Search

This article examines an education policy matter that involves homophobic speech in public schools. Using legal research methods, two federal circuit court opinions that have examined the tension surrounding anti-LGBTQ student expression are analyzed. This legal analysis provides non-lawyers some insight into the current realities of student speech jurisprudence in public schools and offers school leaders guidance about how they might address speech that denigrates other students. It also proposes how courts might reconsider analyzing homophobic expression in public schools under existing precedent.

A 2020 lawsuit involves a public school teacher who refused to address transgender students by their preferred names because of his religious beliefs. This case is particularly significant because it is the first K-12 decision that analyzes this matter. This issue has important policy implications for schools and students.

Purpose: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a highly publicized case brought by a transgender student, G.G., who was denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. Ultimately, the Court never heard this case, but the documents submitted to the Court remain a part of the historical record, worthy of examination beyond their legal value. In this study, we analyze the first person accounts presented in the "friend of the court" (amicus) briefs to better understand the human impact of policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Method: This research utilizes legal research methods to bound the study design. We draw from legal storytelling, which originates in law, and narrative inquiry, which can be found in educational research. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of all amicus briefs submitted in the G.G. case that include personal, firsthand accounts, stories, and experiences. Findings: Overall, the personal stories highlight the implications of inclusive and noninclusive policies and practices. Where noninclusive policies were in place, individuals shared experiences of bullying, academic harm, medical concerns, and inconsistencies in implementation. On the other hand, inclusive policies were associated with confidence building and academic engagement, and a benefit to all students. Stories also reveal that common fears such as safety or privacy did not materialize in the experiences of individuals represented in the briefs. Implications: Informed by these stories, we present implications for research, policy, and practice. Stories reveal the importance of leadership, communication, and professional development.

This article examines an education policy matter that involves homophobic speech in public schools. Using legal research methods, two federal circuit court opinions that have examined the tension surrounding anti-LGBTQ student expression are analyzed. This legal analysis provides non-lawyers some insight into the current realities of student speech jurisprudence in public schools and offers school leaders guidance about how they might address speech that denigrates other students. It also proposes how courts might reconsider analyzing homophobic expression in public schools under existing precedent.

The media has featured "controversies" over pride flags in public schools. Although some of these attempts to ban pride flags have been initiated at the state level, other efforts have occurred at the local level when school boards have tried to adopt policies banning pride flags. Parents have also challenged schools that display pride flags. Although there is no U.S. Supreme Court case that addresses this issue, litigation that has arisen in other related contexts (e.g., parental rights, teacher speech) may provide some guidance on this topic. A few different legal issues that provide insight into this topic are briefly explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, LGBT case law and legislation has evolved in ways that significantly impact the everyday experiences of students and employees in the K-12 context. However, uncertainties remain and the fight for full equality continues. Understanding the legal landscape is crucial to being an effective advocate for change. This article examines specific legal issues recently addressed by courts, the U.S. Department of Education, and legislators--bullying and harassment, student speech, access for transgender students, and employment-related issues.

As society's views of sexual orientation and gender identity have significantly evolved in recent years, school districts across the country are addressing how to create policies that align with the law in this area. One recent issue involves laws and policies focused on transgender students and their right to access restrooms that align with their gender identity. Within these policies, school officials often attempt to balance requests to provide equal access for transgender students with other requests related to privacy concerns. This article presents a legal case analysis around the most recent federal circuit court decision that provides some guidance in this area. The opinion is important because it is the highest court to have addressed the matter as it relates to transgender students in K-12 public schools. It was also decided within a few weeks of the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice's "Dear Colleague" letter in May 2016. Most recently, however, The U.S. Department of Education, under the Trump administration, rescinded the Dear Colleague letter. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the most recent federal circuit court's opinion and the issue remains in a state of flux.

Some private, religious schools that accept vouchers have been accused of discriminating against certain populations of students through their admissions processes. Discriminating against disfavored groups (e.g., racial minorities, LGBT students, students with disabilities, religious minorities) in voucher programs raises both legal and policy concerns that have not been extensively examined in recent research. Employing legal research methods, this article examines state voucher statutes and discusses the potential for voucher programs to discriminate against marginalized groups. We argue that each state has an obligation to ensure that any benefit it creates must be available to all students on a nondiscriminatory basis--including the benefit of a publicly funded voucher for attendance at a private school. As this review of existing voucher statutes will demonstrate, legislators appear to have neglected to construct policies that safeguard student access and ensure that public funds do not support discriminatory practices. Without additional safeguards, states risk providing public money that can be used to promote discriminatory policies and practices.

This article argues that one possible avenue for addressing and increasing student body diversity in charter schools may lie with the authorizer. In particular, we focus on the role of university-based authorizers, a group of sponsors that would appear to be especially concerned with educational opportunity given their faculties' traditional concern with issues of social justice. Thus, this article examines whether university-based charter school authorizers encourage charter school operators to recruit and enroll a diverse student body, and it discusses the role that authorizers could play in promoting more diverse charter schools.

When first conceived, charter schools were envisioned as local projects initiated by parents and/or groups of teachers seeking to improve the educational performance of students. In the past two decades, the phenomenon has expanded to more than 5% of all U.S. public schools and almost 3% of all students (Center for Education Reform [CER], 2009). During this time, groups have come onto the charter school landscape representing points of view that were not a part of the original rhetoric. In the area of charter school creation and management, the originally envisioned groups of parents and teachers have been joined by educational management organizations and charter management organizations. Another of these phenomena are the so-called ethnocentric niche charter schools that seek to integrate the celebration of cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or philosophical concepts into the educational process. This chapter provides examples of two types of ethnocentric schools and examines whether they are able to operate within the legal constraints imposed on them by state charter school laws and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The authors describe the history of litigation and public discussion that accompanies the establishment of ethnocentric niche charter schools and conclude that a new research focus is necessary to evaluate properly this new phenomenon. (Contains 3 notes.)

A growing number of ethnocentric or culturally oriented niche charter schools have opened around the country. These ethnic or culture-oriented models raise legal and policy concerns about church/state entanglement as well as concerns about diversity. Indeed, there has already been litigation focused on racial and ethnic aspects of charter schools as well as religious influences. Despite the litigation in these areas, the constitutional tensions to which ethnocentric charter schools give rise have not been fully explored in the literature. Using legal research methods, this article examines the existing litigation involving culture-oriented charter schools and discusses the policy and legal tensions involved. (Contains 1 note.)

The scope of Title IX clearly includes all aspects of education, but the legislation's application to college athletics receives the most attention. Athletics programs, unlike most academic activities, are sex segregated, so the proper interpretation of the intercollegiate athletics provisions of Title IX is less clear-cut. This article examines the statistical evidence used to determine whether an institution's athletic program is in compliance with Title IX. The authors review the original 1979 policy interpretation as well as the 1996 and 2005 policy clarifications produced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The authors also review the case law for Title IX, highlighting a number of key court decisions that altered the seriousness with which institutions considered this law when planning their athletic programs. This article includes an examination of the current level of compliance with the intercollegiate athletic participation requirements of Title IX. Throughout the article, the authors highlight issues of relevance to institutional researchers.

Depending on state statutory language, charter schools may be able to exercise more control over their student body composition. Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools may have the opportunity to increase student body diversity by drawing students from across traditional school district boundary lines. Specifically, depending on the state statutory language, charter schools may be permitted some flexibility in recruiting and admitting students. This study investigates the admissions and recruitment practices of eight high-achieving charter schools and considers whether charter school leaders negotiate state statutes to create a diverse student body. Appended are: (1) Academic Achievement: Comparison between Charter School and Nearest Traditional Public School"; and (2) Statutory Language Regarding Admissions and Consideration of Race. (Contains 1 table.)

At the outset of the charter school movement, some opponents feared that charter schools would become havens for White students wishing to flee the traditional public school system, resulting in publicly funded segregation. However, studies suggest that this has not occurred. In fact, charter schools on average remain slightly racially segregated, enrolling more minority students than traditional public schools. Segregation in charter schools is not unavoidable considering that they often can exercise more control of student body composition through recruitment measures. This article examines the current racial makeup of charter schools by reporting student body diversity data in the 32 states that enroll more than 1,000 students in charter schools (as of 2002-2003). Additionally, the impact of parental choice, the lifting of desegregation decrees, and state statutory language on the racial composition of charter schools is discussed. Finally, the authors offer recommendations for combating segregation in charter schools and discuss avenues for future research. (Contains 2 tables.)

There have been numerous lawsuits within higher education brought by females over pay inequity and many articles have been written on the topic. Although not as prevalent, there have been some recent instances where male faculty have claimed--with some degree of success--that the process used by their institutions to make salary adjustments for females was unfair and led to reverse pay discrimination. In this paper, we examine some of the legal issues and statistical approaches surrounding claims of reverse sex discrimination in pay in the field of higher education. We begin by reviewing the way in which legal cases examine sex discrimination in pay in academe and the different approaches that institutions can take to remove pay disparities for women. We show that across-the-board salary adjustments for women are less likely than individualized salary adjustments to raise concerns about the salary determination process and possibly reverse discrimination, and lead to lower costs to the institution. These differences arise regardless of the salary model specification used by an institution when making salary adjustments. Finally, we use a model developed by the plaintiffs in a salary equity study at one institution to demonstrate the effects of using different adjustment methods on the total cost to the institution when making salary equity adjustments for both genders.

Despite the creeping resegregation of public schools, recent court decisions have been involved in the lifting of court-ordered desegregation decrees, which could arguably cause further segregation. When dismissing desegregation decrees, lower courts have relied on three U.S. Supreme Court decisions during the 1990s that permitted a lower standard for lifting desegregation decrees. Those school districts that remain under court-ordered desegregation decrees may find themselves in conflict with the No Child Left Behind Act's (NCLB) choice provision. Specifically, NCLB permits parents to transfer their children to another school if their present school is deemed in need of improvement. Such NCLB regulations may permit school districts to bypass the desegregation decree. In so doing, there is a conflict between a federal regulation and federal court order. Employing legal research techniques (e.g., case and statutory analysis), this paper explores the Supreme Court's jurisprudence for declaring a school district unitary, analyzes the conflict between court-ordered desegregation decrees and NCLB's choice provision, and discusses the potential litigation that could result from the conflict between NCLB and desegregation decrees.

The barriers to educational integration in one Mississippi Delta town are identified. Although de facto segregation among students exist throughout the country, in Mississippi Delta many white students attend private academies that do not offer greater educational opportunity than the predominantly Black public schools.

Research indicates that a disproportionate number of minority students are assigned to special education programs in urban school districts. Oftentimes, these programs are inadequate and they deny minority students with special needs a free appropriate public education. These concerns are not only applicable to urban public schools; research also suggests similar problems for youth in correctional facilities. In this article, the authors explore the following issues: segregation and disability in youth correctional facilities and the legal issues involved; the barriers of providing a free appropriate public education in youth correctional facilities; and excerpts from interviews with an incarcerated female with disabilities and one of her teachers regarding her education in an urban juvenile correctional facility.

The rise in numbers of students with disabilities entering higher education necessitates stronger transition programs between high schools and postsecondary institutions. Under current transition plans, many students with disabilities leave high school without the self-advocacy skills they need to survive in college. Further, although some universities understand their legal obligations in serving post-secondary students with disabilities, the litigation suggests that more needs to be accomplished. It appears that in some cases both university professors and administrators lack full awareness of their legal obligations. This manuscript examines the challenges students with disabilities face in college, reviews relevant case law regarding the transition for students with disabilities from high school to higher education, and provides suggestions to assist high schools and universities in forging programs to better serve students with disabilities.

For many years, parents have alleged, through litigation, a fundamental right to direct the education of their children.1 Much of the previous litigation in this area addresses instruction, the right to attend private schools, and various curricular concerns.2 Most recently, school districts across the country are attempting to balance the privacy rights of transgender3 and gender nonconforming students against parents' asserted right to know about their children's gender identities.4 In a few situations, parents have challenged school district policies that might not permit educators to inform parents about their child's use of preferred names and pronouns in class.5 Parents have argued that they have a fundamental right, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, to be informed on such matters.6 At the same time, school districts are trying to navigate these emerging issues. This article will examine some of the legal and policy considerations related to this topic. We begin with a discussion of how parents have relied on substantive due process when arguing that they have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. We also examine how that argument may have been impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.7 We then consider how both the Supreme Court and federal circuit courts have viewed parental claims involving a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children within the context of education. In doing so, we explore some of the recent legal challenges initiated by parents and how these relate to knowledge of their children's gender identities within the school context. Next, we analyze important policy considerations that might support states' interests in elevating the rights of the child over the rights of their parents in situations where the child's health or safety is threatened.8 Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the practical application of the topics addressed in this article as well as a summary of the potential impact of the Court's decision in Dobbs on the rights of parents in schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "Brown v. Board of Education" decision remains one of the most important legal decisions in history. Although there were local schemes used to avoid desegregating public schools after the decision, black students experienced declining segregation from the 1950s to the late 1980s. During the 1990s, however, a series of Supreme Court decisions stymied desegregation efforts. As a result, some scholars would argue that many of the changes that "Brown" began are now becoming undone. Given this reality, the 50th anniversary of "Brown" will not be as celebratory as it might have been. This article examines the impact of "Brown" and its progeny.

Imagine a teacher who posted pictures of their favorite presidential candidate during the election season or a teacher who displayed a poster with the tenets of Scientology in the classroom. At issue in those scenarios is the extent to which teachers' expression in the classroom is protected by the First Amendment. This column focuses on a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case that addressed whether a math teacher in San Diego was allowed to hang religious banners in the classroom. In "Johnson v. Poway Unified School District" (2011), it was noted that school officials permitted teachers to decorate their classroom with posters that included various messages. Although some teachers displayed posters of the Beatles, others displayed pictures of Mahatma Gandhi or the Dalai Lama. The math teacher involved in this case displayed two very large banners in his classroom. The first banner used the mottoes "In God we trust," "One nation under God," "God bless America," and "God shed his grace on thee." The second banner included a phrase adapted from the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator" with the word "Creator" in all capital letters. When the school district required him to remove the banners for fear of religious entanglement, the teacher argued that his right to free speech under the First Amendment had been violated, among other claims.

Some courts have upheld school districts' decisions to discipline teachers for their behaviors outside of school if there was a connection back to the school. Specifically, many courts have adopted a nexus theory that suggests that a teacher's off-duty conduct might have a negative impact on his or her teaching effectiveness. Disciplinary action is more easily justified when incidents involve illegal activity, but an increasing number of teachers are being disciplined for entirely legal activity. This article concludes that school officials need to tread carefully when disciplining teachers for their out-of-school conduct. Although not every jurisdiction has adopted the nexus theory, it provides a helpful framework for school leaders to follow. If school officials can clearly demonstrate that a teacher's off-duty conduct has a negative impact on his or her teaching effectiveness, especially if the activity is illegal, it may be permissible to discipline the teacher.