America’s education system has become increasingly more complicated in recent years, as U.S. students continue to lag behind many other industrialized nations in academic achievement. In new data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) on international math and science assessments, U.S. students ranked an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. While the U.S. is one of the most advanced nations on the planet, public education remains a dismal system in the states. Many seeking to improve the status of education advocate for school choice, touting voucher programs and charter schools as the ideal method to fix America’s broken school system. The guaranteed effectiveness of these methods, however, is questionable given extensive research–begging the question: is school choice the right choice?

What is School Choice?

School choice allows for parents to pick any traditional public school or charter school in a particular school district. The movement for school choice is attributed to Milton Friedman’s 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education,” in which he proposed giving families redeemable vouchers for educational services. Following the essay’s release, the concept of freedom of choice in education gained popularity.

Arguably, school choice is a favorite among large corporations and more wealthy conservatives, although some Democrats, including President Barack Obama, support the idea (Obama called for expanding charter schools when first addressing Congress in 2009). The education style is backed mostly by right-wing organizations and business such as the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the Koch brothers, some of the world’s richest and best known political donors. Even with the support of some moderate conservatives and liberals, the primary backers of school choice are extremely conservative activists seeking to radically transform public education in America. While school choice is touted as a social justice movement and a program committed to procuring effective education for all children, it does have some serious issues.

Research has found that school choice actually widens the achievement gap between white and black children. Moreover, it often advocates dismantling public education, rather than attempting to make it stronger. It has often become a mechanism of privatizing education and defunding public schools, starving the remaining public institutions of funds and quality teachers.

The concept of school choice may be fueling the transformation of public education into a business. The reason many corporations favor the school choice model is that it allows the wealthy to profit off of the education system. Teachers may also experience more punitive environments; as parents begin to choose schools because of performances on standardized tests, teachers will receive the full blame when students score poorly on a high-stakes test. Making a teacher the scapegoat for lackluster performance shifts blame to an individual, rather than tackling the systemic problems in education.

Charter Schools

Charter schools have become an increasingly popular choice around the country. These schools are publicly funded, but are governed by appointed boards and tend to be run by private companies. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia allow charter schools, with 22 states having some sort of cap that limits the number of charter schools.

Charter schools were first created in Minnesota and endorsed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Specifically, charter schools are public schools that are accountable via a contract or “charter” to public bodies; if they fail to meet the agreed-upon terms of the charter, they can be shut down quickly. Charters are also accountable for student performance on standardized tests. However, in a 2009 Stanford study, only 17 percent of charter schools were found to provide better education than public schools.

Charter schools may also have negative consequences for traditional public schools. A 2015 study from Michigan State University’s Education Policy Center determined that exceedingly high percentages of charter schools had a devastating impact on poorer school districts in Michigan, such as Detroit. Unlike other states, roughly 80 percent of Michigan’s charter schools are run by for-profit companies. Once charter schools reached 20 percent or more enrollment, it became far more difficult for the traditional schools to compete.

Vouchers

School vouchers are government certificates, backed by state dollars, that allow parents to choose which school to send their children to, including private or religious institutions. Vouchers have come under intense criticism for diverting public money away from public schools and have been accused of disproportionately assisting wealthy white families, while neglecting minorities in poorer communities–ultimately reducing diversity in classrooms and  fostering segregation. The National Education Association, the largest labor union in the U.S. representing public school teachers and other support personnel, is a strong, vocal opponent of school vouchers.

Those who support vouchers argue that the programs are actually more diverse. Many voucher programs are targeted to specific populations, such as low-income students or students with disabilities. Moreover, research conducted in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. found that money was not necessarily drained from public schools because of school vouchers. Instead the program assisted in saving Wisconsin money and infused the city of D.C. with federal funds in exchange for passing a voucher program.

But major studies of voucher programs tell a different story. In late 2015, results from a study on the Indiana voucher program found that voucher students who transferred to private schools experienced significant losses in achievement and no real improvement in reading. In a study of Louisiana’s program, researchers found large negative results in both reading and math; elementary school students who started in the 50th percentile in math and then used a voucher to transfer to a private school plummeted to the 26th percentile in just one year. Finally, a third voucher study in Ohio uncovered that students who used vouchers to attend private schools actually performed worse academically compared to closely matched peers attending public school.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and School Choice

The appointment of Besty DeVos, a conservative philanthropic billionaire, as the Secretary of Education, will likely ramp up lobbying for school choice programs. As the new Department of Education head, she is committed to making vouchers and other school choice policies the heart of education reform. DeVos, someone with no real public school experience, has even stated that historically black colleges and universities were “pioneers” of school choice. While that is certainly not the case, her statement illuminates her naivety and the new administration’s willingness to push school choice programs.

“Betsy DeVos” Courtesy of Gage Skidmore : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Over the years, DeVos has been ardent supporter of vouchers for private religious schools. DeVos was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative Dutch Calvinist denomination. In a 2001 interview for The Gathering, a group focused on advancing the Christian faith via philanthropy, DeVos stated that there were “not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education…Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.”

Critics note that DeVos is attempting to change the definition of school choice to allow taxpayer money to follow students to any private school through vouchers. This implementation of “universal school choice” would allow funds to funnel into religious private schools. Trump’s education proposal calls for allotting $20 billion in federal money to help parents choose schools that are not “failing,” and instead send students to charter, private, or religious schools.

Conclusion

Many educators oppose the idea of school choice and privatizing education, noting that diversity is a critical aspect of well-rounded learning. Private schools may encourage too much student withdrawal, sheltering students from the rigors of real-world experiences with such specialized educational amenities and services. The research surrounding the efficacy of charter schools and voucher programs appears to tell a more complex story. More school choice does not necessarily lead to better results. Moreover, the U.S. should tread carefully when attempting to privatize the public education system. The American public school system’s ultimate goal should be ensuring that students are equipped with the knowledge necessary to become responsible, informed, and contributing citizens.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Choice: Is It the Future of the American Public School System? appeared first on Law Street.

Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. In the past week alone I’ve read two stories about obscene dress code restrictions and sexist double standards in both the New York Times and Buzzfeed that call for some rant worthy commentary.

Now about 100 years ago it was positively scandalous for a woman to show a bare ankle in public, but it’s not the Victorian era anymore. Unlike the oppressed women back then, we have the right to vote, serve in the military, obtain an education, and take birth control, just for starters. So you’d think that with all of these advancements in women’s rights, women would have the right to decide for themselves what to wear, right? Wrong.

The New York Times wrote a very interesting piece discussing the issue after speaking with high schools girls who were told by administrators that the expensive dresses they’d purchased for prom weren’t acceptable and either needed to be altered or they wouldn’t be permitted to attend. In their piece Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora write:

Girls have been told to cover up shoulders, knees and backs. They have been reprimanded for partially exposed stomachs and thighs and excessive cleavage. They have been ordered to wear jackets, ordered to go home and suspended.

For one girl in the article, that meant a dress and alterations that cost $400 on top of the $90 prom ticket. Some schools have even begun to require girls to take pictures of their gowns and submit them to administrators for approval before they’re even able to buy a ticket to the dance. When asked why the rules are so strict, one superintendent they spoke with said “We want our young ladies to be dressed beautifully; we want them to be dressed with class and dignity. But we are going to draw the line relative to attire that would be deemed overexposing oneself.”

This idea that schools need to protect girls from overexposing themselves isn’t restricted to just the U.S. Take 17-year-old Canadian teen Laura Wiggins, for example. Laura looked in her closet one morning and decided she wanted to wear a full-length halter dress to her high school in New Brunswick. Her legs weren’t showing. Her belly button wasn’t hanging out. Her breasts weren’t on display. The ensemble did, however, showcase her bare arms and a semi-bare back.

A Canadian Teen Wrote The Best Rebuttal After Getting Detention For Wearing A Halter Dress http://t.co/hS4WHTHsf0 pic.twitter.com/hfZSXjghbB

— BuzzFeed Canada (@BuzzFeedCanada) May 13, 2015

That was apparently enough for Laura to receive a detention for being a “sexual distraction” to her male classmates, because if there’s anything that gets a teenage boy all hot and bothered, it’s a back. Isn’t that what Justin Timberlake meant when he said he was “bringing sexy back?”

But it’s the way that Laura dealt with the situation that is truly amazing. Instead of taking the detention quietly, she chose to write a letter to her school’s vice principal and it was very eloquent, impressive, and inspiring. I won’t quote the whole badass letter, but here are two passages that particularly stood out to me:

In today’s society, a woman’s body is constantly discriminated against and hypersexualized to the point where we can no longer wear the clothing that we feel comfortable in without the accusation and/or assumption that we are being provocative.[…]

Then she continues with,

So no, Mr. Sturgeon, I will not search for something to cover up my back and shoulders because I am not showing them off with the intention to gain positive sexual feedback from the teenage boys in my school. I am especially not showing them to receive any comments, positive or negative, from anybody else besides myself because the only person who can make any sort of judgment on my body and the fabrics I place on it is me.

So instead of focusing on what causes boys to be “distracted” my advice to schools would be to try teaching them self control. These young men will need that in the real world, especially with all these empowered girls walking around in yoga pants everywhere.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Schools Going Too Far with These Dress Code Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve seen it all over the news lately–parents getting into trouble when their children are truant from school without a valid excuse. While to many it may seem easy to get an excuse letter signed or send in a note the day after the absence, sometimes parents aren’t able to take those steps, or don’t know about their children’s absences from school. In a time of more testing and government regulations in our schools, administrations have elected to pay more attention to when students are staying home, and more importantly, why they are staying home. Read on to learn about truancy laws in the United States and the consequences that may arise for some parents if their children don’t attend school.

What truancy means for each student, school, and state varies. While Strategies for Youth, a non-profit, defines truancy as simply “an unexcused absence from school,” the definition of what an excused absence is, and what being “truant” means depends on the state and sometimes even the school district.

Another organization, Truancy Prevention, breaks down the level of states’ involvement even more:

Any unexcused absence from school is considered a truancy, but states enact their own school attendance laws. State law determines 1) the age at which a child is required to begin attending school, 2) the age at which a child may legally drop out of school, and 3), the number of unexcused absences at which a student is considered legally truant

Each state and school is different, so if you’re curious about specific truancy laws, the best thing to do is look in your individual school handbook to figure out the rules.

Case Study: Eileen DeNino

One extreme case that has gained national attention is that of Eileen DeNino of Reading, Pennsylvania. The 55-year-old mother of eight had to serve a two-day sentence because she owed the court system money due to her sons’ truancy issues. Two of her sons had been absent more than the three days that Pennsylvania allows and were fined repeatedly over several years. She never paid the fines, which landed her in jail; however, the first night of her stay she started complaining that it felt hard to breathe. Jail officials allegedly ignored her pleas for help, thinking she was just trying to get out of serving her time. Her cellmate said that she was moaning in pain the entire time. She died later that night due to complications from a previous medical problem.

Critics have said that her stint in jail is reminiscent of debtor’s prison, which is illegal, while others have said it was wrong because her children were making the decisions on their own. The coroners found that the prison system was not in the wrong.

The law that DeNino broke applies to Pennsylvania, where staying home from school for more than three days is considered truancy. In Berks County alone, “more than 1,600 parents—most of them mothers—have been jailed” for truancy.

A call for reform?

DeNino’s death has led to some calling for change within the education system. While consequences are one thing, parents being fined or put in jail because their children were absent is viewed as something else entirely. Each year, many parents experience problems with a child’s truancy, which commonly leads to fines, loss of custody, and probation for juveniles and/or parents. In some cases these children can be placed in foster care.

For example, in October 2014 the Florida State Attorney’s office issued warrants for the arrest of 44 Jacksonville parents of truant children. One couple, Lucius Corbitt III and Afton Nolan, were both arrested after their daughter missed 40 school days over a three-year period; however, their daughter still made honor roll and was at the top of her class.

“Maybe there are some kids whose parents didn’t want to send them to school,” Corbitt told The Florida Times-Union. “But when my child missed school, my wife and I got make-up work and she passed. … Most days she missed we had doctor’s documentation, but it is so hard to get someone at the school board. It really is crap.”

In other states, such as California, officials have been sent out to do “truancy sweeps” to check up on students who stayed home. In one particular sweep, six parents were arrested, including one parent whose child missed school 21 times. In this situation, most parents were offered parenting classes.

The Arguments For Parent Punishment

There is a reason that we have truancy laws and why students can’t just go to school only when they feel like it. In 1889, the Chicago Board of Education argued, “We should rightfully have the power to arrest all these little beggars, loafers, and vagabonds that infest our city, take them from the streets and place them in schools where they are compelled to receive an education and learn moral principles.”  This was during a time when nearly a quarter of the juveniles jailed in Chicago where there for truancy. By 1918, every state had a law that made school attendance mandatory.

It wasn’t until 2001 and the start of No Child Left Behind that schools had to report this data to the state. Many surmise that the goal was to identify parents who weren’t taking care of their children or were negligent. Since then, more and more government officials have been calling for stricter regulations on truancy, specifically for teenagers.

Recent research has shown that many students are absent at least two days a month, often because the student just didn’t feel like going to school. That is a problem that we need to face, and starting with parents might be the best approach to take.

 Arguments Against Truancy Laws

Most of the cases that we hear about involve teenagers. Some critics of truancy laws feel that teenagers today don’t really feel the effects of the mistakes they make–and this is just another example of that. Parenting website the Stir poses the question:

What’s more, what are we teaching kids about taking responsibility for their own actions, and their own lives, if we’re making parents pay for their misdeeds? Once kids reach their teenage years, it seems to me, it’s time for them to take more responsibility for their own decisions, not less.

Others have claimed that throwing parents in jail isn’t something that will help anyone in the family. According to the Marshall Project, “the criminalization of truancy often pushes students further away from school, and their families deeper into poverty.” Instead of focusing on parents, some hope to focus on the schools and determine why teens are using any excuse not to go.

In some states, the child does face the brunt of the punishment. Some states are even allowed to take away the driving privileges of the teen who is truant.

Conclusion

Students being absent from school is an undeniable problem The rates are typically higher in schools that have more students, which need to have higher scores on state testing in order to get the materials they need. We also know that more than a few absences per year are correlated with lower grades, dropping out of high school, and trouble with the law. It remains unclear whether or not actively threatening, fining, or even jailing these parents is an effective way to treat the “crime.” There may need to be alternate steps taken to make sure that students stay in school as much as possible.

Resources

Jacksonville: Parents Arrested in Truancy Sweep Say There Were Reasons Why Their Kids Missed School

Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Truancy

Stir: Parents Now Thrown in Jail When Kid Misses School

Washington Post: Mother of Seven in Jail Because Her Kids Skipped School Dies in Cell

Truancy Prevention: Truancy Definition, Facts and Laws

Connect With Kids: Arresting Parents For Truancy

Counter Punch: Criminalizing Truancy

Desert Dispatch: Six Arrested, 26 Cited in Truancy Sweep

Johnson Juvenile Lawyers: Juvenile Truancy

Lawrence Journal: Truancy Policies Can Catch Parents by Surprise

Think Progress: The Return Of Debtor’s Prisons: Thousands Of Americans Jailed For Not Paying Their Bills

WFMZ: Coroner Issues Ruling in Death of Woman Jailed in Child Truant Case

WFMZ: Exclusive: Cellmate of Woman Who Died in Jail Speaks Out

U.S. News & World Report: Skipping High School Can Lead to Fines, Jail For Parents

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Parents Pay the Price if Their Children Skip School? appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one thing most Americans can agree on it’s that our education system is in dismal shape. A big chunk of that comes from the fact that our public schools have not, in some places, been able to provide students who come from low-income families with the resources that they so desperately need to be successful. One proposed way to fix this for at least some students is to institute a system of school vouchers. The idea of such programs has been heavily debated and discussed for decades. Read on to learn about school voucher programs and both sides of the debate.

What are school vouchers?

Vouchers parents to send their children schools outside of those assigned to them by location. These schools are often described as more innovative charter schools than are found in the traditional public system or private schools. Use of school vouchers varies throughout the United States, with some programs run at the state level, and others at the city level. Some notable long-lasting programs include those launched in Milwaukee in 1990, and Cleveland in 1995.

What is the argument in favor of school vouchers?

Providing families with more choices about how to raise their children is a staple of the American way and the voucher system would give control to parents to select the school that is best for their child. Vouchers would also allow children in low-income areas to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and go to a higher quality school so that they can get a better education. Additionally, private school vouchers would create direct competition between private schools and public schools and the competition will force all institutions to better themselves in an effort to attract students.

What is the argument against school vouchers?

For all the potential benefits that could come if state and local governments provided school vouchers, the policy also has notable flaws.  Opponents argue first and foremost that private school vouchers compromise the integrity of the entire public school system. The government operates public schools, yet it also incentivizes families to avoid them.  The conflicts of interest in this scenario makes it seem ineffective. Any public funding that goes to school vouchers is money that could have been spent improving the public school system, which cannot improve without support and investments from the government. Opponents also argue that many private schools are religiously affiliated and school vouchers provided by the government is essentially taxpayer funding of religious institutions.

How do school vouchers hold up in court?

The constitutionality of school vouchers has been heard in several court cases. Cleveland launched its program in 1995 in response to the city’s dismal public schools; however, because Cleveland’s program allowed students to use the vouchers to attend private schools with religious affiliations, the program was almost immediately the subject of lawsuits. Eventually, the question made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the 2002 case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the plaintiffs argued that the case violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which provides for the separation of religion and state. The court ruled that the vouchers could remain, because even though the religious schools were receiving government funding, the purpose of the vouchers was compelling and there were non-religious options possible. In addition, the program didn’t go to the religiously-based schools, but rather the parents and students who needed the aid, and the program didn’t proselytize or advocate for the religiously-run schools.

Case Study: Milwaukee Public Schools

Vouchers have been an option for students since the early 1990s, but whether or not the implementation has been effective is still up for debate. Thousands of students in Milwaukee take advantage of the voucher program, and like in Cleveland, many do end up in religiously-run institutions. The main question is whether or not it has worked.

The consensus seems to be: sort of. Evidence from the 2012-2013 school year shows that students in Milwaukee’s voucher program are not outscoring their public school peers as a whole on state tests. That sounds disheartening, and would seem to indicate that vouchers have been a failure, but there’s some evidence to suggest that the picture requires more digging than that. The voucher students have, in fact, scored better than their low-income public school peers. Also, test scores in the Milwaukee voucher program have on the rise, perhaps indicating that the program is on the right track.

Conclusion

The voucher system is a creative solution to a debilitating problem in the American education system — particularly in some of our low-income public schools. The argument for vouchers includes the ability for parents and students to inject more choice into their education — hopefully creating more competitive school systems. In practice, however, it hasn’t necessarily worked out to that way. They’re also expensive, and could lead to public schools receiving less funding in the name of creating stronger charter schools. While some students may receive a better education, students as a whole population are left in a worse position. What’s indubitable is that we’re really not sure about the ultimate effects of vouchers yet as there’s no nationwide system to study.

Resources

Primary

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: School Choice Programs

Cornell University Law School: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Additional

World Bank: How Do School Vouchers Help Improve Education Systems?

PBS: The Case For Vouchers

NJ.com: Christie Tours Pro-Vouchers, Anti-Union Message in Philadelphia

Washington Post: Are School Vouchers Losing Steam?

Carnegie Mellon University: Estimating the Effects of Private School Vouchers in Multidistrict Economies

Education Next: The Impact of School Vouchers on College Enrollment

WRAL.com: Voucher Bill Provides Public Money For Private School

Anti-Defamation League: School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice For Public Education

Americans United For Separation of Church and State: 10 Reasons Why Private School Vouchers Should Be Rejected

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Vouchers: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States mandates education for its children and provides public access to that education. When a child’s formal education begins, however, depends on several factors, including the state, the child, and the wishes of the child’s parents. But when exactly we should begin providing that education is up for debate. Read on to learn about the concept of universal pre-school, and the arguments for and against it.

What’s the current status of Preschool in the U.S.?

On March 4, 2014 President Obama announced his intention to allocate $750 million for the foundation of universal, federally funded pre-school in the United States. These funds would guarantee that Pre-K would be available, but not mandatory, for all young Americans, and some research has shown that a pre-school education creates better students and more productive citizens later in life. The concept of universal pre-school is nothing new; several states and cities including New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Boston, and Tulsa have had various forms of universal Pre-K programs since the middle and late 1990s. However, many oppose these measures, saying that a pre-school education does not guarantee success for a child, making the taxpayer investment simply not worth the risk. While there are numerous studies indicating the success rates of pre-school educated children, these reports are disputed, and plenty of other reports exist that argue pre-school does not positively affect a student’s academic success later in their education. It remains to be seen whether the President will be able to garner enough support, and funds, for this educational endeavor.

What are the arguments for Universal Pre-school?

Supporters of universal pre-school highlight the long list of rewards students can reap from a Pre-K education, while arguing that future returns, as well as the influx of former stay-at-home parents into the workforce, will actually improve the economy now and in the future. Advocates point out a wide array of benefits that can stem from obtaining a Pre-K education. These include higher test scores, better emotional development, higher high school graduation rates, lower poverty rates, and the end of racial socio-economic disparity.

The jump start on learning for pre-schoolers allows them to enter Kindergarten with some pre-existing content knowledge and experience in working in a classroom setting with their peers. The end result of these benefits, supporters argue, is that these students will achieve a higher level of education, get better jobs, and contribute to the end of poverty and race-based economic gaps. Privately-owned pre-schools, while maintaining high standards, are expensive and thus seem to cater to middle and upper class families. Without access to Pre-K due to economic restrictions, many argue that children of low-income families are locked into a cycle of poverty.

The problem that remains, however, is how the government and taxpayers will pay for this type of program. Political advocates have offered popular ways to pay for universal pre-school; New York City’s Mayor De Blasio plans to tax New York’s wealthiest residents to pay for his Pre-K program, while President Obama has suggested increasing the tax on cigarettes from $1.01 to $1.95. Advocates argue that these strategies would allow the government to fund a universal Pre-K program without significant impact on the taxes of average Americans. Additionally, supporters point out the economic benefits of universal pre-school, indicating it will pay for itself and more over time.

What are the arguments against Universal Pre-school?

Opponents argue that universal Pre-K would be detrimental to quality private pre-schools. Opponents dispute the same reports that link the myriad of benefits to a pre-school education, using other reports to argue that students with and without this early start earn similar test scores, high school graduation rates, and career achievement. One of the best sources of support for this argument, opponents claim, is the failure of current federal pre-school programs such as Head Start.

Initiated in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society,” Head Start offers low-income families access to pre-school for their children. Within the last decade, educational professionals have been united in their acknowledgement that Head Start fails to achieve its goals of inequality-gap reduction. Advocates claim this is due to a lack of funding and the low quality of the Pre-K offered under Head Start (the pre-school teachers are not required to have a teaching degree), whereas modern universal pre-school proposals call for high-quality education with highly qualified teachers. Opponents, however, say this is evidence that federally-funded Pre-K programs fail to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged students.

Opponents argue the only way to ensure a quality pre-school education is to maintain competition in the Pre-K market, thus prompting privately-owned pre-schools to maintain high standards. Offering free, federally-funded pre-schools could potentially undercut successful private pre-schools and lower the overall standards of a Pre-K education in the United States. With roughly 45 percent of American children already enrolled in pre-school, opponents feel that the introduction of a universal pre-school program would only have negative effects for students, parents, and society.

Conclusion

Educational support is one of the most important things that our government provides for its citizens. We have accepted that young people should be in school, but how young is too young to start? And what are the benefits of providing preschool rather than allowing parents and students to make those choices? These are all intrinsic components of the debate surrounding universally-funded preschool in the United States, and while President Obama has taken concrete action on the subject, the laws are developing.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Serving Pre-School Children Through Title I

Administration for Children & Families: Federal Office of Head Start

Additional

Think Progress: Georgia’s Universal Preschool Program Significantly Improves Children’s Skills

Huffington Post: Do Right By Our Children: Enact Universal Pre-K

National Institute for Early Education Research: The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the United States Have Preschool For All?

U.S. News & World Report: Why the GOP Should Get On Board With Preschool

Nation: How Universal Pre-K Could Redistribute Wealth–Right Here, Right Now

National Affairs: The Dubious Promise of Universal Preschool

Reason Foundation: The Case Against Universal Preschool in California

Heritage Foundation; Universal Preschool’s Empty Promises

Brookings: New Evidence Raises Doubts on Obama’s Preschool For All

ABC: Universal Pre-K: ‘This Whole Thing is a Scam’

Breitbart: Obama Budget Proposal Pushes for $750 Million for Universal Preschool

Huffington Post: Elected Officials Embrace Preschool, But Funding is the Catch

Scholastic: Universal Preschool: Is it Necessary?

The White House: Fact Sheet President Obama’s Plan For Early Education For All Americans

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universal Pre-School in the United States: When Should Kids Start School? appeared first on Law Street.

The vast majority of public school classrooms in the United States are composed of students of both genders. While some private schools do occasionally embark on single-sex education, public schools focus on a blend of genders. However, there is growing debate about the effectiveness of each method of education. Read on to learn about single-sex education, its benefits, its problems, and its future.

History of Single-Sex Education

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, single-sex classrooms in public schools were the norm and a product of cultural views on women and their roles in society. In the latter half of the twentieth century, however, single-sex education was only found in elite private schools and reserved for students whose parents could afford to send their children to expensive preparatory programs. Recently, however, there has been a push to offer single-sex classrooms in the American public school system.

In the mid 1990s, there were only two public schools in the United States that offered single-sex classrooms; today there are more than 500. As education professionals search for innovative ways to improve the education system, many have looked toward single-sex education as a way to capitalize on boys’ and girls’ different learning styles. While various studies and reports proclaiming the merits of a single-sex education, many claim just the opposite.

What are the Arguments for Single-Sex Education?

Advocates claim single-sex education offers students a learning environment that is directed toward their gender’s natural learning style. Research has shown that boys and girls learn differently; where boys often learn better in an environment that emphasizes physical activity and more structure, girls often learn best in a classroom that emphasizes verbal communication and empathy. In a single-sex classroom, a teacher would be better able to focus on those learning styles to enhance the experiences of each gender.

Advocates also argue that a single-sex classroom would help to remove existing gender biases, which some professionals say are pushing girls away from computer technology careers and boys away from the arts. Traditionally, boys excel in math and sciences while girls succeed more in the arts and English. Some argue that single-sex classrooms would allow students to explore all of these areas unhindered by any gender biases that may exist.

Many people point out that removing the distraction of trying to impress the other gender, especially for middle and high school students, would improve student performance. Experts say girls tend to “dumb themselves down” for boys, while boys will often act out or goof off in order to catch the attention of girls. Without the distraction of the opposite gender, some experts say that students will be more focused and serious about their schoolwork.

What are the Arguments Against Single-Sex education?

Opponents of single-sex classrooms point out the similarities between separating genders in education and the “separate but equal” doctrine aimed at African Americans in public schools in the 1950s. They argue that separate but equal education is “inherently unequal.”

To some, single-sex classrooms violate Title IX, a federal educational amendment that requires females to be included in any educational program or activity. Opponents feel that single-sex classrooms would actually reinforce the same gender stereotypes advocates hope to eliminate. The kind of learning environments proposed by advocates of single-sex classrooms cater to existing stereotypes about males and females, and would present problems for students such as, for instance, a sensitive boy or an assertive girl.

Opponents argue that students are not cookie cutter molds of the traits commonly associated with their gender; rather their character varies along a spectrum ranging from loud and physically active to quiet and empathetic. Single-sex classrooms would trap students in rigid stereotypes, failing to allow students who fall anywhere else on the spectrum the chance to grow individually and academically.

Additionally, opponents say the true failure of a single-sex education is that it does not provide opportunities for boys and girls to work together, thus failing to prepare them for a co-educational world. As women anchor their places in American industry and business, today’s students will need to learn how to function with both genders, without being distracted simply because of the presence of the opposite sex.

Case Studies: Examples of Single-Sex Education Across the U.S.

Urban Prep

Located in Chicago, Illinois, Urban Prep Academies is a collection of single-sex all-male public charter schools. They are currently the only all-male public schools in the state of Illinois. The curriculum includes a heavy focus on community and public service, and working toward either college admittance or a professional field. Urban Prep has made reaching out to young men, and teaching in ways that correspond to the way in which young men learn, one of its primary goals.

The success of Urban Prep has been well documented — it certainly has had a higher graduation rate than many of its peers in other public schools in the area. However, there are questions as to whether that comes from the single-sex aspect of education, or the other benefits offered by a charter school like Urban Prep. There’s also the question of whether the model that Urban Prep employs would be sustainable on a wider scale.

William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity

The William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity (WALIPP), located in Houston, Texas, is an all-male public school. One interesting aspect of WALIPP is that in addition to an all-male student population, the teaching staff is also all men. The reasoning behind such specific hiring is that the teachers act as strong male role models for the young men who are in their classrooms. Many of the young men at WALIPP were raised primarily by their mothers, in single-family households, and benefit from having successful older men to look to for guidance. Audrey Lawson, the founder of WALIPP, explained that: “inner city boys started out not being thought of as good students. In elementary school, they have had mostly women teachers, and girls respond better to them.” 

Conclusion

Whether or not we’ll start to move more convincingly toward single-sex classrooms is uncertain; although it is important to note that as more charter schools try unconventional methods, it is certainly a possibility. The benefits have yet to be proven, but as American students constantly struggle in meeting educational benchmarks, the experiment of single-sex learning may be valuable enough for some schools to consider worth the risk.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and Sex Discrimination

Additional

Washington Post: Boys and Girls Learn Separately at Prince George’s School

National Association for Single Sex Public Education: What Have Researchers Found When They Compare Single-Sex Education With Co-Education?

Denver Post: Genders Split Up At More Schools

CRC Health Group: The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

ASCD: Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls

Synonym: The Disadvantages of Single Gender Education Schools

Al Jazeera America: Study: Single-Sex Education Offers No Benefits

Atlantic: The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools

American Psychological Association: Single-Sex Education Unlikely to Offer Advantage Over Coed Schools, Research Finds

The New York Times: Single-Sex Education is Assailed in Report

Washington Post: More Schools Trying Separation of the Sexes

Huffington Post: Arlington High School in Indianapolis Separating Boys and Girls in Classes

Great Schools: Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons

Atlantic: The Never-Ending Controversy Over All Girls Education

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Public Schools are Experimenting With Single-Sex Education appeared first on Law Street.

I have sort of hazy memories of taking the Connecticut Mastery Tests when I was in middle school. They sucked. They were boring, and annoying, and I always got mad that my name never fit into that part where you have to bubble in the letters. So if anyone ever needs to see my 6th grade test scores, or whatever, they’re under “Annelie” Mahoney.

But what I remember most vividly is that we all were required to take those tests. They were normal, they happened every couple of years, and then we got over them. I never once heard the phrase ‘opt-out,’ even though I’m sure there were a handful of kids who didn’t take them. This isn’t a tirade about things “back in my day” because I took the CMTs about ten years ago, but I do feel like an old grump wondering how so many things have changed in just that short decade.

A constant debate in education over the past couple years revolves around something called “Common Core,” which does add some more tests to the curriculum. The intent of Common Core is to standardize education a bit more, so that students around the country have some of the same requirements. The goal is to make sure that a student in Mississippi learns the same basic tenants of history, English, and critical thinking as a student in Rhode Island or Hawaii. So far, 44 states have adopted the standards, which were often supported by state governors and legislatures. But a lot of parents are pushing back, demanding that their children not be required to take state testing.

And there are a lot of voices in the debate, but they seem to come mostly from a few different categories of people — parents, teachers, and politicians. I’ve yet to see a piece by someone who actually remembers being in middle school, or taking those tests. So as someone who actually took high school state tests as little as six years ago, here are the things that have stuck out to me in this debate.

3. I don’t think Common Core is a conspiracy. 

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about Common Core, which I will arrange in descending levels of hilarity.

• The Common Core standards were created by President Obama. This is false. The standards have been worked on for years. In fact, the development started during President Bush’s presidency.

Common Core will indoctrinate children to be mindless-leftist-socialist-gay-Muslim-atheist-robots. No joke guys. That’s what some opposition is saying, like perennial crazy man Glen Beck, or Tea Party darling Elois Zeanah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqEGx46IiwBest part of that video is definitely when she makes a reference to the novel “1994.” It’s actually called 1984. And that, Ms. Zeanah, is why some of us want the young people of this country to have a better education.

• But hands down, my favorite conspiracy theory is this one: Common Core will make your child pee their pants. No, this is not my attempt at a lame post-April Fools joke. That’s a legit Daily Caller headline. The article claims that an elementary school in Chicago is making teachers implement new draconian policies that involve bringing their classes to the bathroom at the same time at the end of a period. Ok guys, have you EVER set foot in a public school? When I was in high school, you had to sign out to use the bathroom in most of my classes. That’s right, as a 17-year-old, with a license, and a job, and some modicum of personal responsibility, I had to alert the school when I used the restroom. Public schools have always been weird about bathroom breaks. This is not a conspiracy. This is not new. As a former public school student, I didn’t even bat an eyelash.

2. Parents who are opting their children out of the tests are treating the symptoms rather than the problems. 

One of the biggest arguments against Common Core is that it means that teachers teach too much to the test, as opposed to actually teaching substantive material. Which is a fair complaint, but opting your children out of the test does literally nothing to solve that problem. Common Core standards were put into place because the United States is failing at education. Compared to other developed countries, we spend more money on education, but consistently lag in scores. Common Core is an attempt to ameliorate that. Does that mean that the new standards are good or perfect or don’t deserve a whole ton of revision? No. But they’re a step toward trying to solve a pressing problem. We quite obviously don’t know how to get the United States back on track education-wise. That’s why we work toward a solution using analysis and critical thinking. And why we measure our progress through testing.

I truly hope that all these parents who are opting their kids out are attempting to be involved in the reform process. They should run for office, or lobby their politicians, or whatever, but they shouldn’t just opt their kids out and then stand idly by. Because that’s treating the symptom of the problem instead of dealing with the fact that our schools are failing our students.

1. Crappy, stressful situations are a part of life. 

There are some very legitimate reasons, such as medical issues, that parents are opting their children out of the tests. But one of the other major reasons is that they cause undue stress for students.

I have a problem with this. Tests are unpleasant, yes. They are stressful, ok. They are unfair, sure. But you know what can also be unpleasant, stressful, and unfair? Pretty much everything in life. I have a problem with parents opting their children out because their kids are stressed, because that’s a bad lesson to learn. We don’t get to choose not to do things because they’re stressful.

You know what stresses me out to no end? Parking. I’m a fine driver, but I’m a spectacularly horrible parker.

My deepest fear.

But just because parking gives me anxiety doesn’t mean I can just leave my car willy-nilly in the middle of the parking lot. I can’t opt out of parking.

Now I’m not suggesting that we allow children to walk around stressed out of their minds. That’s cruel and ridiculous. But I do think that there is merit in teaching children how to manage the stress, as opposed to getting rid of the stressful situation altogether. There are thousands of techniques out there to help people deal with stress. I think there’s more merit in teaching a child how to deal with stress than teaching that if something stresses them out, they can make it go away. Because unfortunately, that will make for a cruel awakening when they grow up. I think that the way that the exams are presented could also help mitigate stress — if parents and teachers stopped making such a big deal out of them, maybe the kids would too.

I don’t think there’s any sort of easy fix to the education problems in our country. Common Core might be a step in the right direction, or it might not be. But if we keep harping on conspiracy issues, treating symptoms instead of problems, and not getting to the root of the issue, it won’t matter if Common Core is better. We need to work together to make sure that our children are as well prepared as possible for every part of life, and until we accept that, we’re going to have those education problems in the US.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brittney Bush Bollay via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Everyone Calm Down About Common Core? appeared first on Law Street.

The morning of January 23, 2014, I had the privilege to attend an event at the Center for American Progress. It was called, “The Changing Role of Teachers Unions: Ensuring High Quality Public Education for America’s Students.”

There were introductory remarks from CAP’s President, Neera Tanden, a keynote Presentation from Dennis Van Roekel, the President of the National Education Association, and then a panel discussion involving Mr. Van Roekel; Richard Lee Colvin, Senior Associate at Cross & Joftus; Elena Silva, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Paul Toner, President of the Massachusetts Teachers Association; and Tammy Wawro, President of the Iowa State Education Association. The discussion was moderated by Carmel Martin from the CAP.

The overall theme of the discussion was how the NEA is trying to transform its function from an organization that focuses on mostly collective bargaining and lobbying functions, to one that also plays a large part in policy, advocacy, and professional development. They want to provide teachers with the ability to collaborate and control the direction of their profession by advocating a new student-centered approach.

During his keynote, Dennis Van Roekel used a metaphor for the NEA’s goals that continued throughout the symposium. He described how the American education system is very good at creating “campfires,” but as any good Boy or Girl Scout can tell you, a perfect campfire just stays burning in the place where you put it; it doesn’t spread. He described how the new goal of the NEA and the American Education system should be to create brushfires–fires that spread through connections, improved training, and leadership development.

The panel dealt with a number of questions about how these new priorities would be implemented. Both of the on-the-ground state representatives, Toner and Wawro,  highlighted how teachers are on board with many policy changes, including Common Core, different types of teacher evaluations, and more leadership training, but are overwhelmed by how quickly they’re happening. They both emphasized that it’s going to take time to make it work, but everyone is optimistic. There was also a large emphasis on the partnerships that can be formed between teachers, the NEA, and other organizations, such as an organization called Teach Plus, a national non-profit that helps urban teachers.

There was some concern about how this will all work. Silva pointed out that much of what is happening right now is experimentation. But it’s very high risk experimentation, as it happens in the real world. If things go wrong in a school where something new is being tried out, it could harm the students. Schools, and the NEA, could get in a lot of trouble if any changes do fail. But it seems that the potential for failure seems better than the subsistence existence that many schools are in right now. After all, as Van Roekel pointed out, high school graduation rate is only about 75%, and it’s even lower in inner-city schools. Experimentation needs to happen, but Silva is right, it is dangerous, and schools need to be ready to make quick changes if necessary.

I found the part of the talk that dealt with the changing efforts of NEA to be interesting and informative, but I was actually even more interested in a section of the discussion that diverged a bit. One of the introductory points that Van Roekel used was the fact that we need to make sure that our teachers are qualified and ready to teach from day one. He gave the example of going to the emergency room–upon arrival, no one would think to ask if their doctor was licensed. Van Roekel wants it to be the same in the classroom–every teacher is licensed and ready to teach starting on the first day they walk into a school. There was some debate on this subject, as Silva pointed out that doctors aren’t necessarily ready to work on patients beginning the first day, but that its rather a learning process over a number of years.

This led to a fascinating conversation about recruitment. In order for our teachers to be ready to teach from the beginning and qualified, they need to be the right people for the jobs. But there are significantly less people going into the teaching profession. Van Roekel partly attributed this to the fact that in past decades, excellent women and minority students went into teaching because it was one of the only things they could do. But as opportunities widened, less people are choosing to teach.

Besides increased equality, the panel’s best guess for this phenomenon is that less people are going into the teaching profession because they are not encouraged to do so. Toner said that when he first went into teaching, he saw some of his old teachers, who asked him what he was doing. He told them he was a teacher, and they expressed disappointment, telling him he was too smart for that. I’ve had friends who’ve decided to take on teaching majors and have received similar reactions from their friends and family. The truth of the matter is that teaching is no longer respected the way it was in the past, and many intelligent young people are steered away because they are convinced that they would make more money in another field. The idiom, “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach,” is still alive and well. This of course, isn’t to say that the individuals who are entering the education field do not deserve our applause, support, and thanks. The problem is that there’s just less of them, especially as baby boomers start to retire.

Teaching is no longer being viewed as worth it, which is really sad. I attended public school almost my entire life, and many of the teachers I had were the most wonderful, intelligent, thoughtful, and engaging individuals with whom I have ever had the privilege to spend time. They absolutely shaped my life, and I feel so incredibly fortunate to have had access to a public school like that. The teaching profession does need to change, if only to ensure that such great people do continue to enter the field, and I applaud the NEA, CAP, and other organizations’ attempts to do so. Let’s hope they do turn those campfires into brushfires.

Thanks to the Center for American Progress for their great work on this event.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Center for Teaching Vanderbilt University via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New Role for the NEA: Turning Campfires into Brushfires appeared first on Law Street.

Most people have seen the popular I <3 Boobies bracelets in recent years. They come in a variety of bright colors, they’re made of stretchy rubber, are about as thick as a watch, and in very large letters, say “I <3 Boobies.” They are produced by a company called Keep-A-Breast, a fundraising and educational company. In their mission statement, they state that, “The Keep A Breast Foundation is the leading youth-focused, global, nonprofit breast cancer organization. Our mission is to eradicate breast cancer for future generations. We provide support programs for young people impacted by cancer and educate people about prevention, early detection, and cancer-causing toxins in our everyday environment.” Depending on whether the bracelets are sold by an outside retailer, or through the company itself, Keep-A-Breast earns somewhere between $1.50-$4.00 to go to research and prevention for each bracelet sold. Unfortunately, these bracelets have been banned in many schools across the country because of claims that the message “I <3 Boobies” is too sexual in nature and too likely to be abused.

In 2010, two young women, Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez, wore the bracelets to school as part of their middle school’s Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The girls attended school in the Easton Area School District of Pennsylvania, about an hour and a half northwest of Philadelphia. The school district had previously dictated that these bracelets were forbidden from school because they were lewd in nature. The school cited creating a hyper-sexualized environment for its middle school students as a concern. Hawk and Martinez, then 12 and 13, were suspended from school.

The Hawk and Martinez families immediately took action. The ACLU helped the girls file a suit, and they won. The school board continued to appeal the case, but on each appeal they lost. Most recently, in August 2013, the 3^rd U.S. Circuit Court of appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the girls. Put simply, the two arguments at issue are that the School District believed that the bracelets were disruptive, but the girls claimed they were just trying to raise awareness of the disease and the stigma behind it. Martinez had actually had an aunt die of breast cancer when she was younger. She explained her motivation behind fighting for the bracelets. “In our generation, all the teenagers ask me about the bracelet. So it shows the bracelets teach a lot to kids.” The Courts agreed with the argument made by the girls.

On Tuesday, October 19, the School Board voted 7-1 to bring the case to the Supreme Court.  The school is claiming that this is not just about the bracelets, but rather about the overall ability of a school district to deem what is and what is not appropriate for its students. The one board member who voted against bringing the case forward, Frank Pintabone, expressed exhaustion with the legal battle, stating, “I think we should be done with it. Let it go. We lost 20, 30 times, I don’t even know anymore.”

Whether or not students have the right to wear whatever they want to school has always been contentious. From Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, probably the most well-known precedent in regards to students’ constitutional rights, to upcoming the Easton School District Case, students’ rights are a hotly debated set of issues. Whether this case will limit freedoms, or extend the ones granted in Tinker will be interesting to observe.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Krystal Pritchett via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can You Heart Boobies in Public School? appeared first on Law Street.