EDU 520 Strayer Univeristy Education and Law Essay Church-State Relations OVERVIEW Select and examine two court rulings related to church–state interactio

EDU 520 Strayer Univeristy Education and Law Essay Church-State Relations
OVERVIEW

Select and examine two court rulings related to church–state interaction in the public school system.

INSTRUCTIONS

Write a 5–7 page paper in which you:

Identify the key issues in the court rulings and how they have shaped public education today.
Analyze the impact on schools, teachers, students, and the community.
As a professional in education, explain if you agree or not with the ruling and support your response.
Provide a citation on a reference page for the court rulings you selected.
Use at least three quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources. Copyright 2008. SAGE Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
3
No Child Left Behind Act
I talk about No Child Left Behind like Ivory soap: It’s 99.9 percent pure or something. . . . There’s not much needed in the way of change.
—Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The results of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) have been mixed, at best. Initially, many
school people were skeptical, but the guarantee that this was not another “unfunded mandate” held great promise. Further, the underlying guarantee that all children would be able
to read by school year 2012–2013 (a guarantee later seemingly expanded to include mathematics) was a compelling promise. However, as 2012 nears, NCLB’s implementation has
been disappointing, with concerns developing almost weekly. Some argue that high-stakes
assessment, with its potentially dire consequences, has forced many classrooms into
becoming nothing more than “test-prep centers.”
The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted January 8, 2002, expanding choices for
parents and focusing resources on proven educational methods while providing accountability for results. The NCLB law is widely considered the most significant federal education act since Congress approved its original version, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), in 1965. As an education reform bill, NCLB has dramatically increased
the role of the federal government in K–12 education. It encompasses 45 programs while
continuing ESEA’s focus on increasing student achievement, improving accountability,
and making sure that fully qualified teachers teach all children. Additionally, parents have
the right to request information about the qualifications of their child’s teacher and any
paraprofessionals who work with their child.
Whether Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is correct or not in her assertion that
the NCLB is close to perfect (like Ivory soap) and needs little change is certainly open to
63
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 7/26/2020 2:15 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY
AN: 477976 ; Aquila, Frank D..; School Law for K-12 Educators : Concepts and Cases
Account: strayer.main.eds-live
64
PART I: Policy Issues
question. Of course, it is not surprising that Spellings strongly supports the law. As President
George W. Bush’s domestic policy chief, she helped craft the NCLB and now enforces it as
his top education official. Nevertheless, her view that the law needs little change is notable
because it differs so sharply from other stakeholders, including many teachers, school
administrators, and lawmakers. Further, more than 80 organizations have signed a statement urging fundamental changes, in areas such as how student progress is measured and
how schools are penalized when they fall short.
NCLB is roughly 1,100 pages and includes thousands of pages of additional rules and
expensive regulations. NCLB’s reauthorizing legislation will probably even surpass these massive numbers in paperwork and complexity. The first major federal court challenge to NCLB
is Pontiac v. Spellings, in which a diverse group of school districts and education associations
is asking the court to declare that the law means what it says and prevent the U.S. Department
of Education from denying federal funds to states and school districts that refuse to spend
their own money on complying with the law’s regulations.1 These regulations, according to
the plaintiffs, form a bureaucratic maze, often to the point of costly absurdity.
The basic components of NCLB deal with accountability in the form of adequate yearly
progress and school improvement and teacher and paraprofessional quality. The new law
requires all students, not only those eligible for Title I services, to make adequate yearly
progress (AYP) on a series of standardized tests. AYP will be the measure of student
improvement against which schools will be judged for purposes of meeting federal standards. The AYP requirements are proving to be too difficult to achieve, especially for those
schools serving low-income students, because school districts must meet AYP in many
subject areas for each minority group as well as for all students. These standards are
extremely difficult for diverse school districts to attain and to retain. Even normally highperforming districts are running afoul of AYP in subgroups of children with disabilities,
resulting in the district sometimes being designated as a district needing “school improvement,” a negative designation not acceptable to normally high-performing school districts.
A school’s failure to make AYP over a number of years could lead to a series of corrective
actions that may ultimately result in restructuring, closure, or takeover of the school by the
state or a private management company.
In reference to teacher quality, NCLB stresses the important role that teacher quality plays
in promoting student achievement. It required that all teachers be “highly qualified” in
the subjects they teach by the end of the 2005–2006 school year. “Highly qualified” means
that public elementary and secondary school teachers must have obtained full state
certification or passed the state teacher licensing examination; hold a license to teach in
the state in which they are teaching; and not have had a certificate or license requirement
waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. There are special concerns
regarding “highly qualified” status for special education teachers who are designated as
teachers of record who teach children with disabilities and general education students in
the same classroom.
The premise is that parents and teachers will know how well their schools are doing
because since the 2002–2003 school year, states and local school districts have had to
publish annual report cards in an easy-to-understand format to inform parents and the
EBSCOhost – printed on 7/26/2020 2:15 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Chapter 3 No Child Left Behind Act
65
community. These report cards must provide information about students’ achievement on
state assessments compared to other students in the state and district, graduation rates, and
teacher qualifications/credentials.
NCLB, through the most recent Title I authorization, emphasizes the same high standards
and accountability for paraprofessionals as it does for teachers and students. NCLB contains
some significant changes involving the paraprofessionals’ qualifications and duties. Like
teachers, paraprofessionals must meet new educational requirements in order to continue
as or to become a Title I paraprofessional. In addition, the new law specifically lists the
duties that paraprofessionals should perform. A newly hired paraprofessional must have
completed two years of postsecondary education or be a high school graduate who can
demonstrate on a “formal state or local academic assessment” the skills necessary to assist
in the classroom instruction of reading, writing, and mathematics.
Case Study
Another Unfunded Mandate
You are superintendent of a small urban district. Your student population is entirely minority, with
no white students and only a few non-English-speaking students. The property value of the homes
in your school district is extremely low compared to suburban districts and even the large urban
district that abuts your district. Historically, the performance of your students has been poor on
all state tests. The new performance mandates required by NCLB seem almost impossible to meet.
Each of your schools is failing the new national standards. You have provided as much funding as
you can afford, but nothing seems to help. The cost to implement the highly qualified teacher provisions has also caused you to spend money that the district does not have. When NCLB was
enacted, the government guaranteed that there would be no unfunded mandates and specifically
stated that it shall be construed not to “mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any
funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.” This does not seem to be the case because
you must provide more and more funds that you do not have. You have decided to join a group that
plans to sue the federal government for failing to live up to its promise of not requiring mandates
without funding them (unfunded mandates).
Discussion Questions
1. Will you be supported in your argument that “if it’s not funded, it’s not required” relieves
you of the obligation to meet these federal mandates?
2. Do you think that school districts are overreacting to the requirements of NCLB? Why?
3. Does NCLB provide support for private schools? School choice programs?
EBSCOhost – printed on 7/26/2020 2:15 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
66
PART I: Policy Issues
IMPORTANT CONCEPTS
• The No Child Left Behind Act: The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted January 8, 2002,
to expand choices for parents, to focus resources on proven educational methods, and to
provide accountability for results.
• Implementation has been criticized: High-stakes assessment, with its potentially dire
consequences, has forced many classrooms to become test-prep centers.
• AYP is too difficult to achieve: The adequate yearly progress (AYP) provisions of NCLB will
cause many schools to fail, especially those serving low-income students.
• Consequences of failure to make AYP: A school’s failure to make AYP over a number of
years will lead to a series of corrective actions that may ultimately result in restructuring,
closure, or takeover of the school by the state or a private management company. In
addition, failing schools may also be denied some funding.
• Teachers must be certified: Being highly qualified means that public elementary and
secondary school teachers must have obtained full state certification or have passed the
state teacher licensing examination; hold a license to teach in the state; and not have had a
certificate or license requirement waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.
• Teachers must be highly qualified: A teacher is deemed highly qualified if she has three
things: (1) a bachelor’s degree; (2) full state certification or licensure; and (3) the ability to
prove that she knows all the subjects she teaches.
• Paraprofessionals must be highly qualified: To become a paraprofessional in a program that
receives Title I funds, a newly hired paraprofessional must have completed two years of
postsecondary education or be a high school graduate who can demonstrate on a “formal
state or local academic assessment” the skills necessary to assist in the classroom instruction
of reading, writing, and mathematics.
• Annual report cards: Parents and teachers know how well their schools are doing because
since the 2002–2003 school year, states and school districts have had to publish annual
report cards in an easy-to-understand format for parents and the community. These report
cards provide information about student achievement on state assessments vis-à-vis other
students in the state and district, graduation rates, schools needing improvement, and
teacher qualifications/credentials.
• Pontiac v. Spellings: The first major federal court challenge to NCLB was Pontiac v. Spellings.
A diverse group of school districts and education associations asked the court to effectuate the
plain meaning of the law and prevent the U.S. Department of Education from denying federal
funds to states and school districts that refuse to spend their own money on the law’s regulations.
• Drill and kill: “Drill and kill” has become the standard protocol for many school districts
because schools must improve to avoid NCLB punishment.
EBSCOhost – printed on 7/26/2020 2:15 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Chapter 3 No Child Left Behind Act
67
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—which has
been renamed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)—was enacted January 8, 2002, to
expand choices for parents, to focus resources on proven educational methods, and to provide results-based accountability. NCLB is an education reform bill that has dramatically
increased the role of the federal government in K–12 education. It encompasses 45 programs while continuing ESEA’s focus on increasing student achievement, improving
accountability, and making sure that fully qualified teachers teach all children. Further,
parents have the right to request information about the qualifications of their child’s
teacher and any paraprofessionals who work with their child.
When NCLB was enacted, the promise was real. The offer included widespread achievement
gains among students, with significant increases in federal funding to support those gains. The
results have been mixed, at best. Many educational professionals were skeptical, but the guarantee that this was not another “unfunded mandate” held great promise. However, NCLB’s
implementation has been disappointing, and recently concerns have developed almost weekly.
High-stakes assessment, with its potentially dire consequences, has forced many classrooms
to become test-prep centers. Many schools will fail to meet AYP, especially those serving lowincome students. Supposedly, 19 blue ribbon schools have already been identified as “low
achieving.” Is this a validation of those who argue that further refinement is needed?
COMPONENTS OF THE NCLB ACT
Accountability
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The new law requires all students to meet AYP, not just those
eligible for Title I services. AYP has become the measure of student improvement against
which schools will be judged for purposes of meeting federal standards. A school’s failure
to make AYP over a number of years will lead to a series of corrective actions that may ultimately result in restructuring, closure, or takeover of the school by the state or a private
management company. Each state must set measurable goals for student achievement on
state tests in order to ensure that students are “proficient” (as defined by the state) in reading and math within 12 years. Using the 2001–2002 school year as the baseline set of scores,
states are required to set numerical targets (in each subject and grade) for the percentage
of students who will be proficient over the next 12 years. The NCLB requires that all students
in Grades 3 to 8 undertake annual reading and math assessments.
States select and administer their own tests, and they had until the 2005–2006 school year
to develop and implement these assessments. The law authorizes federal funding for the
development of these tests. States were also required to develop science content standards
by 2005–2006 and to begin administering state science assessments in the 2007–2008 school
year. Science assessments are required at least once in Grades 3–5, 6–8, and 10–12.
Finally, states will be required to participate in the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) every other year, provided that federal funding is sufficient to cover the cost
EBSCOhost – printed on 7/26/2020 2:15 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
68
PART I: Policy Issues
of test administration. However, the results of NAEP cannot serve as the basis for sanctioning states, school districts, schools, or students. All students must take these tests. Results
of these tests will be broken down within each state by school district and school, as well
as by gender, each major racial and ethnic group, disabled status, limited English proficient
(LEP) status, economically disadvantaged status, and migrant status. Each subgroup must
make AYP. Additionally, the law requires that students with disabilities, English language
learners, and all others be tested; however, appropriate modifications and accommodations
(consistent with IDEIA) are permitted, where needed, for students with special needs.
School Improvement. The new law imposes sanctions based primarily on students’ performance on state assessments. Sanctions are grouped into three categories: school improvement, corrective action, and school restructuring.
A school that fails two years in a row (e.g., Years 1 and 2, or 2002–2003 and 2003–2004)
to meet AYP—or the numerical goal set by the state for that academic year—for all subgroups of students will be placed in school improvement status (Year 3). In the first year of
school improvement, a school will be required to
1. prepare a two-year improvement plan;
2. use at least 10% of its Title I funds for professional development;
3. provide public school choice (if allowable by state law), with 5% to 15% of Title I
funds used to pay for transportation costs to implement school choice;
4. notify parents of the school’s status;
5. receive technical assistance from the school district; and
6. receive federal school improvement funds.
If a school fails to meet AYP three years in a row, it is placed in a second year of school
improvement (Year 4). Such schools will be required to continue the activities from the first
year of school improvement and provide supplemental services. These include before
school and after school tutoring for low-achieving, disadvantaged students within that
school, among other requirements. Parents will choose providers of supplemental services
from a list of state-approved providers, which may include the district or outside groups.
These outside groups include community-based organizations or for-profit companies, such
as the Sylvan Learning systems. An additional 10% of the school district’s Title I funds may
be used for either these services or transportation to implement public school choice.
If a school again fails to meet AYP for the fourth year in a row, it is placed in “corrective
action” (Year 5). Such schools must continue to provide public school choice and supplemental services and do at least one of the following:
1. Implement a new curriculum.
2. Decrease local decision making.
3. Appoint an outside expert.
4. Extend the school day or year.
EBSCOhost – printed on 7/26/2020 2:15 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Chapter 3 No Child Left Behind Act
69
5. Replace staff relevant to failure.
6. Restructure internal organization.
If a school again fails to meet AYP (fifth year in a row), it is placed in a second year of “corrective action” (Year 6). Such schools must continue to provide public school choice and
supplemental services, and a plan must be prepared and arrangements made for restructuring, including at least one of the following:
1. Reopen as a charter school.
2. Replace the principal and other staff deemed relevant to failure.
3. Turn the school over to a private management company.
4. Turn the school over to the state.
5. Make other major reforms.
Teacher Quality
It is important to note that NCLB stresses the essential role that teacher quality plays in
promoting student achievement. NCLB requires that all teachers hired and teaching in a program supported with funds under Title I must be “highly qualified.” It also requires that all
teachers must be highly qualified in the subjects they teach by the end of the 2005–2006
school year. To be highly qualified, public elementary and secondary school teachers must
have obtained full state certification or passed the state teacher licensing examination; hold
a license to teach in the state; and not have had a certificate or license requirement…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment