Lots of "landmark" Supreme Court decisions are detailed in the Zirkel article. Consider the following questions as prompts for you to respond to this article.
Do you agree with the San Antonio v. Rodriguez decision that speaks to "minimum" rather than "equal"? Explain.
Which of the Supreme Court rulings noted in this article will affect you most as a teacher?
What do you think about the New Jersey v. T.L.O. decision?
How is your life as a teacher affected by politics? Care to look to the future by considering the current presidential race?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In regards to the San Antonio v. Rodriguez decision, I think it is difficult to understand just what “minimum” refers to and who exactly determines what a minimum education is.
Ever wonder why the business managers in school districts make so much money? Maybe it is because they have to deal with those funding formulas that supposedly "equalize" education in the state.
I think the difficulty comes in finding a way to equalizing per pupil spending, especially when there are so many variables involved. For example, a teacher with the same credentials in Fair Haven can make $5,000 more per year for teaching in the school 5 miles down the road in New York. This year Fair Haven residents were penalized because of our delinquent status in reassessing property when our Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) fell below 80%.
With regards to the New Jersey v. T.L.O. decision, I think we need to regulate criminal and disruptive behavior in schools, especially when it poses a threat to the health and safety of other students and school personnel. I think as teachers and administrators we need to exhibit good judgment in these types of situations. There has to be a balance between protecting students’ rights and keeping students and school staff safe.
Several court cases have had significant impact on teaching over the past few years. They include special education and bullying and harassment. Cyberbullying has become an issue in schools, especially as students use various technologies to send harassing messages electronically.
How will the outcome of next Tuesday's election impact education? I don't know. But I do know that politics plays a big part in education. Budgets are voted on by the public or set by an elected board. State legislators determine what they will spend on education. In some states, politicians set the curriculum. National education panels are formed and staffed by politicians and big business and rarely by classroom teachers (or the folks in the trenches, as it were).
Geez, talk about leaving room for interpretation! I was unfamiliar with the Rodriguez case until reading Zirkel’s article, and its implications are downright scary. Imagine the differences in opinion over what might be considered a “minimum” level of education. Public education is supposed to be the great equalizer- Rodriguez could allow for an institutional class system. Furthermore, the backlash against rising property taxes has become so fierce that I believe many communities would provide a bare-bones, substandard education if they could lawfully do so. As it is, many of Vermont’s school quality standards are already ignored. Are we already providing a minimum education?
Is the teaching profession effected by politics? We teachers are a collective football that gets tossed around during each local, state, and national election. The direction of our schools will be profoundly impacted by Tuesday’s results. I’m a huge Obama supporter, though I have one worry about his rhetoric when it comes to education. He keeps saying that we need to hire an army of new teachers. As far as I know, the acute teacher shortage that was so often discussed during my undergraduate years never materialized- even in most cities. Where does he plan to put all of these new teachers? Why don’t we try supporting existing teachers by providing meaningful professional development and fully funding existing programs?
In response to the San Antonio v. Rodriguez that speaks to "minimum" rather than "equal". Various districts indeed have a bigger revenue from local property taxes than others. In some the districts there is significantly greater poverty issues compared to others. How can we ever be "equal" when incomes vary so. All students should receive "equal" opportunities of learning, but where is the money going to come from?
The court case, Honig v. Doe (1988), affects me as a special educator. The question was whether the school could expel two students for more than ten days, who were classified as emotionally disturbed. It is crucial to provide students with a safe environment, even if it does mean a change of placement for special education students.
All teachers are affected by politics. The rules and regulations are mandated without the funding.
Maybe I sound ignorant here, but is “minimum education for every student” defined anywhere? I can tell you, “minimum” in New York City will be very different from “minimum” in Castleton, Vermont. Fair? Nope. Class size, city/town location, funding source(s) of education, number of teachers, quality of school and board, special education...I could go on and on. There are too many variables to consider when trying to “standardize” a “minimum.”
While all of these decisions, in one way or another, affect us as teachers, I have to say that the one that has affected me the most (on a daily basis at times)is Rowley-even a little bit of Honig v Doe. I am all for challenging students of all learning levels, but there are several students who I’ve had (and have) who have behavioral issues, and no matter what they do or say, it’s identified as being a part of the “disability,” and they don’t have any accountability. Half of my classes could be spent with me out in the hallway, “processing” with the student(s) and another adult, or in the planning room, or in the principal’s office...what happens to the other kids in the room? Where have their rights gone? I have asked this several times, and that’s all I’ve heard is, “They aren’t on legal plans.”
What I think about NJ v TLO is that it’s all in the interpretation of the school authorities as to the difference between “reasonable” and “probable.” I think that if it’s warranted, meaning securing the safety of all students, faculty, and building, searches should be allowed, but I also think that police (and parents) should be the ones doing them.
Big business...politics...schools...kids. Trickle-down affect.
Post a Comment