Sentences with phrase «state education clauses»

«The objective is to apply state education clauses as a mandate to better ensure that high - need programs possess the means to provide all students with adequate opportunity to achieve to at least the minimum standards.»

Not exact matches

Ever since 1947, when the Supreme Court first applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to the states in Everson v. Board of Education, the court has held that government must be neutral on matters of religion.

«The secretary of state acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.»

The education bill has already had its most controversial clause removed — forcing all state schools in England to become academies by 2020.

In CFE v. New York, another state with a spare education clause, Judge De Grasse without apology explained that in education litigation courts «are called on to give content to Education Clauses that are composed of terse generalities,» which in New York's case is «The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educateeducation clause, Judge De Grasse without apology explained that in education litigation courts «are called on to give content to Education Clauses that are composed of terse generalities,» which in New York's case is «The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educateeducation litigation courts «are called on to give content to Education Clauses that are composed of terse generalities,» which in New York's case is «The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educateEducation Clauses that are composed of terse generalities,» which in New York's case is «The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.»

The state constitutions» education clauses also raise questions about the appropriateness of judicial intervention based on separation of powers.

The Illinois Constitution, with one of the most demanding education clauses, says that the state must «provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services.»

In Abbeville v. State from South Carolina, the state supreme court simply asserted that the education clause, in spite of its lack of qualitative language, must have a qualitative compoState from South Carolina, the state supreme court simply asserted that the education clause, in spite of its lack of qualitative language, must have a qualitative compostate supreme court simply asserted that the education clause, in spite of its lack of qualitative language, must have a qualitative component.

School funding cases are complicated enough for state courts, even with state constitutional education clauses to interpret.

There were also several barriers — and subsequent workarounds — identified around technology and infrastructure: grappling with a slow and unwieldy public contract code for technology and even furniture procurement; allowing for Bring Your Own Device programs given the state's free public education clause; and struggling to provide sufficient technology access at school and home for all students if the district wanted to adopt digital materials.

But at least state courts have an education clause to begin their analysis of any right to education.

Scalia, in contrast, favored a colorblind interpretation of the equal protection clause, that, in his words, «proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state - provided education is no exception.»

To date, some 45 states have had their funding systems challenged under the education clauses of the state constitutions.

The education clauses of state constitutions have also provided the legal foundation for the wave of court - ordered school funding equalization reforms over the past three decades.

State constitutional education clauses are generally of three kinds.

The specific language varies from state to state, but virtually all state constitutions contain education clauses that require the state legislature to provide an «adequate,» «basic,» or «thorough and efficient» education for all children.

To avoid this outcome, a new wave of school - finance litigation has instead endorsed an «adequacy» claim based on state constitutional clauses that exhort the legislature to provide for a «thorough and efficient» (or similar language) system of education.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sued, citing a host of constitutional offenses, including violating the ban on support for private schools and churches (the state's Blaine Amendment), the ban on religious tests, the guarantee of religious freedom, the uniformity requirement in the education clause, the prohibition on support for private institutions, and, for good measure, the guarantee of local conState, sued, citing a host of constitutional offenses, including violating the ban on support for private schools and churches (the state's Blaine Amendment), the ban on religious tests, the guarantee of religious freedom, the uniformity requirement in the education clause, the prohibition on support for private institutions, and, for good measure, the guarantee of local constate's Blaine Amendment), the ban on religious tests, the guarantee of religious freedom, the uniformity requirement in the education clause, the prohibition on support for private institutions, and, for good measure, the guarantee of local control.

The dormant commerce clause could be applied to the provision of education services through the Internet, that is, the federal government could take legal action or support legal claims against states and local school districts that restrict or prohibit access to Internet - based education services that are provided outside district or state borders.

Although the changes were intended to hold school officials accountable for the educational experiences of disadvantaged children, Congress left intact a short clause in the main K - 12 education law that, in practice, has failed to ensure that money from the federal Title I program only supplements state and local money, researchers and advocates said at a conference here last week.

The state constitution's education clause stipulates that «the public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established.»

Following two decades in which courts spurred significant reforms in our nation's neediest schools by interpreting the education clauses of their state constitutions to guarantee an «adequate» education for all students, the years 2005 to 2008 have seen a dramatic change in the judicial response to adequacy litigation.

(A representative clause, borrowed from the Arkansas Constitution, reads, «Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.»)

The case became one of the nation's most successful educational - adequacy lawsuits when New York's highest court, the Court of appeals, ruled that the state constitution's spare education clause guaranteed a «sound basic education» to every child.

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County that the County had to reopen its public schools on the grounds that it was still in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.23 By closing its public schools and subsequently subsidizing private academies that only admitted white students, the County, along with the state board of education and state superintendent, continued to deny black students the rights their white peers were provided.

In essence, Judge Treu ruled that a quality education is guaranteed for all students in the state — which relies on effective teachers — and that anything less undermines the quality and violates the equal protection clause in the state constitution.

In 2010, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that «under the education clause of the state constitution, public school children are entitled not just to a free and equal education but also to an adequate (quality) education, and the state must pay for it.»

, as SBAC may very well be indeed illegal as it represents an interstate contract that wasn't approved by Congress in violation of the Compact Clause of the Constitution, or finally that for the state of Connecticut, and all SBAC member states, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium has a contract with the United Sates Department of Education that spells out in that contract that SBAC agrees to «provide timely and complete access» to «any and all data» collected to US DOE or it's designated program monitors, technical assistance providers, research partners and auditors.

2d 721, 1983 U.S. 96, upholding Minnesota's Education Tax Deduction, the court ruled that Iowa's tax credit for private school educational expenses does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Neither the PSFA funding formula nor the funding levels it establishes and enforces provide school districts with sufficient funding to meet the actual and foreseeable costs of educating their students in accordance with the requirements of the Education Clause of the Colorado Constitution, education reform legislation, or the Colorado Consolidated State Plan (mandated by the No Child Left BehEducation Clause of the Colorado Constitution, education reform legislation, or the Colorado Consolidated State Plan (mandated by the No Child Left Beheducation reform legislation, or the Colorado Consolidated State Plan (mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act).

Due to the displacement of local property taxes as a source of education funding, and because the state itself suffers from a similar downward «ratcheting» effect on its revenue and expenditure levels, the state is effectively incapable of providing the level of funding necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Educatioeducation funding, and because the state itself suffers from a similar downward «ratcheting» effect on its revenue and expenditure levels, the state is effectively incapable of providing the level of funding necessary to fulfill the mandate of the EducationEducation Clause.

The state has never conducted a study to determine if the levels of funding provided by the PSFA are sufficient to maintain a public school system that meets the qualitative standards of the Education Clause or the mandates of state education reform legislation and the Consolidated State state has never conducted a study to determine if the levels of funding provided by the PSFA are sufficient to maintain a public school system that meets the qualitative standards of the Education Clause or the mandates of state education reform legislation and the Consolidated StEducation Clause or the mandates of state education reform legislation and the Consolidated State state education reform legislation and the Consolidated Steducation reform legislation and the Consolidated State State Plan.

The 1988 funding levels were not based upon a valid analysis of the actual costs of providing a constitutionally adequate, quality education; and there is no basis to conclude that merely restoring the 1988 funding level will provide funding sufficient to meet the mandates of the Education Clause, state education reform legislation, or the Consolidated Steducation; and there is no basis to conclude that merely restoring the 1988 funding level will provide funding sufficient to meet the mandates of the Education Clause, state education reform legislation, or the Consolidated StEducation Clause, state education reform legislation, or the Consolidated State state education reform legislation, or the Consolidated Steducation reform legislation, or the Consolidated State State Plan.

This increase was based on the Amendment 23 formula and not on an analysis or even consideration of the actual cost of meeting the mandates of the Education Clause, education reform legislation, or the Consolidated StEducation Clause, education reform legislation, or the Consolidated Steducation reform legislation, or the Consolidated State Plan.

n order to meet the requirements of the mandates of the Education Clause of the Colorado Constitution, education reform legislation, and the Colorado Consolidated State Plan, Colorado schools would need an infusion of funding far beyond that required by Amendment 23 to the state consEducation Clause of the Colorado Constitution, education reform legislation, and the Colorado Consolidated State Plan, Colorado schools would need an infusion of funding far beyond that required by Amendment 23 to the state conseducation reform legislation, and the Colorado Consolidated State Plan, Colorado schools would need an infusion of funding far beyond that required by Amendment 23 to the state constituState Plan, Colorado schools would need an infusion of funding far beyond that required by Amendment 23 to the state constitustate constitution.

Due to the variations in local property tax bases, the override option fails to provide «property - poor» school districts with an effective opportunity to meet their obligations under the Education Clause, education reform legislation, and the Consolidated State Plan, much less to enhance the educational opportunities of their Education Clause, education reform legislation, and the Consolidated State Plan, much less to enhance the educational opportunities of their education reform legislation, and the Consolidated State Plan, much less to enhance the educational opportunities of their students.

«District Approves Spending $ 17,856 to Sue State for More Money,» Greeley Gazette (4/24/10) «Jeffco, Colorado Springs School Districts Join Lawsuit Over State Funding,» The Denver Post (3/2/10) «Lawsuit: Education Clause Trumps TABOR,» Education News Colorado (3/1/10) «Suing for School Funding,» News First 5 (3/1/10) «District 11 Decides to Sue the State of Colorado,» News Channel 13 (3/1/10) «Demandan a Colorado por Descuidar Educacion Bilingue de Alumnos Mas Pobres,» El Sentinel (2/26/10) «D11 Weighs $ 30K Commitment to Lawsuit,» News First 5 (2/23/10)

School districts are statutorily and constitutionally limited in their ability to generate revenues from local resources, but are dependent upon the state, which has consistently failed to provide sufficient funds to meet the qualitative mandate of the Education Clause and the requirements of education reform legislation and the Consolidated State state, which has consistently failed to provide sufficient funds to meet the qualitative mandate of the Education Clause and the requirements of education reform legislation and the Consolidated StEducation Clause and the requirements of education reform legislation and the Consolidated Steducation reform legislation and the Consolidated State State Plan.

From State House News Service: «We conclude that they have failed to state a claim under the education clause because, to state a claim, the plaintiffs would need State House News Service: «We conclude that they have failed to state a claim under the education clause because, to state a claim, the plaintiffs would need state a claim under the education clause because, to state a claim, the plaintiffs would need state a claim, the plaintiffs would need to...

Finally, he encourages Congress to adopt an «equal education» clause, that states no child in the US will be «denied equal educational opportunity in elementary and secondary education through the lack of a challenging curriculum, well - prepared and effective teachers, and the funding to pay for that education.»

The Brown v. Board of Education case helped create the civil rights movement of the 1960s by determining that in this country «separate educational facilities are inherently unequal» and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

(e) The board shall establish the information needed in an application for the approval of a charter school; provided that the application shall include, but not be limited to, a description of: (i) the mission, purpose, innovation and specialized focus of the proposed charter school; (ii) the innovative methods to be used in the charter school and how they differ from the district or districts from which the charter school is expected to enroll students; (iii) the organization of the school by ages of students or grades to be taught, an estimate of the total enrollment of the school and the district or districts from which the school will enroll students; (iv) the method for admission to the charter school; (v) the educational program, instructional methodology and services to be offered to students, including research on how the proposed program may improve the academic performance of the subgroups listed in the recruitment and retention plan; (vi) the school's capacity to address the particular needs of limited English - proficient students, if applicable, to learn English and learn content matter, including the employment of staff that meets the criteria established by the department; (vii) how the school shall involve parents as partners in the education of their children; (viii) the school governance and bylaws; (ix) a proposed arrangement or contract with an organization that shall manage or operate the school, including any proposed or agreed upon payments to such organization; (x) the financial plan for the operation of the school; (xi) the provision of school facilities and pupil transportation; (xii) the number and qualifications of teachers and administrators to be employed; (xiii) procedures for evaluation and professional development for teachers and administrators; (xiv) a statement of equal educational opportunity which shall state that charter schools shall be open to all students, on a space available basis, and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, creed, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, age, ancestry, athletic performance, special need, proficiency in the English language or academic achievement; (xv) a student recruitment and retention plan, including deliberate, specific strategies the school will use to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunity as stated in clause (xiv) and to attract, enroll and retain a student population that, when compared to students in similar grades in schools from which the charter school is expected to enroll students, contains a comparable academic and demographic profile; and (xvi) plans for disseminating successes and innovations of the charter school to other non-charter public schools.

The Florida public - school establishment is suing to repeal the Sunshine State's 13 - year - old school - choice tax credit and its new education savings accounts under the state's Blaine Amendment and its «uniformity clause,» which mandates that «Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools...» The Florida Supreme Court previously struck down the state's voucher program under this provision in Bush v. Holmes (2006), on the grounds that the vouchers «divert [ed] public dollars» from «the sole means set out in the Constitution for the state to provide for the education of Florida's children.&rState's 13 - year - old school - choice tax credit and its new education savings accounts under the state's Blaine Amendment and its «uniformity clause,» which mandates that «Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools...» The Florida Supreme Court previously struck down the state's voucher program under this provision in Bush v. Holmes (2006), on the grounds that the vouchers «divert [ed] public dollars» from «the sole means set out in the Constitution for the state to provide for the education of Florida's children.&rstate's Blaine Amendment and its «uniformity clause,» which mandates that «Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools...» The Florida Supreme Court previously struck down the state's voucher program under this provision in Bush v. Holmes (2006), on the grounds that the vouchers «divert [ed] public dollars» from «the sole means set out in the Constitution for the state to provide for the education of Florida's children.&rstate's voucher program under this provision in Bush v. Holmes (2006), on the grounds that the vouchers «divert [ed] public dollars» from «the sole means set out in the Constitution for the state to provide for the education of Florida's children.&rstate to provide for the education of Florida's children.»

Not surprisingly, upon passage of the bill the National Education Association and its state affiliate, the Indiana State Teachers Association, sued to stop it with claims that «letting families use the vouchers at religious schools violated the state constitution's religion clauses.&rstate affiliate, the Indiana State Teachers Association, sued to stop it with claims that «letting families use the vouchers at religious schools violated the state constitution's religion clauses.&rState Teachers Association, sued to stop it with claims that «letting families use the vouchers at religious schools violated the state constitution's religion clauses.&rstate constitution's religion clauses.»

(B) provide that the State agency so designated to administer or supervise the administration of the State plan, or (if there are two State agencies designated under subclause (A) of this clause) to supervise or administer the part of the State plan that does not relate to services for the blind, shall be (i) a State agency primarily concerned with vocational REHABILITATION, or vocational and other REHABILITATION, of handicapped individuals, (ii) the State agency administering or supervising the administration of education or vocational education in the State, or (iii) a State agency which includes at least two other major organizational units each of which administers one or more of the major public education, public health, public welfare, or labor programs of the State; provide, except in the case of agencies described in clause (1)(B)(i)-

The bill's opening clause reads [PDF], «The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall...»