plecnik (2007) explains “there is a strong legal argument that [part-time admittance] exclusion is not only inequitable, but impermissible under the constitutional and statutory schemes in North Carolina” (p. 9). The localization of decision-making allows educators to be a large voice in their school corporations. As leaders in equity and morality, educators must think deeply on this issue and its effects.

For administrators and school counselors, the admittance of part-time students also raises questions about what services will be delivered to them as part of the student-body. Will they be included in the formation of GPA and class-rank? Will they be held to behavior and discipline expectations? What administrative burden is realistic with addition of part-time students? How do they fit into the comprehensive guidance curriculum? These questions give a sample of what considerations must be made upon allowing part-time admittance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Researching Part-Time Admission of Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Researching Part-Time Admission of Students

# data[].attributes.body
From the Home School Legal and Defense Association, the attorney, TJ Schmidt, discusses Indiana law and a change of bylaws by the Indiana High School Athletic Association that permits home school students to participate in public school programs (Schmidt, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HSLDA is opposed to the current Fort Wayne public school policy for allowing homeschool students to participate in athletics. As currently written the policy raises legal and privacy issues.

# data[].attributes.body
ASU [Digital image]. 2012. Retrieved from http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/103kkcn.com/files/2012/05/asu.jpg

Bosher, W. C., Kaminski, K. R., Vacca, R. S. (2004). The School Law Handbook: What Every Leader Needs to Know. Alexandria, Va: Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Plecnik, J. T. (2007). Equal access to public education: An examination of the state constitutional & statutory rights of nonpublic students to participate in public school programs on a part-time basis in North Carolina & across the nation. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 13(1), 1. Retrieved from https://easydb.angelo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tih&AN=31852841&site=eds-live
Sawchuk, S. (2018, December 11). Is the time right to make education a constitutional right? Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/12/12/is-the-time-right-to-make-education.html?print=1
Schmidt, T. (2014, May 5). Part-time enrollment policies. Retrieved from https://hslda.org/content/hs/state/in/201405050.asp
Walsh, M. (2018, July 17). Trump rescinds Obama-era guidance on diversity at schools. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/07/18/trump-rescinds-obama-era-guidance-on-diversity-at.html