scholarly journals The U.S. Supreme Court finds a statute's description of a simple statistical measure of relative disparity 'ambiguous' allowing the Secretary of Education to interpret the formula: Zuni Public School District 89 v. U.S. Department of Education II

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Gastwirth
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Statistical Measure ◽  
Public School District ◽  
The U.S

In Search of Religious Liberty

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-120
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Dierenfield ◽  
David A. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Catholic School ◽  
Public School District ◽  
Civil Libertarian ◽  
Lemon Test ◽  
Essential Service ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses the origins of the Zobrests’ lawsuit against their public school district in Tucson, which refused on constitutional grounds to pay for Jim’s sign language interpreter in a Catholic school. For the Zobrests, federal disability laws and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause entitled Jim to have this essential service. What follows is an analysis of the zigzag line of thinking employed by the U.S. Supreme Court as it grappled with church-state issues in the twentieth century prior to its consideration of the Zobrest case. For years, two titans of constitutional law—Catholic neoconservative William Bentley Ball and civil libertarian Leo Pfeffer—battled over what was legally permissible with regard to freedom of religion. Ultimately, the court enunciated a controversial Lemon Test to address this thorny area of its jurisprudence.

Moving beyond Brown: Race and Education After Parents v. Seattle School District No. 1

2011 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamel K. Donnor
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students Of Color ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Community Schools ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Educational Advancement ◽  
Quality Learning ◽  
The U.S

Background By a 5–4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 declared that voluntary public school integration programs were unconstitutional. Citing the prospective harm that students and their families might incur from being denied admission to the high school of their choice, the Supreme Court declared that the plaintiffs, Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS), had a valid claim of injury by asserting a interest in not being forced to compete for seats at certain high schools in a system that uses race as a deciding factor in many of its admissions decisions. Purpose The goal of the article is to discuss how conceptions of harm and fairness as articulated in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 privilege the self-interests of White students and families over the educational needs of students of color. Research Design This article is a document analysis. Conclusions By referencing the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision of 1954 (Brown I) to buttress its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that programmatic efforts to ensure students of color access to quality learning environments are inherently ominous. The dilemma moving forward for policy makers and scholars concerned with the educational advancement of students of color is not to develop new ways to integrate America's public schools or reconcile the gaps in the Supreme Court's logic, but rather to craft programs and policies for students of color around the human development and workforce needs of the global economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document