Georgia Governor's Opportunity School District

Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal  proposed creation of an Opportunity School District (OSD) in early 2015. The OSD would authorize the state to control "chronically failing public schools and rescue children languishing in them" according to press releases. In a March 2015 Frequently Asked Questions, the Governor's Office stated this about the structure of the school district:

The OSD is an organizational unit of the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA),established and administered by the superintendent of the Opportunity School District (OSD) for the purpose of providing oversight and operation of failing schools assigned to the OSD.

The Governor shall appoint a superintendent of the OSD, to be confirmed by the Senate. TheOSD superintendent shall be a direct report to the Governor.

These schools subject to potential control by the OSD include many Atlanta Public Schools, DeKalb County Schools (metro Atlanta), Fulton County Schools (metro Atlanta), Bibb County Schools (Macon, GA), Chatham County Schools (Savannah, GA), Dougherty Country Schools (Albany, GA), Muscogee County Schools (Columbus, GA), and Richmond County Schools (Augusta), including several others. In an interactive map, see the potentially impacted schools across the state of Georgia here: http://www.ajc.com/map-ga-schools-failing/  

To read more about the criteria that would trigger inclusion in the OSD, see the FAQs.

New Georgia Law Corrects for Students Who Did Not Pass the Georgia High School Graduation Tests

According to a bill now signed into law, students who took the Georgia high school graduation tests after 1994 but did not pass, and subsequently did not receive a high school diploma because of not passing the tests, are eligible now to get a retroactive high school diploma. According to the law, the diplomas are to be issued by the local school districts and dated retroactively. A person in this position will need to petition the local school board to determine eligibility for the retroactive diploma.

Here's an article with more information: http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/03/30/governor-signs-bill-today-enabling-8000-georgians-to-receive-high-school-diploma/?ecmp=ajc_social_facebook_2014_sfp

Here's the text of the law (formerly House Bill 91). See Section 5 starting on page 7:  http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/152497.pdf

U.S. Department of Education orders districts to fix funding disparities

In an official "Dear Colleague Letter" released this week, the U.S. Department of Education basically instructed school districts to have similar academic course offerings for its students, regardless of race, color, origin, etc. The Letter is issued by the Office of Civil Rights, which enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance).

Chronic and widespread racial disparities in access to rigorous courses, academic programs, and extracurricular activities; stable workforces of effective teachers, leaders, and support staff; safe and appropriate school buildings and facilities; and modern technology and high-quality instructional materials further hinder the education of
students of color today. (Page 2).  

 As concrete examples, the letter cites:

But schools serving more students of color are less likely to offer advanced courses and gifted and talented programs than schools serving mostly white populations, and students of color are less likely than their white peers to be enrolled in those courses and programs within schools that have those offerings. For example, almost one in five black high school students attend a high school that does not offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses, a higher proportion than any other racial group. Students with limited-English-proficiency (English language learners) are also underrepresented in AP courses according to data from the 2011-12 school year. In that year, English language learners represented five percent of high school students, but only two percent of the students enrolled in an AP course.11 Similarly, of the high schools serving the most black and Latino students in the 2011-12 school year, only 74 percent offered Algebra II and only 66 percent offered chemistry. Comparable high-level opportunities were provided much more often in schools serving the fewest black and Latino students, where 83 percent offered Algebra II courses and 78 percent offered chemistry. (Page 3.)

On the facilities of schools:

The physical spaces where our children are educated are also important resources that influence the learning and development of all students, yet many of our Nation’s schools have fallen into disrepair. Too often, school districts with higher enrollments of students of color invest thousands of dollars less per student in their facilities than those districts with predominantly white enrollments. (Page 4.)

On teacher pay within the same school district:

. . . [D]isparities may be indicative of broader discriminatory policies or practices that, even if facially neutral, disadvantage students of color. For example, teachers in high schools serving the highest percentage of black and Latino students during the 2011-12 school year were paid on average $1,913 less per year than their colleagues in other schools within the same district that serve the lowest percentage of black and Latino students. (Page 5.)

The Letter also recognizes that snap-shot data may not tell the whole story.

The provision of equal opportunities may require more or less funding depending on the location of the school, the condition of existing facilities, and the particular needs of students such as English language learners and students with disabilities. For example, older facilities generally require more money for annual maintenance than do newer facilities. Similarly, greater annual per-pupil library expenditures for one school may reflect an effort to correct years of underfunding of a library collection. Funding disparities that benefit students of a particular race, color, or national origin may also permissibly occur when districts are attempting to remedy past discrimination. (Page 10.)

---

I encourage you to read more to find your own gems.

-e

The Most Compelling Points of Hobby Lobby (the dissent that is)

In light of the huge decision yesterday from the Supreme Court of the United States in Hobby Lobby et al., here are portions of the dissent where Justice Ginsburg speaks so eloquently on several points -- with which I agree.

On Corporations as "people"

“In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same. By incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations.  One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation.”  – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 19).

“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. . . . Again, the Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 17, 18).

On impact of corporate owner's religious beliefs (permitted to be exercised through a for-profit entity) on third-parties (i.e. employees)

“Women paid significantly more than men for preventive care, the amendment’s proponents noted; in fact, cost barriers operated to block many women from obtaining needed care at all. See, e.g., id., at 29070 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (“Women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men.”); id., at 29302 (statement of Sen. Mikulski) (“co-payments are [often] so high that [women] avoid getting preventative and screening services] in the first place”).” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 4).  “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage . . . that almost one-third of women would change their contraceptive method if costs were not a factor . . . and that only one-fourth of women who request an IUD actually have one inserted after finding out how expensive it would be . . . .” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 25).  

“Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. . . . Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”  – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 23).

Did you know? "Children of alumni had a 45 percent greater chance of admission"

This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Opinion that upheld the state of Michigan's ban on affirmative action policies for state undergraduate institutions.

The case is Schuette v. BAMN (the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary).  It stems form a prior case, Grutter v. Bollinger, where the U.S. Supreme Court considered University of Michigan Law School's policy to consider an applicant's race/ethnicity as one of many factors toward law school admission.  After that decision, the state of Michigan voters adopted "Proposal 2" (which subsequently became part of the state's constitution -- Art. I, §26), a state law that "prohibits the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities."  Slip Opinion, page 1. In this instant case (that's what legal people say when they are referring to the case in discussion), the Supreme Court needed to determine whether the lower court should have struck down the voter's law.  Our U.S. Supreme Court determined that the appellate court was incorrect:  the state law of Michigan banning affirmative action was upheld as a proper.

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_5367.pdf

More to write on this soon. Including a juxtoposition like this one: affirmative action and legacy preference.

No Mandatory Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

The 4th Amendment and (good) social policy have a joint win with 1 stone:   the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has struck down a Florida state law requiring welfare applicants to be drug tested. The case is a Lebron v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Families, Case No. 6:11-CV-01473-MSS-DAB (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2014)


According to recent reports (see here), the Florida law

required parents to undergo and pay for urine tests for illegal drugs when they applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal-state program that helps poor people with children pay for food, shelter and necessities.

The penalty for refusal to take the required test was a denial of the benefits.  Said another way, an applicant was required to submit themselves for screening by the government to help get help paying for food.  The justification for the law was in the interests of the public.

According to the Federal Court's decision, the Florida law was temporarily halted back in October 2011 until a federal court could sort the whole thing out.

More after the break...