Overview
The 2003-2004 school year
has come to an end and the more relaxed days of summer are upon
us. The usually less hectic summer months provide a time for
school officials and professional personnel to reflect back on
the past year’s accomplishments and to celebrate successes. At
the same time, however, the summer gives school policy-makers
and administrators time to reflect back on and reexamine the
problems and issues faced during the past school year, and to
forecast and plan for problems and issues that may either carry
over from last year or spring to life next year.
In an effort to help
educational policy-makers and administrators as they attempt to
forecast and plan for next year, I decided to devote my final
commentary for the 2003-2004 year to predicting potential issue
producers to be ready for in the 2004-2005 school year. I have
identified and selected the following topics for brief
discussion:
-
Ramifications of the
United States Supreme Court’s recent decision involving the
Pledge of Allegiance.
-
Growing support for
school voucher plans.
-
Implementation of
parental choice options under the requirements of No Child
Left Behind.
-
Increasing popularity of
home schooling, charter schools, and other alternates to
traditional public and private schools.
-
Rise in youth gangs and
gang-related violence.
Issues to Watch
Elk Grove Unified School
District v Newdow (2004). In a
decision that received considerable national publicity,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held
that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of
Allegiance, when recited by students within the context of a
public school, violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Subsequently, the
Supreme Court granted certiorari, oral arguments were heard, and
the high court handed down its decision on June 14, 2004.
Elk Grove School District v Newdow (2003)
The Newdow decision
is significant in two ways. First, while the Supreme Court did
reverse the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision (which had ruled in
the complaining father’s favor), it actually did not
specifically address the question of the inclusion of the words
“under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The opinion written by
Justice Stevens treated the matter as a domestic relations law
issue (i.e., focusing instead on the father’s lack of
standing [he is party to a joint custody arrangement] to bring
the suit on behalf of his daughter). However, in a concurring
opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined in part by Justices
O’Connor, and Thomas, stated that he believed that a required
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (including the words
“under God”), by students in public schools, did not offend the
First Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in
the Court’s deliberations. Elk Grove
School District v Newdow (2004)
In light of the fact that
the United States Supreme Court narrowly refused to take up the
Fourth Circuit Court’s decision in Bunting v Mellen (2003),
where the required “super prayer” said by cadets at the Virginia
Military Institute was declared in violation of the First
Amendment, the aftermath of the high court’s “non-decision” in
Newdow is worth watching, especially by public school
officials and administrators here in the Fourth Circuit. In
other words the “battle over the Pledge of Allegiance” is not
over.
Growing Support of School
Voucher Plans. In 2002, the United
States Supreme Court upheld an Ohio scholarship program that
provided financial assistance in the form of vouchers, to
parents who wished to take their children out of “failing public
schools,” and place them in private schools (including private
religious schools). By a vote of 5-4 the high court viewed the
scholarship program as one that created a “true private choice”
for parents. Zelman v Simmons-Harris
(2002)
This past February, the
United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, reversed a Ninth
Circuit Court decision in a case involving a State of Washington
statute. The Washington statute in question created a
scholarship program that provided public scholarship assistance
to post secondary school students, including otherwise qualified
students enrolled in religious schools who were pursuing a
degree in theology. However, students pursuing a course
of study in devotional theology (i.e., devotional
in nature or designed to induce religious faith) were excluded
form receiving scholarship assistance. As it had reasoned in the
Zelman decision, the Supreme Court viewed the Washington
program as accommodating an individual’s “private choice.” In
other words, a citizen should not be denied public financial
assistance just because he/she decides to spend public money at
a private religious school. Locke v
Davey (2004)
In this writer’s opinion,
Zelman and Locke demonstrate a willingness of most
members of the current Supreme Court to accept (within a public
policy context) school choice plans (including a broad range of
private school options) that are linked to publicly funded
vouchers. As a general rule, where a student is otherwise
qualified for public financial assistance it should not matter
if he/she attends a private religious school. Thus, the high
court characterizes vouchers as enabling parents to seek equal
access to quality educational opportunities for their children,
wherever these opportunities exist. The potential policy
implications of this judicial attitude are many and must be
watched.
Implementation of
Parental Choice Options Under No Child Left Behind.
As most educational policy-makers and
administrators already know, the federal No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) mandates that parents must be allowed to take their
children out of public schools classified as either “failing
schools,” or “persistently dangerous schools.” No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001
While public school
divisions here in Virginia and elsewhere in the nation have not
yet witnessed a landslide of such requests, the future may tell
a different story. What if, in a local school system, the number
of students who fail statewide grade-level tests and the
population of students who fail to graduate solely because of
below passing scores on statewide end of course examinations
grow? What if the number of disciplinary incidents and violent
episodes in that same local school system escalates? What if the
number of school dropouts increases? What if a majority of the
teachers in those schools are not “highly qualified?” What if
individual schools lose their accreditation? What if parents in
that school system are eligible to receive public assistance
through vouchers, and must be provided with transportation? Will
the number of student transfer requests increase? If the
transfer requests do increase, where will the transferring
students go, and will there be room in the schools to which they
want to transfer? What will happen to the remaining students,
principals, teachers, and other staff members? Will parental
transfer requests include private schools and public schools
outside the school system boundaries? The policy implications
of legally sanctioned alternatives to required public school
attendance are many and must be dealt with.
Increasing Popularity of
Home Schools, Charter Schools, and Other Alternatives.
Over the past decade, while federal and state laws required the
integration and inclusion of all students (no matter their race,
socio-economic condition, or educational disabilities) into the
mainstream of public schools, the number of home schools,
charter schools, alternative schools for students with severe
disciplinary problems (some of which are being outsourced to
private companies), schools for students who are academically
gifted and talented, schools for engineering and technology,
schools of the arts, and others continued to grow. In fact,
recent literature has contained articles urging the
establishment of single-sex schools and classes, and special
schools for students with such disabilities as Autism. The
“mixed messages” to school officials are very disconcerting.
However, coupled with the above discussions of vouchers,
expanding choice options, and No Child Left Behind, local public
school system policy-makers would be wise to plan now for what
seems inevitable during the next decade, as a trend to separate
and not integrate students gathers momentum.
Rise In Youth Gangs and
Gang Related Violence. A review of the
professional literature and popular media reveals several
articles and stories warning local government officials that the
proliferation of youth gangs and gang-related violent episodes
(many of which are drug-connected and involve the use of deadly
weapons) are on the rise across the country. As public school
officials and administrators know, what happens in the community
sooner or later happens inside a school.
Over the past two years I
have devoted several commentaries to issues of school security
and student search and seizure. Suffice it to say, youth gang
activity in communities will cause school officials to reexamine
school safety and emergency policies and plans, including
arrangements for immediate response and assistance form police
agencies. Over the summer it would be prudent for school
officials to seek the most recent and up-to-date data from a
variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in
an effort to establish an accurate picture of gangs (their
names, membership demographics, identifying attire and
communication system) and gang ties to criminal activities in
the community.
Based upon the most recent
information gathered, it behooves school officials to reexamine
all policies and procedures dealing with such related subjects
as: student dress codes, use of appropriate language inside the
school and at school sponsored activities, possession and use of
computers and other electronic technologies, involvement of
school security and school resource officers, student search and
seizure, possession and use of drugs, weapons, and alcohol, and
others.
Policy Implications
The purpose
of this commentary is to spot potential issues facing local
school officials as they plan for the 2004-2005 school year.
Realizing that it would not be possible to identify and treat
every potential issue, this writer selected the five discussed
above. Because the policy implications were identified,
included, and discussed in each section of this commentary, it
would be redundant to restate them again at this time.
I hope that
the information in this final commentary (along with the
discussions contained in the nine previous commentaries for this
past school year) proves helpful in crafting effective and
practical school system policies and procedures. It is my hope
that I contributed in a positive way to the efforts of local
school officials and administrators to provide a safe and
disruption free environment in schools where teachers can teach
and students can learn.
Resources Cited
Bunting v Mellen, 327 F.3d 355
(4th Cir. 2003)
Elk Grove School District v Newdow,
221 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003
U.S. App. LEXIS (2003)
Elk Grove School District v Newdow,
2004 U.S. LEXIS 4178 (2004)
Locke v Davey, 124 S.Ct. 1307
(2004)
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
20 U.S.C. 6301, et.seq. (2002)
Zelman v Simmons-Harris, 122 S.Ct.
2002 (2002)
Richard S. Vacca
Senior Fellow CEPI
Note: The views expressed in this
commentary are those of the author. |
