# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 13 - Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 13 - Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
1. Always follow FERPA Regulations
2. Be aware of the student's chosen institution's admissions requirements
3. Refresh your knowledge of the local laws and regulations
4. Always follow the code of ethics
5. Remember that the students are the priority
6. Stay up to date with the news regarding college admissions, preparation, and financial aid

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 12 - Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 12 - Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
The state of Texas has created challenging educational laws and regulations for high school graduation and college admission. These laws and regulations allow for students to graduate high school prepared for college. As I was graduating from high school, I was accepted into the colleges of my choice and the classes I took in high school prepared me for the education I would receive in college. The regulations also held the school staff members accountable for providing me with the best free and appropriate education they could offer. This even allowed for me to graduate a year ahead of schedule and get a head start on my college education.

# data[].attributes.body
The enforceable standard 3.3 of the educators' code of ethics states, "the educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misinterpret facts regarding a student. This is important for counselors assisting students with college preparation to keep in mind. If a student has asked for any help regarding college applications in which the counselor must contact an institution, the counselor must be intentional and factual about the student information, so the student is helped with the process.
(19 TAC § 247.2)
Educators' Code of Ethics, 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247.2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 10 - Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 10 - Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
The Dallas ISD Board Policy Manual clearly states the requirements for high school graduation. This is needed for the students to understand what they must achieve in order to continue on to college and finish their college preparation requirements.
(Dallas ISD Board Policy Manual, 2016)

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 9 - Original Source of Law: Administrative

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 9 - Original Source of Law: Administrative

# data[].attributes.body
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is in place to protect students. FERPA is very important to keep in mind when assisting students with college preparation. The material that higher education institutions need to make a decision for admission is confidential information and cannot be shared with the institution, or any other individuals, without the consent of the student.

(20 U.S.C. § 1232g)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amendments

2013-Subsec. (b)(1)(L). Pub. L. 112-278, § 2(1), added subpar. (L).

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 112-278, § 2(2), inserted ", except when a parent is a party to a court proceeding involving child abuse and neglect (as defined in section 3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act ( 42 U.S.C. 5101 note)) or dependency matters, and the order is issued in the context of that proceeding, additional notice to the parent by the educational agency or institution is not required" after "educational institution or agency".

2010-Subsec. (b)(1)(K). Pub. L. 111-296, which directed that par. (1) be amended by adding subpar. (K) "at the end", was executed by adding subpar. (K) after subpar. (J), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

2002-Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 107-110, § 1062(3)(A), realigned margins.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 107-110, § 1062(3)(C), substituted "subparagraph (E)" for "clause (E)" in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (b)(1)(J). Pub. L. 107-110, § 1062(3)(B), realigned margins.

Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 107-110, § 1062(3)(D), realigned margins.

2001-Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 107-56 added subsec. (j).

2000-Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 106-386 added par. (7).

1998-Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 105-244, § 951(1), amended subpar. (C) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (C) read as follows: "authorized representatives of (i) the Comptroller General of the United States, (ii) the Secretary, or (iii) State educational authorities, under the conditions set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection;".

Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 105-244, § 951(2), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), substituted "or a nonforcible sex offense, the final results" for "the results", substituted "such crime or offense" for "such crime" in two places, and added subpars. (B) and (C).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 105-244, § 952, added subsec. (i).

1994-Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(1)(A)(ii), added subpar. (B). Former subpar. (B) redesignated (C).

Subsec. (a)(1)(C). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(1)(A)(i), (iii), redesignated subpar. (B) as (C) and substituted "subparagraph (D)" for "subparagraph (C)" in cl. (iii). Former subpar. (C) redesignated (D).

Subsec. (a)(1)(D). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(1)(A)(i), (iv), redesignated subpar. (C) as (D) and substituted "subparagraph (C)" for "subparagraph (B)".

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(1)(B), substituted "privacy rights" for "privacy or other rights".

Subsec. (a)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(1), substituted semicolon for period at end.

Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(2)(A)(i), inserted before semicolon ", including the educational interests of the child for whom consent would otherwise be required".

Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(2)(A), substituted "or (iii)" for "(iii) an administrative head of an education agency (as defined in section 1221e-3(c) of this title), or (iv)".

Subsec. (b)(1)(E). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(2)(A)(ii), amended subpar. (E) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (E) read as follows: "State and local officials or authorities to whom such information is specifically required to be reported or disclosed pursuant to State statute adopted prior to ;".

Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(2)(B), substituted "the Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

Subsec. (b)(1)(J). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(2)(A)(iii) -(v), added subpar. (J).

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(2)(B)(i), which directed amendment of matter preceding subpar. (A) by substituting ", unless-" for the period, was executed by substituting a comma for the period before "unless-" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(2)(B)(ii), inserted "except as provided in paragraph (1)(J)," before "such information".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(2)(C), substituted "or (C)" for "(C) an administrative head of an education agency or (D)" and "education programs" for "education program".

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(2)(C), inserted at end "If a third party outside the educational agency or institution permits access to information in violation of paragraph (2)(A), or fails to destroy information in violation of paragraph (1)(F), the educational agency or institution shall be prohibited from permitting access to information from education records to that third party for a period of not less than five years."

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(3), substituted "Not later than 240 days after , the Secretary shall adopt appropriate regulations or procedures, or identify existing regulations or procedures, which" for "The Secretary shall adopt appropriate regulations to".

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(3), inserted a comma after "education".

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(4), inserted "effectively" before "informs".

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(4), struck out ", or an administrative head of an education agency," after "The Secretary" and substituted "enforce this section" for "enforce provisions of this section", "in accordance with" for "according to the provisions of", and "comply with this section" for "comply with the provisions of this section".

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103-382, § 261(h)(5), struck out "of Health, Education, and Welfare" after "the Department" and "the provisions of" after "adjudicating violations of".

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103-382, § 249(5), added subsec. (h).

1992-Subsec. (a)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 102-325 amended cl. (ii) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (ii) read as follows: "if the personnel of a law enforcement unit do not have access to education records under subsection (b)(1) of this section, the records and documents of such law enforcement unit which (I) are kept apart from records described in subparagraph (A), (II) are maintained solely for law enforcement purposes, and (III) are not made available to persons other than law enforcement officials of the same jurisdiction;".

1990-Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 101-542 added par. (6).

1979-Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 96-46 added par. (5).

1974-Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(1)(A)-(C), (2)(A)-(C), (3), designated existing par. (1) as subpar. (A), substituted reference to educational agencies and institutions for reference to state or local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, community colleges, schools, agencies offering preschool programs, and other educational institutions, substituted the generic term education records for the enumeration of such records, and extended the right to inspect and review such records to parents of children who have been in attendance, and added subpars. (B) and (C).

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(4), substituted provisions making the availability of funds to educational agencies and institutions conditional on the granting of an opportunity for a hearing to parents of students who are or have been in attendance at such institution or agency to challenge the contents of the student's education records for provisions granting the parents an opportunity for such hearing, and inserted provisions authorizing insertion into the records a written explanation of the parents respecting the content of such records.

Subsec. (a)(3) to (6). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(1)(G), (2)(F), (5), added pars. (3) to (6).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(1)(D), (2)(D), (6), (8)(A)-(C), (10)(A), in provisions preceding subpar. (A), substituted "educational agency or institution which has a policy of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a))" for "state or local educational agency, any institution of higher education, any community college, any school, agency offering a preschool program, or any other educational institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of personally identifiable records or files (or personal information contained therein)", in subpar. (A), substituted "educational agency, who have been determined by such agency or institution to have" for "educational agency who have", in subpar. (B), substituted "the student seeks or intends to" for "the student intends to", in subpar. (C), substituted reference to "section 408(c)" for reference to "section 409 of this Act" which for purposes of codification has been translated as " section 1221e-3(c) of this title ", and added subpars. (E) to (I).

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(1)(E), (2)(E), substituted "educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in education records other than directory information, or as is permitted under paragraph (1) of this subsection" for "state or local educational agency, any institution of higher education, any community college, any school, agency offering a preschool program, or any other educational institution which has a policy or practice of furnishing, in any form, any personally identifiable information contained in personal school records, to any persons other than those listed in subsection (b)(1) of this section".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(8)(D), substituted "information is specifically authorized by Federal law, any data collected by such officials shall be protected in a manner which will not permit the personal identification of students and their parents by other than those officials, and such personally identifiable data shall be destroyed when no longer needed for such audit, evaluation, and enforcement of Federal legal requirements" for "data is specifically authorized by Federal law, any data collected by such officials with respect to individual students shall not include information (including social security numbers) which would permit the personal identification of such students or their parents after the data so obtained has been collected".

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(9), substituted provisions that each educational agency or institution maintain a record, kept with the education records of each student, indicating individuals, agencies, or organizations who obtained access to the student's record and the legitimate interest in obtaining such information, that such record of access shall be available only to parents, school officials, and their assistants having responsibility for the custody of such records, and as a means of auditing the operation of the system, for provisions that with respect to subsecs. (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this section, all persons, agencies, or organizations desiring access to the records of a student shall be required to sign forms to be kept with the records of the student, but only for inspection by the parents or the student, indicating specifically the legitimate educational or other interest of the person seeking such information, and that the form shall be available to parents and school officials having responsibility for record maintenance as a means of auditing the operation of the system.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(1)(F), substituted "to any educational agency or institution unless such agency or institution" for "unless the recipient of such funds".

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 93-568, § 2(a)(7), (10)(B), struck out reference to sections 1232c and 1232f of this title and inserted provisions that except for the conduct of hearings, none of the functions of the Secretary under this section shall be carried out in any of the regional offices of such Department.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 U.S. Code § 1232g - Family educational and privacy rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amendments 2013-Subsec. (b)(1)(L). Pub. L. 112-278, § 2(1), added subpar. (L). Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 112-278, § 2(2), inserted ", except when a parent is a party to a court proceeding involving child abuse and neglect (as defined in section 3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act ( 42 U.S.C.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 8 - Original Source of Law: Judicial 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 8 - Original Source of Law: Judicial 

# data[].attributes.body
The Tinker v. Des Moines case ruled that students are still protected under the First Amendment. It is important for students to know this right as they are going into and applying for college.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 7 - Original Source of Law: Statutory

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 7 - Original Source of Law: Statutory

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Education Code provides information regarding Texas state statutes, one of which discusses the uniform admission policy higher education institutions must follow. It is important for students to be aware of this statute, because if they are within the top 10% of their graduating class, they will be automatically accepted into the institution of their choice. This information can be used to motivate students, as well as inform them of their rights under state law.

Tex. Educ. Code § 51.803

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 6 - Original Source of Law: Constitutional 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 6 - Original Source of Law: Constitutional 

# data[].attributes.body
The Tenth Amendment states the states are delegated powers not reserved by the federal government. This means the states  make decisions about and determine the requirements for education.

(U.S. Const. amend. X)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3-12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ATTEST,
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
Amendments 11-27
The U.S. Bill of Rights

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendments 11-27
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
Back to Main Bill of Rights Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

# data[].attributes.body
This news article provided by Higher Ed Dive and written by Natalie Schwartz discusses California, "considering two bills that aim to make it easier for students to obtain four-year degrees" (2021, pp. 1). It is important for students applying to college which colleges will provide them with the degree needed for their chosen degree path. It is also important for the students to know the cost of their degree at their chosen school. It may be better for some students to obtain their bachelor's degree at a community college because of the price of tuition.

Schwartz, N. (2021, March 12). California lawmakers weigh 2 bills to ease students’ path to a bachelor’s. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/california-lawmakers-weigh-2-bills-to-ease-students-path-to-a-bachelors-d/596671/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California lawmakers are considering two bills that aim to make it easier for students to obtain four-year degrees.

One bill would allow community colleges to award bachelor's degrees in high-demand fields, so long as they don't duplicate those offered by California's public universities.Another would bolster an existing program that smooths transfers from two- to four-year colleges.

The pandemic has underscored the need to ease transfer pathways and provide students with more affordable education options.

Dive Insight:

One bill would make permanent a pilot program that allows California community colleges to offer bachelor's degrees. In 2015,lawmakers approved 15 schools to offer 11 programs as part of the test, EdSource reported.

California is one of at least two dozen states that allow community colleges to offer four-year degrees, usually to meet workforce shortages or address educational deserts. States often mandate that these degrees don't compete with public four-year colleges' offerings.

An analysis last year of California's pilot found mixed results. About half of the programs produced graduates who were better prepared for industry roles and needed less on-the-job-training than other candidates.However, small cohort sizes - some of which averaged fewer than 15 students - suggested low student demand for the programs.

The report concluded that "more promising options" exist for community colleges to meet workforce needs, such as adding more short-term training options and improving transfer pathways to four-year universities.

Another legislative proposal aims to smooth transfers by strengthening an existing California initiative, called the Associate Degree for Transfer program.

Lawmakers approved ADT about a decade ago to create associate degree programs that give recipients priority admission and guaranteed junior standing at California State University campuses.

Community colleges have since awarded more than 200,000 ADT degrees. "When (students) know about the pathway, they're super interested," said Audrey Dow, senior vice president at The Campaign for College Opportunity, which helped spearhead the legislation. "They don't need extensive or intrusive counseling about what courses they need to take; it's mapped out for them."

However, most community college graduates aren't earning ADT degrees, according to a report last year from the organization.The new bill would create a committee to set transfer attainment goalsand automatically place students on an ADT pathway if one exists for their major, according to a news release from California Assemblymember Marc Berman, who introduced the proposal.

States that don't ease transfer pathways could lose out to private universities. Southern New Hampshire University, an online megauniversity, struck a deal with Pennsylvania's community colleges last year to allow their students to transfer up to 90 credits toward the school's online bachelor's degrees and receive a 10% tuition discount.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California lawmakers weigh 2 bills to ease students' path to a bachelor's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California lawmakers are considering two bills that aim to make it easier for students to obtain four-year degrees. One bill would allow community colleges to award bachelor's degrees in high-demand fields, so long as they don't duplicate those offered by California's public universities.Another would bolster an existing program that smooths transfers from two- to four-year colleges.

# data[].attributes.body
This news article provided by EducationWeek and written by Mark Walsh discusses the admissions policies. This is important when discussing college preparation with students. They need to be aware of the policies of each of the schools they are interested in. Some schools may participate in "race balancing" rather than admitting students through a race-neutral and fair system (Walsh, 2021, pp. 2). Understanding these policies is important for students, so they can make informed decisions about which schools they apply for.

Walsh, M. (2021, February 25). U.S. Supreme Court is asked to take up Harvard’s consideration of race in admissions. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/u-s-supreme-court-is-asked-to-take-up-harvards-consideration-of-race-in-admissions/2021/02

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Challengers of Harvard University's use of race in admissions on Thursday filed a much-anticipated appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to overrule a key 2003 precedent that has allowed K-12 schools and colleges to sometimes consider race to achieve student body diversity.

"That Harvard engages in racial balancing and ignores race-neutral alternatives ... proves that Harvard does not use race as a last resort," says the appeal filed by Students for Fair Admissions, which argues that the Ivy League institution's admissions policies penalize Asian-American applicants.

The group is appealing a November 2020 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston, which agreed with a trial court that Harvard's use of race was limited and was used to keep Black and Hispanic enrollment from "plummeting."

In its appeal in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, SFFA argues that Harvard is "obsessed with race" and its undergraduate admissions policies amount to "flagrant violations" of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and other factors in federally funded programs.

The group urges the high court to accept review in the case and use it to overrule its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan law school's holistic use of race in admissions and reaffirmed that achieving racial diversity is a compelling governmental interest.

The group called on the court to accept review both because of Harvard's place at the top of the American higher education system but also because of the nationwide importance of the debate over the use of race in education.

"[I]t isn't just any university," the appeal says. "It's Harvard. Harvard has been at the center of the controversy over ethnic- and race-based admissions for nearly a century."

The brief discusses Harvard's restrictions on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and the attention the court gave to Harvard's use of race in the 1970s when it decided the landmark Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, which struck down racial quotas at UC-Davis but endorsed the diversity rationale for race in admissions.

More broadly, the appeal argues, the Grutter decision "sustains admissions programs that intentionally discriminate against historically oppressed minorities. Jewish students were the first victims of holistic admissions, and Asian-Americans are the main victims today."

The appeal continues: "This discrimination is not news to Asian-American high-schoolers: An entire industry exists to help them appear 'less Asian' on their college applications."

The Harvard case is being watched in the K-12 sector both because of its impact in the world of college counseling and admissions and because it may impact the relatively few remaining elementary and secondary programs that take race into account after the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. That ruling sharply curtailed the ways school districts could voluntarily take account of race in assigning students to schools.

In a statement, Harvard said that "as earlier court decisions have confirmed, our admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent. We will continue to vigorously defend the right of Harvard College, and every other college and university in the nation, to seek the educational benefits that come from bringing together a diverse group of students."

Former-President Donald Trump's administration supported SFFA's challenge in the 1st Circuit, but President Joe Biden's administration is not bound by that and would be more likely to support Harvard. In early February, the U.S. Department of Justice dropped a lawsuit against Yale University over the use of race in admissions that the Trump administration had filed.

On Thursday, SFFA filed its own lawsuit challenging Yale's admissions policies as discriminatory against Asian-Americans. Yale has defended its admissions program.

But the Harvard case is much farther along, and the justices could decide by sometime this spring whether to take up the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Supreme Court Is Asked to Take Up Harvard's Consideration of Race in Admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Challengers of Harvard University's use of race in admissions on Thursday filed a much-anticipated appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to overrule a key 2003 precedent that has allowed K-12 schools and colleges to sometimes consider race to achieve student body diversity.

# data[].attributes.body
The American School Counselor Association provides information on a range of topics to assist Professional School Counselors. This specific journal article, found via the ASCA search, is meant to assist school counselors with knowing their role regarding educating all students on college knowledge.
https://schoolcounselor.org/
Poynton, T. A., Lapan, R. T., & Schuyler, S. W. (2021). Reducing Inequality in High School Students’ College Knowledge: The Role of School Counselors. Professional School Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211011894

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This study examined inequalities in college knowledge across the high school years. Twelfth graders had significantly more college knowledge than ninth and 10th graders. Although college knowledge increased during high school among both first- and continuing-generation college-going students, we found significant between-group differences. Continuing-generation students had significantly more college knowledge than first-generation students, and the gap between groups widened across the high school years. School counselors are uniquely positioned within the K-12 education system to address inequalities such as the college knowledge gap through their roles as educators and leaders.

References

American School Counselor Association . (2019). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).
Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46-58). Greenwood.
Google Scholar

Burton, L. M., Welsh, W. (2015). Inequality and opportunity: The role of exclusion, social capital, and generic social processes in upward mobility. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2016/01/Inequality-and-Opportunity-Burton-and-Welsh-William-T.-Grant-Foundation.pdf
Google Scholar

Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., Chen, X. (2018). First generation students: College access, persistence, and postbachelor's outcomes. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf
Google Scholar

Chapman, R. G. (1986). Toward a theory of college selection: A model of college search and choice behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 246-250.
Google Scholar

Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Google Scholar

Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school. Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.
Google Scholar

St. John, E. P., Masse, J. C., Lijana, K. C., Bigelow, V. M. (2015). Left behind: Urban high schools and the failure of market reform. Johns Hopkins University.
Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences . (2014). Web tables: Profile of undergraduate students: 2011-12 (NCES 2015-167). https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015167
Google Scholar

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago.
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reducing Inequality in High School Students' College Knowledge: The Role of School Counselors - Timothy A. Poynton, Richard T. Lapan, Sophie W. Schuyler, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study examined inequalities in college knowledge across the high school years. Twelfth graders had significantly more college knowledge than ninth and 10th graders. Although college knowledge increased during high school among both first- and continuing-generation college-going students, we found significant between-group differences.

# data[].attributes.body
This legal guide is composed of resources and information regarding college preparation requirements. This guide is made to better assist educators with a role in assisting students with college preparation. This may include, but is not limited too, counselors and teachers. This legal guide was made by myself, Jacey Melchiorre, a future professional school counselor. I chose this topic because my goal is to be a high school counselor with my primary goal being to help students attend the college of their choice.