Third Annual Education Law Conference
Bridgeport, Connecticut
April 6, 2000

Presenters:

Dr. Richard S. Vacca, Professor of Education Law and Senior Fellow, Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI)

Dr. Cheri C. Magill, Director, Governor’s Best Practices Center, Chesterfield County, VA, and Research Associate, CEPI

Dr. Louis Millhouse, Assistant Principal, Manchester High School, Chesterfield County, VA, and Research Associate, CEPI

For further information, contact Dr. Richard Vacca at rsvacca at rsvacca@vcu.edu.

 

Introduction:

As the United States moved into the decade of the 1990’s, six central themes dominated the public education agenda. Spawned in what some experts called an era of rapid and sustained change (1960-1990), each one of these goals guided the direction taken by legislative bodies, courts of law, and policy-makers at the national, state, and local levels in efforts to create a new vision for public education as it moved into the new millennium. At the heart of these efforts was a corollary purpose; namely, to hold public school systems (their boards, administrators, and classroom teachers) directly accountable for implementing the new vision.

As this nation moved into the decade of the 1990’s, a standardized “one size fits all” test or assessment was needed to monitor and gage student progress (in some states called proficiency, in others called mastery), and to create educational (learning) productivity profiles. To put it another way, a state-wide test became the sine qua non (that without which the thing cannot be) element of the newly designed, accountability-driven vision for American public education.

Purpose of Presentation:

This presentation has four major purposes. First, to illustrate how several states responded, through legislation, to the goals of the new vision for public education. Second, to discuss several constitutional and legal issues spawned by the implementation of the new vision. Third, to demonstrate how courts of law have dealt with and resolved these issues. Finally, the presenters will summarize what they believe are potential bases of challenge to current and future efforts in the states to ensure that all graduates of public schools have received a quality, meaningful educational opportunity.

Highlights of the Presentation

Theme 1: Access to quality, meaningful results-based education

• 47/50 states have developed learning standards in at least two subjects
• Basis in code, regulation, or other
• Vary in specificity, grade levels
• Uniformly meaningful diploma
• Disparate impact

Theme 2: Expected student performance must be identified, standardized, and quantified

• 40/50 states have a statewide system for measuring student progress
• 11/50 states have no statewide assessment aligned with standards
• Vary in type
• Curricular [instructional] validity

Theme 3: Accountability for student progress

• 19/50 states assign ratings to schools
• 14/50 states have a system of rewards
• 16/50 states have a system of sanctions
• Alternatives to testing would countervene a state’s attempts to motivate students to do their best
• Remediation benefits students

Theme 4: Educational productivity profiles created, analyzed and distributed

• 36/50 states issue “report cards”
• Variety of information provided

Theme 5: Educational productivity tied to consequences

• 16/50 states have a system of sanctions
• 19/50 states have a system of assistance available to schools
• School leaders
• Teachers
• Students

Theme 6: Major decisions based on productivity profiles

• 19/50 states assign ratings to schools
• Impact on resources
• Planning for improvement
• Remediation
• Ratings affected by non-academic factors

Potential Constitutional, Legal, and Policy Issues

• 14th Amendment - Due Process, Equal Protection
• Titles 6 & 7 CRA 1964
• Title 9, Education Amendments of 1972
• Section 504, IDEA, ADA
• State Law Claims

Back to Top