Ajalugu Podcastid

Jõustub võrdsete haridusvõimaluste seadus

Jõustub võrdsete haridusvõimaluste seadus



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Võrdsete haridusvõimaluste seadus jõustub 21. augustil 1974. Uus seadus käsitles kodanikuõiguste küsimusi hariduses, keelates riikidel diskrimineerida õpilasi soo, rassi, nahavärvi või rahvuse alusel ning kohustas riigikooli hoolitsema nende õpilaste eest, kes seda ei tee. räägi inglise keeles.

EEOA oli paljuski 1964. aasta kodanikuõiguste seaduse pikendus, mis keelas rassilise diskrimineerimise nii koolides kui ka ettevõtetes ja keelas koolide eraldamise. Kodanikuõiguste seadus oli Ameerika Ühendriikide ajaloo üks olulisemaid õigusakte, kuid see ei lõpetanud üksinda avaliku hariduse diskrimineerimist. Peale kuulsa lõunapoolse segregatsiooni vastase kampaania "Massive Resistance" jätkasid koolid jätkuvalt ebaõnnestumisi rassivähemusi ja õpilasi, kelle jaoks inglise keel ei olnud nende esimene keel.

EEOA kohustas koole vastu võtma õpilasi olenemata rahvusest ja pakkuma piisavaid vahendeid õpilastele, kes ei osanud inglise keelt. Tegelikult tähendas see, et koolid peavad nüüd pakkuma nii inglise keele tunde muukeelsetele kui ka teiste ainete tunde, mida õpetatakse õpilaste emakeeles. Hilisemad ülemkohtu juhtumid selgitasid seaduse täielikku ulatust. 1974. aastal otsustas kohus, et EEOA kohustas koole pakkuma õpilaste emakeelte tunde, samal ajal kui nad õppisid inglise keelt teise keelena. 1982. aastal otsustas ta, et EEOA alusel ei ole dokumentideta õpilastel mitte ainult õigust käia riigikoolides, vaid nad peavad seda tegema, nagu kõik Ameerika lapsed.

Tänu EEOA-le pakuvad koolid üle riigi nüüd lisaks inglise keele õpetamisele muukeelsetele ka teisi keeli peale inglise keele. Seadus pakkus ka seaduslikku abi riiklikes koolides diskrimineerimise ees seisvatele õpilastele, tugevdades oluliselt kodanikuõiguste ajastul tehtud edusamme.

LOE LISAKS: Mendezi perekond võitles kooli eraldamisega 8 aastat enne Browni vers. Board of Ed


Iga üliõpilase edu seadus (ESSA)

President Obama allkirjastas iga õpilase edu seaduse (ESSA) 10. detsembril 2015 ja see on hea uudis meie rahva koolidele. See kahepoolne meede volitab uuesti 50-aastase alg- ja keskhariduse seaduse (ESEA), riigi riikliku haridusseaduse ja pikaajalise pühendumise kõigi õpilaste võrdsetele võimalustele.

Uus seadus tugineb viimaste aastate edusammude võtmevaldkondadele, mis on saanud võimalikuks kogu riigi haridustöötajate, kogukondade, vanemate ja õpilaste jõupingutuste tõttu.

Näiteks täna on keskkooli lõpetamise määr kõigi aegade kõrgeim. Väljalangevus on ajalooliselt madalal. Ja rohkem üliõpilasi läheb ülikooli kui kunagi varem. Need saavutused annavad kindla aluse edasiseks tööks haridusvõimaluste laiendamiseks ja õpilaste tulemuste parandamiseks ESSA raames.

Seaduse eelmine versioon, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) seadus, võeti vastu 2002. aastal. NCLB kujutas endast meie riigi laste jaoks mitmes mõttes olulist sammu edasi, eriti kuna see heitis valgust sellele, kus õpilased edenevad ja kus nad vajasid täiendavat tuge olenemata rassist, sissetulekust, postiindeksist, puudest, kodukeelest või taustast. Seadus oli kavas läbi vaadata 2007. aastal ning aja jooksul muutusid NCLB ettekirjutavad nõuded koolide ja haridustöötajate jaoks üha teostamatumaks. Seda fakti tunnistades ühines Obama administratsioon 2010. aastal haridustöötajate ja perekondade üleskutsega luua parem seadus, mis keskenduks selgele eesmärgile valmistada kõik õpilased täielikult ette ülikoolis ja karjääris edu saavutamiseks.

Kongress on nüüd sellele kutsele vastanud.

Iga õpilase edu seadus peegeldab paljusid selle administratsiooni prioriteete.


Võimaluste võrdsus

Ameerika pole veel see riik, mille poole ta püüab jõuda, ja kus kõik, kes on valmis kõvasti tööd tegema, pääsevad edasi, liituvad jõudsa keskklassiga ja elavad täisväärtuslikku elu. Meie riik ammutab suure osa oma tugevusest oma põhiväärtusest kui võimaluste maast. Kuid tänapäeval on majanduslik liikuvus paljudes teistes riikides tegelikult suurem. Vaatamata sellele väljakutsele teame, kuidas lahenduse poole püüelda: juurdepääs maailmatasemel haridusele võib aidata tagada, et kõik selle riigi lapsed, kellel on unistused ja otsusekindlus, suudavad oma potentsiaali saavutada ja edu saavutada.

Kuid liiga paljudel õpilastel, eriti alateenitud rühmades ja kogukondades, puudub kindel juurdepääs kvaliteetse hariduse põhielementidele. See hõlmab tasuta, kvaliteetseid eelkooliealisi kõrgeid, väljakutsuvaid standardeid ning kaasavat õpetamist ja juhtimist turvalises, toetavas ja hästi varustatud koolis ning taskukohast ja kvaliteetset kõrgharidust.

Väljakutse

Hariduse võrdsuse tagamise väljakutse on tohutu. Meie riigi rahvusvahelised konkurendid paranevad kiiremini kui meie hariduses ja paljudel on suurem edu saavutuste puudujääkide likvideerimisel, mis jäävad Ameerika Ühendriikides kangekaelseks. Struktuurilised tõkked, sealhulgas ebavõrdsed rahastamissüsteemid, takistavad meie edusamme. Kuigi võib eeldada, et madala sissetulekuga kogukondade koolid saavad lisavahendeid, on sageli vastupidi, haridusministeeriumi uuringust selgus, et 45 protsenti kõrge vaesusega koolidest said vähem riiklikku ja kohalikku rahastust, kui oli tüüpiline nende piirkonna teistele koolidele.

Samuti teame, et traditsiooniliselt alateenitud üliõpilased, sealhulgas vähemused ja madala sissetulekuga üliõpilased, õpivad ja lõpetavad kolledži palju madalama hinnaga kui nende eakaaslased. Need õpilased katkestatakse, heidetakse riigist välja ja nad langevad välja kõrgema määraga ning neil on vähem juurdepääsu tugevatele õpetajatele ja keerulistele õppekavadele. Vaid ühe silmatorkava näitena leiti hiljutises arvutiteaduse edasijõudnute eksami uuringus, et 11 osariigis ei teinud kaheksas osariigis eksamit ükski afroameerika õpilane ega osalenud hispaanlastest õpilastes.

Tunnistades neid erinevusi, Obama administratsioon on pühendunud hariduse võrdsuse edendamisele. See kohustus on USA haridusministeeriumi peaaegu iga olulise tegevuse aluseks. Oleme selles töös motiveeritud, sest tunneme hariduse jõudu elu muuta.

Keskenduge hariduslikule võrdsusele

Viimase seitsme aasta jooksul on Obama administratsioon võidelnud oma peamiste haridusalgatuste kaudu alateenitud õpilaste tulemuste parandamise nimel, toetades riike nende püüdlustes tagada kvaliteetne õpetamine igas klassiruumis, tõstes kõigi õpilaste jaoks standardeid, et luua süsteeme, mis parandavad õpetamist ja parandavad oluliselt esinevad koolid.

Nende eesmärkide aluseks on ka põhilised valemitoetuse programmid, näiteks need, mida rahastatakse I jaotise ja puuetega inimeste haridusseaduse (IDEA) kaudu, samuti selle administratsiooni väljatöötatud konkurentsiprogrammid, sealhulgas lubadustega naabruskonnad ja innovatsiooni investeerimine.

Uus iga õpilase edu seadus tugineb selle administratsiooni paljudele prioriteetidele ja sisaldab sätteid, mis aitavad tagada õpilastele ja koolidele edu. Lisaks on presidendi võimaluste ja lubaduste tsoonide algatuste eesmärk kiire ja positiivne muutus kontsentreeritud vaesusega kogukondades. 2015. aastal eraldas administratsioon esmakordselt rahastust põliselanike kogukondade projektidele, et aidata Ameerika põliselanike ja Alaska põliselanike kogukondadel tuvastada ja ületada peamised tõkked põlisnoorte haridus- ja elutulemuste parandamisel.

Fondid, mis toetavad madala sissetulekuga ja puudega üliõpilasi (sealhulgas Pell Grants, mis aitab peredel kolledži endale lubada), moodustavad umbes kolm neljandikku osakonna jagatud vahenditest. Paljud osakonna põhitegevused, näiteks kodanikuõigusi käsitlevate seaduste ja määruste jõustamine, on samuti otseselt suunatud õigluse parandamisele. Sellega seoses on administratsioon saanud kasu võrdõiguslikkuse ja tipptaseme komisjoni juhistest, presidendi algatuse „Minu venna hoidja” tööst, mille eesmärk on tagada paremad tulemused kõigile noortele, eriti noortele ja värvilistele meestele ja poistele ning valgetele Naiste ja tüdrukute koja nõukogu.

2014. aastal avaldas haridus- ja justiitsministeerium esmakordselt juhiste ja ressursimaterjalide paketi, mille eesmärk on tagada koolides suurem võrdsus, aidates linnaosadel ja haridustöötajatel tegeleda tõrjutava distsipliini liigse kasutamisega ja ebaproportsionaalsete distsipliinimääradega värviliste ja õpilaste jaoks. puudega. 2015. aasta juulis toetas Valge Maja seda jõupingutust, võõrustades murrangulisel konverentsil kogu riigi ülemate, direktorite ja õpetajate meeskondi, et edendada riiklikku vestlust positiivse koolikliima üle.

Osaliselt tänu nendele pingutustele teevad Ameerika õpilased olulisi edusamme.

Edusammud õpilastele

  • Õpetatakse rohkem õpilasi kui kunagi varem kõrgkooli- ja karjäärivalmid standardid, ja kvaliteetne eelkool ja kõrgharidus on rohkemate perede jaoks käeulatuses.
  • Meie keskkooli lõpetamise määr on kõigi aegade kõrgeim (82 protsenti), mis on paranenud puuetega õpilastele, inglise keele õppijatele ja teistele traditsiooniliselt puudulikele õpilastele.
  • Meie keskkoolist väljalangevus on järjepideva languse järel ajalooliselt madalal. Suurim edasiminek on olnud vähemuste seas.
  • Kolledž on jätkuvalt parim investeering, mida inimesed saavad oma tulevikku teha. Kolledži registreerimine mustanahalistele ja hispaanlastest õpilastele on 2008. aastaga võrreldes kasvanud rohkem kui miljoni võrra.

Omakapitali suurendamise toetus 2017. eelarveaasta eelarves

2017. aasta eelarve toetab jätkuvalt kõigi õpilaste laiendatud haridusvõimalusi kolmes põhivaldkonnas: kvaliteetne varajane õpe, tugevamad ja mitmekesisemad koolid ning parem juurdepääs tõenditele ja andmetele, et juhtida teadlikke otsuseid ja õpilaste paremaid tulemusi.

  • Uuendatud üleskutse kehtestada president Obama kohustuslik, 75 miljardi dollari suurune eelkoolieelne ettepanek, mis pakuks universaalseid kvaliteetseid koolieelseid programme kõigile madala ja keskmise sissetulekuga perede 4-aastastele lastele
  • Eelarve sisaldab ka:
    • 350 miljonit dollarit vabatahtlikku rahastamist tervishoiu- ja inimteenuste osakonnaga ühiselt hallatavate koolieelsete arengutoetuste programmi jaoks. See summa sisaldab 2016. aasta kehtestatud tasemel täiendavat 100 miljonit dollarit, et toetada 18 riigi jõupingutusi kvaliteetse koolieelse lasteasutuse laiendamiseks.
    • 80 miljoni dollari suurune tõus võrreldes 2016. aasta kehtestatud tasemega puuetega laste koolieelsetele ja varajase sekkumise teenustele IDEA koolieelsete toetuste ja IDEA imikute ja väikelaste programmi kaudu.

    Kohaliku innovatsiooni toetamine tugevamate ja mitmekesisemate koolide loomiseks


    Võimaluste lüngad tulemuste lünkade all

    Sellegipoolest võiks väita, et nende täiustatud võimaluste registreerumise erinevused peegeldavad midagi, mida õpilased kooli toovad, mitte võimalusi, mida koolid pakuvad. Naelutada punkti, et ebavõrdsus võimalus on probleem, tahan vaadata kättesaadavuse küsimusi. Tuleb märkida, et kui õpilane käib koolis, mis isegi AP -kursust ei paku, on üsna selge, et lünkade probleem on pigem võimaluste kui õpilaste valik.

    Keskne küsimus on muidugi see, et mustvalged õpilased ei käi samades koolides. Suures osas jäävad koolid alles tegelikult eraldi. (Aruteluks vaadake tahvli postitusi siin, siin, siin ja siin.) Viimane kodanikuõiguste haridusameti andmete kogumise aruanne sisaldab teavet peaaegu 25 000 keskkoolist (meie jaoks määratletud kui koolid, sealhulgas 12. klass). Umbes 15 protsenti õpilastest on mustanahalised, kuid 40 protsenti mustanahalistest õpilastest on enamus-mustanahalistes koolides ja ainult 24 protsenti mustanahalistest õpilastest käib enamus-valgete koolides. Oli aeg, mil paljud arvasid, et “eraldi, kuid võrdsed” on elujõulised. Kas võimalused meie endiselt suures osas eraldi koolides on nüüd võrdsed?

    Vaid 36 protsenti gümnaasiumidest, kus enamik õpilasi on mustanahalised, pakuvad arvutamise kursust. Seevastu 60 protsenti enamuse valgete koolidest pakub arvutusi. Raske on mõista, kuidas see võrdseid võimalusi annab.


    Võrdsete võimaluste tagamine avalikus hariduses

    Tugev rahvusvaheline konkurents, millega meie riik tänapäeva globaalses majanduses silmitsi seisab, nõuab, et kõik Ameerika ja rsquose noored saaksid sellist haridust, mida nad vajavad ja väärivad. Ometi on meie avalik haridussüsteem meid alt vedanud.

    Selle purunenud süsteemi parandamiseks peavad USA silmitsi seisma tõsiasjaga, et ebavõrdsus vaevab jätkuvalt meie riigikooli. Selle üks kahjulikumaid ilminguid on see, et kohaliku koolipiirkonna rahastamine eraldatakse viisil, mis teeb haiget vaestele ja vähemusrahvusega õpilastele. Thomas B. õpilastest. & quot

    Selliste tavade tulemus on ennustatav: tänapäeval Ameerika koolides endeemiliseks muutunud ohtliku saavutuste lõhe edasine laienemine. Õnneks võib arukas föderaalpoliitika aidata seda olukorda parandada.

    Selle köite neli dokumenti uurivad võib -olla kõige olulisemat osa sellest, et USA haridusressursid ja mdashinequality ei vasta kohalike koolide rahastamisele nende oma linnaosade poolt. Üleriigiliselt moodustavad kohalikud koolipiirkonnad umbes 50 protsenti kõigist avalike koolide tegevuskuludest, mis tähendab, et neil linnaosade ja rsquo eelarvestamise tavadel on suurem otsene mõju kui osariigi või föderaalse hariduse investeeringutel. Kaudselt aga aktsepteerivad ja on ajalooliselt toetanud kohalike koolipiirkondade koolide rahastamise viisi kaudsed kehtivad föderaalsed õigusaktid. Lühidalt öeldes suurendavad föderaalsed hariduse rahastamise nõuded olemasolevat ebavõrdsust hariduses kohalikul tasandil.

    See juhtub 1965. aasta põhi- ja keskharidusseaduse I jaotise keele tõttu, nn "võrreldavuse säte", mis pidi edendama hariduse võrdsust, kuid tegelikult seda ei tee. Selle põhiidee on see, et riiklikud ja kohalikud koolide rahalised vahendid peaksid olema õiglased, enne kui föderaalsed I jaotise rahalised vahendid lisatakse koolidesse, kus on vähese sissetulekuga õpilasi. Võrreldavuse säte sisaldab aga ka seda, mida mõned meist nimetavad "auklikuks", mis võimaldab jätkata kohalike vahendite ebavõrdset jaotamist.

    Täpsemalt öeldes on linnaosad oma koolidele ajalooliselt raha eraldanud mitte igale koolile dollarisumma andmisega, vaid hoopis koolidele & quotstaff & quot vahendite eraldamisega. Nagu Marguerite Roza selles köites märgib, määratakse enamik õpetajatest ja muudest täistööajaga ekvivalentidest registreeritud töötajate arvu alusel. Valem võib näiteks kutsuda õpetaja iga 25 õpilase kohta. Probleem tekib siis, kui töötajate täistööajale taandatud töötajad tõlgitakse reaalseteks dollariteks. & Quot

    Erinevus tegelikes koolikuludes on sageli märkimisväärne, kuna õpetajate ja töötajate palgad põhinevad nende kogemustel ja teenitud ainepunktidel või kraadidel ning kuna kõrge vaesusega koolides on palju vähem kogenud, madalama palgaga õpetajaid ja palju rohkem käivet kui madala vaesusega koolides. Roza leidis oma uurimuses Baltimore'is ja sellest, et kui ühe väga vaeses naabruskonnas asuva kooli õpetajale maksti keskmiselt 37 618 dollarit, siis samas linnaosa teises koolis oli keskmine õpetaja ja teenusepakkuja palk 57 000 dollarit. " kool ja mdashsay 20 & mdasht kahe kooli jaoks saadaolevate dollarite erinevus on 387 640 dollarit.

    Kõrgepalgaliste õpetajate ülekandmine vastu tahtmist kulude katmiseks tundub mõttetu, kuid kui selline lisaraha oleks kõrge vaesusega koolile kättesaadav, on sellel palju häid kasutusvõimalusi, sealhulgas kapten- ja mentorõpetajate palkamine treeneriteks, boonuste pakkumine värbamiseks ja säilitada tõhusad õpetajad ning pikendada koolipäeva või -aastat, et pikendada õpilaste õpiaega. See on aga keeruline teema, nagu võiks eeldada eelarvelistest protsessidest, mis hõlmavad kohalikku, osariigi ja föderaalset rahastamist tuhandete koolipiirkondade vahel üle kogu riigi. See on põhjus, miks me selles aruannete paketis esitame:

    • Põhi- ja keskhariduse seaduse I jaotise ajalugu ja selle võrreldavuse säte
    • Võrreldavuse sätte ootamatud tagajärjed praktikas
    • I jaotise parandamise viisid
    • Viise, kuidas neid parandusi positiivsete tulemustega rakendada

    Kui kehtestataks mõistlikum I jaotise võrreldavuse säte, pole kahtlustki, et kohalikud koolipiirkonnad peaksid muutma oma koolide rahastamise jaotamise ja arvestamise viisi, mis tagaks aja jooksul õiglasema ja õiglasema kohaliku hariduse rahastamise. protsess jõuaks üle kogu riigi. See oleks suur samm Ameerika koolide rahanduse purunenud süsteemi parandamisel ja kõlaks läbi Ameerika koolide koridoride, kuna ebasoodsas olukorras olevad õpilased said haridusvõimalused, mida neil on vaja tänapäeva ja globaalse majandusega konkureerimiseks.

    Kuidas me jõudsime sinna, kus oleme täna

    Üle 40 aasta tähistasid föderaalsed poliitikakujundajad ja hariduse eestkõnelejad 1965. aasta alg- ja keskhariduse seadust, eriti I jaotist, mis koos 1964. aasta kodanikuõiguste seaduse VI jaotisega kuulutas föderaalvalitsuse uut olulist rolli ja garanteeris võrdsed haridusvõimalused üleriigiline. Ja mõnda aega oli põhjust tähistada, kuna föderaalvalitsus ja uued föderaalse hariduse põhikirjad andsid haridusjuhtidele võimaluse hoolitseda selle eest, et üha enam ebasoodsas olukorras Ameerika lapsi saaksid väärilise hariduse.

    Võrdse hariduse garantiid pole kunagi täielikult realiseeritud, kuigi föderaalvalitsus ei ole kunagi kõigutanud võrdsete võimaluste edendamist hariduses. Kahjuks ei ole seda võrdse hariduse garantiid kunagi täielikult realiseeritud, kuigi föderaalvalitsus ei ole kunagi kõigutanud võrdsete võimaluste edendamist hariduses. Nagu paljud analüütikud on dokumenteerinud, vaatamata föderaalsele abile koolidele, kus on palju vaeseid õpilasi, saavad koolid ja linnaosad, kus on palju madala sissetulekuga õpilasi, jätkuvalt vähem kui nende õiglane osa rahast, mis põhineb õpilaste vajadustel ja madalkohal ning riigi ja detsentraliseeritud avaliku süsteemi vahel. haridus.

    Föderaalvalitsus jagab küll I jaotise raha vaesuse alusel, kuid teeb seda valemi kaudu, mis ühendab vaesuses olevate laste arvu ja osariigi kulutused õpilase kohta. See tava karistab madala maksubaasiga riike isegi siis, kui nad maksavad end hariduse eest suhteliselt tugevalt. Paljud osariigid on välja töötanud õiglasemad riiklikud rahastamissüsteemid, mis on sageli tingitud aastatepikkustest kohtuvaidlustest riigikohtutes. Kuid nagu selle köite paberid näitavad, on kohalike koolipiirkondade ebavõrdses vormis oma koole rahastatud vähe.

    Peaaegu kõik suured koolipiirkonnad (mõnikord teadmatult) kulutavad rohkem dollareid personalile ja teenustele koolides, kus on vähem sissetulekuid. Arvestades 50-protsendilist kohalikku osa avalike koolide rahastamisest, on sellel nn piirkondadevahelisel ebavõrdsusel traagilised tagajärjed, mida kinnitab ka paljude vaeste õpilastega koolide õpilaste tavaliselt madalam tulemus. See pole muutunud isegi pärast seda, kui 1990ndate keskel kehtestati üleriigiliselt uus standardipõhine avaliku hariduse raamistik.

    See uus lähenemine avalikule haridusele nõudis kõigile õpilastele kõrgeid õppimisootusi. Hiljem muutus see reaalseks, kui võeti vastu riiklikud õigusaktid ja võeti 1994. aastal alg- ja keskharidusseadus uuesti kasutusele uue nimega „Improving America & rsquos School Act“ uue nimega „Improving America & rsquos School Act“ uue eesmärgi 2000 kehtestamise kõrval, mis nõudis osariigilt range õppekava vastuvõtmist. standardid ja uued riiklikud testid, et mõõta õpilaste tulemusi nende standardite alusel. Seejärel, 2001. aastal, tõi järgmine hariduse taasluba meile seaduse, mis ei jäta lapsi maha, mille president Bush kirjutas alla seadusele 2002. aastal. NCLB kehtestas karmid tulemuslikkuse standardid, mis nõuavad, et kõik õpilased peavad 2014. aastaks olema matemaatika- ja lugemisoskus. pidid hindama igal aastal 3. – 8. klassi õpilasi ja andma aru oma tulemustest alamrühmade kaupa, sealhulgas madala sissetulekuga perede õpilaste kohta.

    Põhi- ja keskhariduse seaduse NCLB täiendamise presidendi- ja kongressimotivatsioon oli survestada riiklikke ja kohalikke hariduspoliitika kujundajaid, et nad keskenduksid ebasoodsas olukorras olevate õpilaste haridusvajadustele ja õpitulemustele. pered, kelle emakeel ei olnud inglise keel, või puudega õpilased. Föderaalvalitsus suurendas paar aastat pärast NCLB seaduse vastuvõtmist oluliselt oma toetust kõrge vaesusega koolidele. Kuid osariikide ja kohalikud poliitikakujundajad ei tasandanud kunagi oma vahenditega haridusalaseid mänguväljakuid ning föderaalvalitsus ei surunud neid seda tegema.

    Tulemus: kõrge ja madala vaesusega koolide ebavõrdne rahastamine jätkub kohalike, osariigi ja föderaalsete vahenditega. Pole ime, et saavutuste lüngad tunduvad mõnikord lahendamatud.

    Kuigi kahju langeb kõige enam madala sissetulekuga õpilastele, on ebaõiglus nende õpilaste koolide töökaste õpetajate, direktorite ja muude töötajate suhtes peaaegu sama traagiline. On põhimõtteliselt ebaõiglane pidada koolitajaid vastutavaks NCLB ühtsete kõrgete standardite saavutamise eest, kui neile pakutavad rahalised vahendid on nii ebavõrdsed. Kuid nii õpilasi, õpetajaid kui ka administraatoreid julgustav on see, et föderaalsed seadusandjad saavad neid ebavõrdsusi parandada, kui nad võtavad aega, et mõista oma osariikides ja kongressipiirkondades esinevaid keerulisi probleeme, ning seejärel tegutseda mõne valitud kooli poolt juba õpitud õppetunni põhjal linnaosad katsetavad nüüd uusi võimalusi hariduse rahastamiseks.

    Lahendustee

    Selles köites vaatavad meie neli autorit praktiliselt kõiki föderaalse ja kohaliku "võrreldavuse" küsimusi. Kuigi igaüks on suurte muutuste pooldaja, ei nõustu nad alati oma analüüside või eelistatud tegevussuunaga. See ei ole probleemi laialdast ulatust arvestades üllatav ega soovitav. Kõige julgustavam on aga see, et nende argumentide loogika viitab sarnastele poliitilistele järeldustele.

    Esimene artikkel "Hariduste võrreldavuse ajalugu 1965. aasta põhi- ja keskhariduse seaduse I jaotises" ning quotes, mille on koostanud sõltumatu konsultant ja ESEA I jaotise kauaaegne üliõpilane Phyllis McClure pärast selle vastuvõtmist ning järjekindel I jaotise täiustamise eestkõneleja. McClure jälgib 1965. aasta I jaotise kehtestamise ümber peetud arutelu ajalugu ja selle varajase rakendamisega seotud probleeme, mis viisid kongressi 1970. aastal lisama võrreldavuse sätte ja muud sätted I jaotise haridusvahendite kulutamise karmistamiseks. .

    Seejärel arutab McClure esialgseid föderaalseid jõupingutusi võrreldavuse sätte jõustamiseks 1970ndatel ja 1980ndatel, millele järgnes 20 -aastane leebe jõustamine ja seejärel hiljutisem uuesti tähelepanu jõustamisele. Lõpetuseks kirjeldab ta koolide rahastamise praegust konteksti ja selle seost võrreldavuse sättega ning esitab seejärel soovitused I jaotise vahendite eelarve terviklikkuse tagamiseks.

    Teise dokumendi "Võrdlusvõime tugevdamine: võrdsuse edendamine avalikus hariduses" on koostanud haridussüsteemi programmi ja poliitika asepresident Ross Wiener. Wiener käsitleb oma artiklis võrreldavuse sätte tähtsust ja puudusi. Ta kirjeldab üksikasjalikult, kuidas I jaotise nõrgad võrreldavussätted võimaldavad rahastamislünki jätkuda, esitades mitmeid näiteid kohalikest koolipiirkondadest.

    Seejärel selgitab Wiener, miks see nii kahjulik on, ja hakkab arutama olulisi ja positiivseid muudatusi võrreldavuse sätetes, mis sisaldusid haridus - ja töökomisjoni esimehe avaldatud laste puudumise tagamise seaduse uuesti loa andmise ettepaneku "arutelu eelnõus". , Esindaja George Miller (D-CA) ja komitee paremusjärjestuse liige. Rep. Howard P. McKeon (R-CA) 2007. aasta suvel. Wiener lõpetab soovitustega võrreldavuse tagamise tugevdamiseks.

    Kolmas artikkel "Mis siis, kui me sulgeksime I jaotise võrreldavuse lünga?" On Marguerite Roza, Washingtoni ülikooli avaliku hariduse taasloomise keskuse teadusdotsent. Tema uurimuses uuritakse, miks praegune võrreldavuse säte jääb vajalikust alla ja selle muutmise põhjuseid. Ta arutleb, miks föderaalne juhtimine on oluline, ja toob välja eelarve ja rahastamise kaalutlused, mida tuleb muudatuste tegemisel arvesse võtta. Seejärel uurib Roza nende kavandatud muudatuste tõenäolist mõju kõrge vaesusega koolidele. Lõpuks soovitab ta, et parim viis I jaotise võrreldavuse suuniste esialgse eesmärgi taastamiseks on nõuda, et koolipiirkonnad enne föderaalsete vahendite vastuvõtmist võrdsustaksid ühe õpilase dollari kohta tehtud kulutused. Sel viisil saab föderaalvalitsus olla ennetav ilma mikromajanduseta lugematu hulga kohalike koolipiirkondade eelarvestamisprotsesse.

    Lõputöö "Koolide võrdne rahastamine: tulemustel põhinev eelarvestamine Oaklandi ühtses koolipiirkonnas" on Matt Hill, Oaklandi ühtse koolipiirkonna strateegiliste projektide tegevjuht Oaklandis, Californias. Hill uurib, miks "Oakland Unified" otsustas muuta iga oma kooli rahastamise viisi, kuidas laialivalguv koolipiirkond seda protsessi juhtis ja kogemuste asjakohasust I jaotise võrreldavuse sätete reformimisel.

    Hill pakub põhjalikku ülevaadet Oaklandi koolipiirkonna ja rsquose ajaloost ning eelarvereformi strateegiast ning seejärel süveneb üksikasjalikku selgitusse Oaklandi ühtse ja rsquose niinimetatud tulemustepõhise eelarvestamise kohta ning selle poolest, kuidas see protsess erineb teistest õiglastest rahastamise jaotamise mudelitest, mida kasutatakse kogu riigis. ja Kanadas. Seejärel arutab ta tulemuspõhise eelarvestamise rakendamist ning seejärel tulemusi, väljakutseid ja teel saadud õppetunde.

    Hill lõpetab soovitustega, mida föderaal- ja osariigi ametivõimud peaksid kaaluma, kui nad kavandavad poliitikat, mis aitab kohalikel koolipiirkondadel tegeleda traditsiooniliste rahastamismudelite põhjustatud ebavõrdsusega. Ja tema järeldused on olulised, sest Oakland Unified on ainus kohalik koolipiirkond riigis, kes rakendab täielikult kõigi oma koolide õiglast rahastamist kooli ja õpilase kohta.

    Hill ja ülejäänud kolm autorit jõuavad ühtsetele järeldustele föderaalvalitsuse ebaefektiivsete ja ebavõrdsete hariduskulude kohta I jaotise koolidele. Veelgi olulisem on see, et igaüks osutab erineval moel lahendusele keerulisele eelarveküsimusele, mis on meie halvasti toimivate riigikoolide peamine rahastamise põhjus. Üheskoos annavad need neli paberit hindamatu panuse arutellu selle üle, kuidas parandada meie avalikku koolisüsteemi. Nad näitavad teed järgmisele administratsioonile ja järgmisele kongressile, et määrata kindlaks I jaotise koolide föderaalne rahastamine. Kõigi Ameerika laste ja meie riigi tuleviku jaoks võivad need muutused tulla liiga vara.


    Poliitika

    Ameerika Ühendriikides inglise keelt alustavate laste keele- ja hariduspoliitika jätkub peaaegu spontaanselt. Tundub, et seda mõjutavad otsesed sotsiaalsed, poliitilised ja majanduslikud tegurid. 2000. aasta rahvaloenduse andmed on näidanud, et 5–17 -aastaste laste arv, kes räägivad muud keelt kui inglise keel, on võrreldes eelmise 1990. aasta loendusega kasvanud üle 54%. See teave pärineb enese teatatud keelekasutusest ja -oskusest ning andmete tõlgendamine keele- ja hariduspoliitika kujundajate poolt on alles hakanud tekkima. Poliitikakujundajad kasutavad neid andmeid tõenäoliselt keele- ja hariduspoliitika kujundamiseks, muutmiseks ja kehtestamiseks, mis mõjutab lapsi, kelle jaoks inglise keel on uus keel. Selline poliitika mõjutab lõppkokkuvõttes klassiruumi praktikat ja inglise keele õppijate (ELL) haridusviise kogu Ameerika Ühendriikides.

    Alates 1990. aastast on ELL-i üliõpilaste arv USAs kasvanud 95%, samas kui kooliealine elanikkond on kasvanud vaid 12% (Northeast and Islands, 2003). Kuigi Ameerika Ühendriikidel ei ole ametlikku riigikeelepoliitikat, mis kirjeldaks konkreetseid keelepoliitikaid ja tavasid koolide jaoks, on paljud osariigid vastu võtnud keelepoliitika õigusaktid, mis tagavad inglise keele staatuse teiste keelte ees. Hispaania keelt kõnelejad moodustavad ligikaudu 60% Ameerika Ühendriikide ELL -ide koguarvust.

    See veebisait on pühendatud praeguste keele- ja hariduspoliitikate uurimisele, rõhutades, kuidas neid poliitikaid praktikas rakendada. Oleme esile toonud järgmised valdkonnad:

    • Õiguslik põhjendus inglise keele õppijaid kaitsva poliitika kehtestamiseks ja rakendamiseks
    • ELL -i poliitika väljatöötamise demograafiline tähtsus maakoolide jaoks
    • Juhised plaani koostamiseks, mis sisaldab kooli/linnaosa valmisoleku näitajaid, ELL -i tuvastamist, hindamist, tugisüsteeme, väljumiskriteeriume ja poliitika mõju mõõtmist.

    Õiguslik põhjendus

    Alus ELL -ide võrdsele juurdepääsule õppimisele sai alguse 1964. aasta kodanikuõiguste seadusest. Ülemkohtu arvamused, pretsedendiõigus ja selle seaduse vastuvõtmise järgsed kongressitoimingud on tugevdanud õiguslikku põhjendust tagada, et ELL -id saavad oma õigustele vastava hariduse. keelelised ja akadeemilised vajadused. Nende kaitsete abil selgitatakse pidevalt välja õpetamistavade rakendamist, mis tagavad kõigile ELL -dele võrdse juurdepääsu avalikult toetatud programmidele ja tavadele. Koolid on seotud õigusnormidega, mis toetavad inglise keele õppijaid.

    Kooliealiste inglise keele õppijate haridusõigusi on tagatud alates 19. sajandist toimunud seadusandlike aktide ja kohtulahenditega (vt õigusnormid). Järgmine Mid-Atlandi aktsiakeskuse teave on juriidiliste verstapostide põhiline ajakava:

    Ameerika Ühendriikide põhiseadus - neljateistkümnes muudatus: üheltki isikult ei keelata Ameerika Ühendriikide seaduste kaitset.

    Kodanikuõiguse seadus - VI jaotis: "Kedagi ei tohi rassilise, nahavärvilise või rahvusliku päritolu tõttu ära jätta ega diskrimineerida mis tahes programmi või tegevuse tõttu, mis saab föderaalset finantsabi."

    Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA): This act states that schools need to take appropriate measures to overcome language barriers that impede students' participation in programs.

    Supreme Court Case -- Lau v. Nichols: The court ruled that giving all students the same desks, books, teachers, and lessons does not mean that they have equal opportunity, especially if there are students who do not speak English.

    Federal Court Case -- Serna v. Portales: The court ascertained that Spanish surnamed individuals did not reach the same achievement levels as non-Spanish surnamed peers. The court ordered the Portales Municipal School District to design and implement a bilingual and bicultural program.

    Federal Court Case -- Castaneda v. Pickard:The Fifth Circuit Court established a three-part test to determine if school districts are complying with the EEOA of 1974. The requirements include:

    1. Theory - The school must implement a program based on sound educational theory or, at a minimum, a legitimate experimental program design.
    2. Practice - The school district must put into practice the educational program they have designed. They must allocate the necessary personnel and practices to transfer theory to practice.
    3. Results - The school must stop programs that fail to produce results.

    Supreme Court Case - Plyler v. Doe: The court ruled that schools cannot deny students access simply because they are undocumented (illegal) aliens. In other words, the schools are not agencies or agents for enforcing immigration law.

    Federal Court Case - Gomez v. Illinois: The court ruled that the State Educational Agencies must also comply with the three-point test established in Castaneda v. Pickard.

    No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 - This act makes federal funding for states dependent on student progress. According to the act: "States that do not meet their performance objectives for LEP students could lose up to ten percent of the administrative portion of their funding for all ESEA state administered formula grant programs."

    Why should a school district have a policy in place specifically for its English language learners? School districts must implement policies for equal access of students for whom English is a second or new language. Those policies are set at the level of the local school board, but they may never supersede federal or state law. These policies may be referred to as a Lau Plan or an Equal Access Plan and may supplement a more comprehensive plan protective of the rights of all students. The important point is that school districts must develop policy, and practice must reflect that policy. It may be helpful to view some examples of common misunderstandings that may arise regarding the need for an Equal Access Plan.

    Of course, educational policies created at the national level are negotiated at the state and local school district levels as supports are provided to schools, teachers, and their students. In this way, federal policies affect classroom practice in the micro-interactions that occur between teachers and students (Cummins, 2001). Faced with the task of providing consistent and quality instruction within the current socio-cultural climate, content area and English-as-a-second-language teachers, as well as building administrators, are often left to navigate policy complexities and even contradictions with no support beyond their borders. Their tasks are uniquely daunting, given the complexity and interaction of the varied social, political, legal, and economic contexts needed to support the nation's 5 million English language learners, 40% of whom are enrolled in rural schools.

    How effective is your school's equity policy? Take this quiz to determine your school's Equity Policy Quotient (EPQ).

    Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003).Claiming opportunities: A handbook for improving education for English language learners through comprehensive school reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.


    The Equal Educational Opportunities Act takes effect - HISTORY

    U.S. Department of Education

    U.S. Department of Education!
    Office for Civil Rights
    Washington, DC 20202-1328

    In recent years, there has been a surge of immigrants with limited English language skills to the United States. In addition, many children of immigrant parents and children who are Native American and Alaskan Native enter school with limited ability to learn in English. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) estimates that there are 2.4 million national-origin minority school children who have limited English language skills which affect their ability to participate effectively in education programs and achieve high academic standards.

    The insufficient English language proficiency of these students often results in classroom failure and school drop-out. Many students either are ill-equipped for higher education or lack the required skills to obtain productive employment. To resolve these problems, students must have an equal opportunity to benefit from education programs offered by their school districts.

    The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within ED has responsibility for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.

    School districts receiving federal financial assistance may not, on the basis of race, color, or national origin:

    provide services, financial aid, or other benefits that are different or provide them in a different manner
    restrict an individual's enjoyment of an advantage or privilege enjoyed by others
    deny an individual the right to participate in federally assisted programs and
    defeat or substantially impair the objectives of federally assisted programs.

    These Title VI regulatory requirements have been interpreted to prohibit denial of equal access to education because of a student's limited proficiency in English. Title VI protects students who are so limited in their English language skills that they are unable to participate in or benefit from regular or special education instructional programs.

    OCR TITLE VI POLICY ON LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS

    During the late 1960s, OCR staff became aware that many school districts made little or no provision for students who were unable to understand English, even though there were substantial numbers of these students enrolled in their districts.

    In an effort to resolve this problem, in 1970, OCR issued a memorandum to school districts titled the Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin. The purpose of the memorandum was to clarify Title VI requirements concerning school districts' responsibility to provide equal education opportunity to language-minority students.

    The 1970 memorandum stated, in part:

    Where the inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.

    Although the memorandum requires school districts to take affirmative steps, it does not prescribe the content of these steps. However, it explains that Title VI is violated if:

    students are excluded from effective participation in school because of their inability to speak and understand the language of instruction

    national-origin minority students are misassigned to classes for the mentally retarded because of their lack of English skills programs for students whose English is less than proficient are not designed to teach them English as soon as possible, or if these programs operate as a dead-end track or parents whose English is limited do not receive school notices and other information in a language they can understand.

    In the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1970 memorandum as a valid interpretation of the requirements of Title VI. The Supreme Court stated that, "[T]here is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education."

    In 1985, OCR issued "The Office for Civil Rights' Title VI Language Minority Compliance Procedures," which outlines OCR policy with regard to the education of language-minority students and Title VI compliance standards. In 1991, OCR issued an update, "Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP students)."

    The 1970 memorandum, and the 1985 and 1991 documents, explain the relevant legal standards for OCR policy concerning discrimination on the basis of national origin in the provision of education services to LEP students at the elementary and secondary level.

    TITLE VI COMPLIANCE ISSUES

    When investigating complaints and conducting compliance reviews of school districts regarding equal education opportunity for national-origin minority students who are limited English proficient (LEP), OCR considers two general issue areas:

    whether there is a need for the district to provide a special language service program (an alternative language program) to meet the education needs of all language-minority students and
    whether the district's alternative language program is likely to be effective in meeting the education needs of its language-minority students.

    The question of need for an alternative language program is resolved by determining whether LEP students are able to participate effectively in the regular instructional program. When they are not, the school district must provide an alternative program. In cases where the number of these students is small, the alternative program may be informal.

    Educators have not reached consensus about the most effective way to meet the education needs of LEP students. Many factors affect the types of education programs that school districts may offer, including the number of students or the variety of languages they speak.

    Consequently, OCR allows school districts broad discretion concerning how to ensure equal education opportunity for LEP students. OCR does not prescribe a specific intervention strategy or type of program that a school district must adopt to serve LEP students, nor does OCR require school districts to teach students in their primary language. Educational approaches that are recognized as sound by some experts in the field may reasonably be expected to ensure the effective participation of LEP students in the total education program.

    The following procedures should be used by school districts to ensure that their programs are serving LEP students effectively. Districts should:

    identify students who need assistance
    develop a program which, in the view of experts in the field, has a reasonable chance for success
    ensure that necessary staff, curricular materials, and facilities are in place and used properly
    develop appropriate evaluation standards, including program exit criteria, for measuring the progress of students and
    assess the success of the program and modify it where needed.

    In considering whether there is a need for the district to provide a special language service outside of the regular program and whether the alternative program is likely to be effective, OCR examines some important issues listed below.

    Whether a district has identified all LEP students who need special language assistance

    A school district must be able to account for all of its LEP students. A small district may be able to do this informally. A large district, or one with a great number of students whose first language or home language is not English, must have a formal system for objectively identifying students whose limited proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English denies them the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the regular education environment.

    Whether a district can ensure the placement of LEP students in appropriate programs

    Once a school district has identified students who need assistance, it must determine what types of assistance are warranted.

    Whether all LEP students who need a special language assistance program are being provided such a program

    A school district must ensure that all LEP students receive English-language development services.

    Whether a district has taken steps to modify a program for LEP students when that program is not working

    If the district's alternative language services program is not successful after a reasonable time period, the district must take steps to determine the cause of the program's failure and modify it accordingly.

    Whether a district ensures that LEP students are not misidentified as students with disabilities because of their inability to speak and understand English

    If national-origin minority students are not proficient in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English, testing them in English may not demonstrate their ability or achievement skills. Steps must be taken so that LEP students are not assigned to special education classes because of their lack of English language proficiency, rather than because they have a disability.

    Whether a school district ensures that parents who are not proficient in English are provided with appropriate and sufficient information about all school activities

    School districts have a responsibility to adequately notify national-origin minority parents of school activities that are called to the attention of other parents. Notification must be sufficient so that parents can make well-informed decisions about the participation of their children in a district's programs and services. Districts may be required to provide notification in the parents' home language.

    Anyone wishing additional information regarding the provision of equal education opportunity to LEP students may contact the OCR enforcement office serving his or her state or territory.


    The Covid-19 pandemic has drawn renewed attention to inequality in K-12 education in the United States. Some schools and systems have quickly transitioned to high-quality distance learning, while others have struggled to provide students with effective learning experiences.

    While the context is new, these inequalities predate the pandemic. Even after decades of increases in per-pupil spending and ongoing waves of reform, there are huge disparities in the quality of public schools, even those within the same district and just blocks away from one another. And access to the best public schools is often restricted based on where you live.

    Take two schools, for example, that serve the Old Town neighborhood of Chicago. Lincoln Elementary is one of the crown jewels of the Chicago Public Schools, with 80% of the students proficient in reading. Just over a mile south is Manierre Elementary, where not a single graduating eighth grader tested proficient in reading in 2019.

    What keeps the two schools separate? An attendance zone boundary. Children who live north of North Avenue enroll in elite Lincoln Elementary. Children south of North Avenue are not allowed to enroll in Lincoln and are assigned to failing Manierre. For a child in Old Town, your fate turns on whether you live on one side of the street or the other.

    This is an American phenomenon. In nearly every city the pattern is the same: State law allows (or even requires) the district to draw attendance zones showing who gets to attend which schools. Districts use the lines to determine who can enroll in these elite, high-performing public schools. Young families respond to the policies by cramming into the coveted zone, driving up home prices. Other parents lie about their address to gain access. The divide between the two schools, often just blocks apart, grows over time.

    The Supreme Court ended overt segregation of the public schools with its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Conventional wisdom says that school districts, in accordance with Brown, can assign children to schools in any way that they want, as long as they don’t discriminate based on race.

    But conventional wisdom has forgotten about the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.

    The School Nearest Your Residence

    In March 1972, President Nixon was feeling boxed in by the issue of desegregation. Many federal courts had signed off on busing plans that would force the integration of public schools in districts that had previously engaged in overt segregation. But members of both parties—including Joe Biden—opposed federal-court-ordered busing.

    Nixon opposed busing, but he also wanted to express sympathy for children caught in failing schools that were divided along racial lines. So, on March 17, he delivered an address to the American people, offering a compromise. He proposed a moratorium on federally mandated busing but also a “companion measure” called the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, which would increase funding for inner-city schools, especially those attended by minorities.

    That law, the EEOA, wouldn’t be signed for another two years. Presidents Nixon and Ford would have to negotiate with lawmakers in order to get it through the Democratic Congress. The resulting law is a strange mix of high-minded goals and status-quo-ism. It’s all there in the first sentence of the law:

    The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United States that—(1) all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin and (2) the neighborhood is the appropriate basis for determining public school assignments.

    On the one hand, it promises equal opportunity.

    On the other hand, it endorses neighborhood-based schools and district-drawn attendance zones. Given the existence of racially segregated neighborhoods, neighborhood-based schools would, by default, mean schools divided along racial lines. The EEOA also implicitly endorses the assignment of students to schools by the district or the state, rather than a more open system in which parents would play a more active role in determining which public school their child attends.

    However, here is what Section 1703 of the EEOA has to say about the assignment of minority children to public schools:

    No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by . . . the assignment by an educational agency of a student to a school, other than the one closest to his or her place of residence within the school district in which he or she resides, if the assignment results in a greater degree of segregation of students on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin…

    The full implications of that language have not yet been widely understood. For minority children, federal law defines the neighborhood school as “the one closest to his or her place of residence within the school district in which he or she resides.” And Congress prohibits the district from assigning a minority child to another school, if it will result in “a greater degree of segregation.”

    What is this peculiar, misshapen thing that we call an attendance zone? It’s an administrative service area. Government bureaucrats carve up the map and determine who gets preferred enrollment at what school. There are no elected officials at the attendance-zone level—and no political representation. The residents of a school zone are not subject to special taxes that go to the local school. An attendance zone is also a license to discriminate. If the school is full (most of the best schools are), then the attendance zone provides the school with the ability to exclude families who live within the district’s jurisdictional boundaries but outside of the arbitrary zone for that school as drawn by district staff.

    Note here that I’m not talking about the boundaries between school districts, which are political subdivisions. Those lines are jurisdictional. As governmental entities, school districts are typically overseen by elected or appointed board members. School districts often have the legal authority to assess taxes on their constituents or issue bonds in order to fund the district’s activities. That’s not true at the attendance zone level.

    Most attendance zones are irregular in shape, which means that there are many pockets where families whose closest school is highly coveted (and high performing) are assigned to another school that may be struggling or even failing. The existence of these pockets appears to be in violation of the EEOA.

    Figure 1 shows the attendance zone for Mount Washington Elementary in Los Angeles and the seven elementary schools that encircle it. At highly coveted Mount Washington, 75% of the students were proficient in reading in 2019, while the surrounding schools have reading proficiency rates between 16% and 54%. As a result, families pay a premium of $200,000 or more for a house that falls on the right side of the Mount Washington attendance zone boundary.

    Figure 1. Mount Washington Elementary in Los Angeles violates a federal civil rights law that prohibits minority students from being assigned to a school that is not the nearest to their home if it exacerbates segregation.

    Source: California Department of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District.

    For families who live in the striped areas of the map, Mount Washington is their closest school. Because Mount Washington is so much “whiter” than the surrounding schools, L.A. Unified School District is creating a “greater degree of segregation” by assigning minority students living in those striped areas to other, more distant schools. Any minority student living in those areas—black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American—could file a claim in the federal courts, asking the courts to force Mount Washington Elementary to allow them an equal opportunity to enroll.

    Similar maps could be created for any number of public schools in American cities. P.S. 8 in Brooklyn. John Hay Elementary in Seattle. Lakewood Elementary in Dallas. Mary Lin Elementary in Atlanta. Lincoln Elementary in Chicago. Ivanhoe Elementary in Los Angeles. Chesterton Elementary in San Diego. Penn Alexander Elementary in Philadelphia. Each of these schools is a coveted public school showing above-average student performance, and each is surrounded by underperforming schools with high concentrations of poor, minority students.

    Other sections of the law provide more clarity about exactly what is permitted and what is illegal. Section 1704 explicitly states that districts do not have to maintain a balance “on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.” Racially imbalanced schools are mitte in violation of the law, as long as minority students have not been assigned to schools farther from their home.

    Also, it’s perfectly legal under the EEOA for the district to assign a minority child to a school that is not the nearest to their residence, if it does not exacerbate segregation. Take a Hispanic child whose closest school is Aragon Avenue Elementary, which has only 3% white students and only 16% overall proficiency in reading. The district is free to assign that child to attend Mount Washington Elementary, because such an assignment would alleviate segregation, rather than exacerbate it. And minority students are free to choose a school that is not nearest to their homes, regardless of its impact on segregation, because the district has not assigned them there.

    Section 1705 says that “assignment on neighborhood basis [is] not a denial of equal educational opportunity.” On the surface, this appears to provide legal cover for attendance zones. But Congress, perhaps anticipating that districts could play games with the meaning of the word neighborhood, reiterates once again a very specific definition of a neighborhood school: It is “the school nearest [the student’s] place of residence.”

    There is surprisingly little case law relevant to the EEOA. The major cases all deal with other provisions of the law, such as its requirement that states and districts take “appropriate action” to overcome obstacles to education that arise from language barriers. I’ve been unable to find any case law that interprets and applies the clause of the EEOA that governs student assignment.

    Neighborhood map detail for P.S. 8 Robert Fulton in Brooklyn, N.Y.

    Available to All on Equal Terms?

    The harder you look at attendance zones, the more they appear to violate fundamental principles. Isn’t public education supposed to be “the Great Equalizer” providing equal opportunity for all children, regardless of race or income level? Aren’t we all supposed to be treated equally under the law?

    In the landmark ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Warren wrote:

    In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

    Sixty-six years after the Brown ruling, public education is still not “available to all on equal terms.” In 1951, they used Linda Brown’s race to keep her out of Sumner Elementary School. In 2020, they use a meandering line drawn through the neighborhood to keep many local children out of Mount Washington Elementary.

    After studying this issue for several years, I’ve come to the conclusion that attendance zones are—and should be—vulnerable to legal challenge. This vulnerability extends beyond an EEOA challenge to the shape of a particular zone.

    Look first at the state constitutions. There are seven states in which the state constitution requires the legislature to establish schools that are “open to all”: Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota. This is the question for those state courts: If a school can decline to enroll a child solely based on his or her residential address within the district, is that school truly “open to all” the residents of the district? I don’t think that it is.

    Similarly, five states promise “equality of educational opportunity.” Louisiana, Montana, and North Carolina mention this phrase (or something very similar) in their state constitution. The Supreme Courts of New Jersey and Tennessee have inferred that a similar constitutional right exists in those states. When a school-district official draws a geographic attendance-zone boundary assigning one child to a great school and denying enrollment to another child on the opposite side of the street, the district fails to provide the “equality of opportunity” that is promised by those five states.

    Neighborhood map detail for John Hay Elementary in Seattle, Wash.

    But those aren’t the only states where attendance-zone boundaries may be vulnerable. In 13 states (including three that also have an “open to all” requirement), the courts have already declared education to be a “fundamental right.” In these states, the courts are required to apply “strict scrutiny” to any classifications that create unequal access to public schools. What’s important about strict scrutiny is that it transfers the burden of proof to the government, requiring them to show that the discrimination was necessary to further a “compelling governmental interest” and that the policy was “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

    Enrollment exclusions based on geography are hardly “narrowly tailored.” Indeed, in most states, charter schools are forbidden from establishing geographic attendance zones. Defenders of geographic zoning would be forced to argue that the government has a “compelling interest” in setting up exclusionary boundaries for some public schools, while forbidding them for others.

    An even bigger question is whether attendance zones are vulnerable to challenge in the federal courts under the 14th Amendment’s promise of Equal Protection. Don’t these exclusionary zones violate Justice Warren’s commitment to the idea that a public education must be “available to all on equal terms”?

    On the surface, it is an easy idea to dismiss. The federal courts only apply strict scrutiny to government actions when a “fundamental right” is restricted or a “suspect classification” is employed. But education is not a “fundamental right” under the U.S. Constitution, and classifications based on where you live do not create a suspect class as defined by the courts. Without strict scrutiny, such policies would face little risk of being overturned.

    However, the Supreme Court’s original definition of Equal Protection, outlined in the early 1900s, appears to be at odds with the geographical enrollment preferences and attendance-zone boundaries that emerged in the mid-1900s and continue to be used today. In one of the first key cases that applied the concept of equal protection in a case that did not involve race (Royster Guano Company v. Virginia, 1920), the court said the following:

    The classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.

    It seems clear that two children, living across the street from one another and within the jurisdictional boundaries of the same school district, are “similarly circumstanced” relative to the laws that establish the educational system. Are those two children “treated alike” when one is assigned to an elite public school and the other turned away because of where she lives?

    A case in the federal courts would focus on asking the judges to apply “intermediate scrutiny” to these discriminatory laws and policies, as they have done in other high-stakes cases involving equal access to public institutions of education. Sisse Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court overturned a Texas law that authorized school districts to deny enrollment to children who were undocumented immigrants. The Court applied the standard in Brown that education “must be made available to all on equal terms.” Sisse US v. Virginia (1996), the Court struck down the male-only admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute because the State had failed to provide a “substantially comparable” alternative to women who had been turned away. No court could fairly deem Manierre Elementary to be “substantially comparable” to Lincoln Elementary.

    Some will argue that it is very unlikely that the courts will use the Equal Protection clause to strike down a policy that has such a long history in our country and that is so widespread. Could be. But we should all be troubled that attendance zones appear, at the very least, to violate the spirit of equal protection.

    One Supreme Court justice, writing in 1992, saw the wisdom in focusing on equal access in the public schools. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that we should open up the public schools to all comers, imagining an educational system “in which parents are free to disregard neighborhood-school assignment, and to send their children (with transportation paid) to whichever school they choose.”

    In a concurring opinion in the Freeman v. Pitts desegregation case, Justice Scalia argued that the Court could have taken a different approach in the years after the Brown decision. By overseeing complicated desegregation plans, the Court had waded deeper and deeper into the operations of school districts, prescribing all sorts of bureaucratic remedies that might in theory transform a “segregated” district into a “unitary” one.

    Instead, Justice Scalia proposed that the court could have simply focused on school access:

    An observer unfamiliar with the history surrounding this issue might suggest that we avoid the problem by requiring only that the school authorities establish a regime in which parents are free to disregard neighborhood-school assignment, and to send their children (with transportation paid) to whichever school they choose. So long as there is free choice, he would say, there is no reason to require that the schools be made identical. The constitutional right is equal racial access to schools, not access to racially equal schools.

    To Scalia, equal access was a more justiciable question—a question more appropriate for the courts to weigh in on—than the question of what actions could be taken to transform a “segregated” district into a “unitary” one.

    In the same opinion, Scalia predicted that the Court’s longstanding approach to desegregation was destined to make the courts irrelevant, as districts removed all remnants of overt (or de jure) segregation. And his prediction was right: Today almost all school districts are judged to be “unitary,” despite stark ongoing divisions of race and class, since they are far enough removed from any overt policies that segregated the schools by race.

    Focusing on access, as Scalia suggested, would restore the courts’ rightful role as a guardian of equal opportunity in the schools. It would not mean that a child has a right to attend a specific school. Good public schools are scarce, especially in the inner cities. Great public schools are even harder to find. Not everyone will be able to attend the best school in the district. But all district residents should have an equal opportunity to enroll in the best schools in the district. In a public school lottery, for example, there are winners and losers. The results may seem frustrating or even tragic. But a lottery gives every district family a fair chance—an equal opportunity—to enroll their child at a coveted school that could dramatically change his or her life trajectory.

    We may feel sympathy for people who might be harmed by rulings that would open these elite schools to all residents of a district. Take a family who has paid $250,000 more for a house because of its guaranteed access to an elite public school. Those parents wanted to secure the best education for their children, and that’s laudable. But that doesn’t mean we should continue to block open access to these public schools.

    In some ways, these people are like the taxi companies in New York City. Taxi companies paid millions of dollars for “medallions” allowing them to operate taxis within the city. For years, these medallion owners fought off efforts to issue more medallions—and improve taxi service for millions of New Yorkers—because they wanted to be protected from competition. With the emergence of ride-sharing services such as Uber, the medallions lost much of their value. And taxi companies have attempted to use their political clout to block such services and retain their protected position.

    But the courts have said no. Buying a taxi medallion does not mean that you are protected from disruptive competition until the end of time. Likewise, buying a house that gives you preferential access to a public school does not mean that you will be able to keep other families out forever.

    If the courts look to open up the public schools, perhaps the most appropriate ruling would be a narrow one that simply forbade school districts from using a resident child’s address to determine their eligibility for any school within the district. Instead of being forced to implement a specific court-endorsed remedy, districts would be free to experiment with different allocation methods that don’t rely on geography.


    Religious Discrimination

    Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the Attorney General to address certain equal protection violations based on religion, among other bases, in public schools and institutions of higher education. The Educational Opportunities Section works to ensure that all persons regardless of their religion are provided equal educational opportunities. The Section's work includes addressing discrimination and harassment on the basis of religion, and spans all religious affiliations. For examples, view the cases list.


    Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps

    Racial and ethnic inequality in education has a long and persistent history in the United States. Beginning in 1954, however, when the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional, some progress has been made in improving racial educational disparities. But that progress has been slow, uneven, and incomplete.

    One key set of measures of racial educational equality are racial achievement gaps—differences in the average standardized test scores of white and black or white and Hispanic students. Achievement gaps are one way of monitoring the equality of educational outcomes.

    The series of figures below describe recent trends and patterns in racial achievement gaps.

    Over the past 40 years, white-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps have been declining, albeit unsteadily.

    Every few years, a sample of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds from around the United States are given tests in math and reading as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP, sometimes called "The Nation’s Report Card," is designed to provide the public and policymakers with an objective assessment of the math and reading skills of American children. Because NAEP has used the same tests since the 1970s, we can use it to compare the reading and math skills of children today with those of their parents’ generation. We can also use NAEP to examine trends in the white-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps. These trends are illustrated in the figure below.

    White-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps have, in general, narrowed substantially since the 1970s in all grades and in both math and reading. The gaps narrowed sharply in the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, but then progress stalled. In fact, some of the achievement gaps grew larger in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Since the 1990s, however, achievement gaps in every grade and subject have been declining. As of 2012, the white-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps were 30-40% smaller than they were in the 1970s. Nonetheless, the gaps are still very large, ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 standard deviations.

    How to read this figure

    Each line in the figure shows the trend in the achievement gap in math or reading for a specific pair of racial/ethnic groups (white-black or white-Hispanic) at a particular age (9-, 13-, or 17-years-old). The achievement gaps are measured in standard deviation units (for more information on how the gaps are computed, see here). The trend lines are smoothed from the gaps estimated in various years. Holding the mouse over a line will reveal the underlying data from which the smooth curve was estimated. The bars around each annual estimate indicate the 95% confidence intervals for each year’s estimated achievement gap. Although the achievement gap in any one year is estimated with some uncertainty, the general pattern evident in the trends is clear.

    Achievement gaps have been narrowing because Black and Hispanic students’ scores have been rising faster than those of White students.

    Achievement gaps have been closing because Black and Hispanic students’ scores have improved very rapidly over the last 30 years. Indeed, among Black and Hispanic students, the average 9-year-old student today scores almost as well on the NAEP math tests as the average 13-year-old did in 1978 the average 13-year old today scores almost as well as the average 17-year-old in 1978. In other words, black and Hispanic students today are roughly three years ahead of their parents’ generation in math skills. In reading, they are roughly two to three years ahead of their parents. White students’ scores have also improved, but not by as much. These trends are illustrated in the figure below.

    How to read this figure

    For each subject and age group, the figure displays three lines, each of which shows the trend in the average NAEP scores for white, black, or Hispanic students. The vertical axis shows NAEP scores. To help interpret these scores, the horizontal lines indicate the type of skills that students must demonstrate to score at various levels (more detailed information on the NAEP performance levels is available here). Each line’s label (on the right) indicates the overall change in average scores for that group since the first NAEP test shown (in the 1970s).

    Achievement gaps in some states are larger than in others.

    The white-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps vary considerably among states. This is evident in the figures below, which show state-level achievement gaps for the years 1990-2013. These gaps are estimated from a version of the NAEP tests (called Main NAEP") that has been given to samples of students in each state every two years since 2003 and in some states from as early as 1990.

    In some states, particularly those in the upper Midwest, like Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota, the white-black achievement gap has generally been larger than a standard deviation over the last decade, regardless of grade or subject. Some other states, like Connecticut and Nebraska, also have white-black gaps this large, as does the District of Columbia, where the gap is well over 1.5 standard deviations. In states with small black populations, like West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, and New Hampshire, for example, the gaps are consistently smaller, typically only half as large as in the states with the largest gaps.

    The same is true of the white-Hispanic achievement gaps. In some states, most notably the New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, but also in California, Colorado, Minnesota, and in the District of Columbia, the white-Hispanic gap is quite large, on the order of 0.90 to 1.00 standard deviations (or 1.5 standard deviations in the District of Columbia). In West Virginia and Vermont, however, the gaps only 0.30 or smaller, only one-third the size as in the states with the largest gaps.

    In some cases, the gaps are large because white students in these states score particularly high on the NAEP tests in other cases, the gaps are large because black or Hispanic students score poorly. For example, the large white-Hispanic gap in California is largely due to the low average scores of California Hispanic students (who have among the lowest average scores in the country in math or reading), not the high performance of white students (who perform at roughly the average among white students nationally). Conversely, the large white-black gap in Minnesota is not due to black Minnesota students’ particularly low scores (they are near or slightly below the national average), but is due to the fact that white students in Minnesota have very high scores.


    Vaata videot: AÕG 2014 Inimeseõpetuse tund (August 2022).