Please note the delivery estimate is greater than 6 business days. Special financing available. Any international shipping and import charges are paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab International shipping and import charges paid to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Any international shipping and import charges are paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc.
A Brookings Institution Press and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute publicationFrom race to speech, from religion to school funding, from discipline to special education, few aspects of education policy have escaped the courtroom over the past fifty. Primary-secondary education is scarcely the exclusive realm of increased litigation and court involvement in social policy, much less the only field in which the.
Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Any international shipping is paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab.
Add to cart to save with this special offer. If you Buy It Now, you'll only be purchasing this item. If you'd like to get the additional items you've selected to qualify for this offer, close this window and add these items to your cart. Buy only this item Close this window -.
Report item - opens in a new window or tab. Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: Good : A book that has been read but is in good condition. Very minimal damage to the cover including scuff marks, but no holes or tears. The dust jacket for hard covers may not be included. Binding has minimal wear.
The majority of pages are undamaged with minimal creasing or tearing, minimal pencil underlining of text, no highlighting of text, no writing in margins. No missing pages. See all condition definitions - opens in a new window or tab. About this product. Better World Books betterworldbooks Search within store. Items On Sale. Shipping and handling.
This item will ship to Germany , but the seller has not specified shipping options. Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request a shipping method to your location.
Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code. Shipping to: Worldwide. No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. Lubienski, Peter C. Weitzel Call Number: LB C Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education : what's at stake?
F34 Goldring Call Number: LB Glenn Call Number: E G58 The Future of school integration : socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy by Richard D. Kahlenberg Call Number: LC F88 The History of discrimination in U. Tamura Call Number: LA H57 Morey Call Number: KF A A Anderson Call Number: LC The Ordeal of equality : did federal regulation fix the schools?
Cohen, Susan L. Moffitt Call Number: LC C56 Reese Call Number: LA R New York, Partnership for Educ. See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, supra note 56, at 3. See Rebell, supra note State , N. Rebell appears to have been referring to Paynter v. Rebell, supra note Denial of First Motion to Dismiss, supra note 63, at Coalition for Just. Funding , A. See Conn. Funding , No. Suits such as Vergara , Davids , and CCJEF mark a growing trend of advocates pursuing education reforms in courts rather than in legislatures or administrative offices.
See First Amended Complaint, Forslund v. May 2, Harrington, No.
MER-L N. Charter school advocates in Massachusetts recently sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to strike down caps on charter school funding and the number of charter schools as violations of the state constitutional right to an adequate education. A ballot measure seeking to lift the charter school cap also failed. See David Scharfenberg, Mass. Globe Nov. See Complaint at 52, Martinez v. Molloy, No. Glucksberg, U.
This will result in conflicts moving from the courts to legislative and executive arenas. State Univ. The program will be at noon in room of the Graduate Education Building. State Education Reform Policy , 11 St. Brookings, Some commentators have located a similar right in provisions of the U. After all, virtually every public issue may be framed from a religious perspective.
Hodges, S. There is an obvious appeal to the idea that a robust constitutional right to education — one that guarantees a minimally adequate education — may provide a solution to the seemingly intractable puzzle of school reform.
enter site Nevertheless, the rise of adequacy litigation involving more substantive matters of education policy affirms that this appeal is misguided. Rights v. Edgar, N. However, this Note maintains that the very act of striking down statutes like those at issue in Vergara necessarily involves the exercise of policymaking discretion of a nonjudicial character. While one of these concerns standing alone might not justify judicial abdication in such matters, the unique confluence of these factors as they pertain to public education — coupled with the degree to which education litigation increasingly turns on complex, nonlegal, and policy-oriented questions — counsels, perhaps now more than ever, in favor of judicial restraint.
This is no easy task for policymakers and academic experts, much less for judges. Nevertheless, a number of courts throughout the country have sought to give content to the term. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. Rose v. See Campaign for Quality Educ. Yet civil trial courts are generally not equipped to engage in such searching analysis of education policies and practices.
Unlike, for example, administrative agencies, courts do not possess inherent advantages that would allow them to be more skillful arbiters of education policy than other government actors. Of course, this Note presumes that agencies will tend to be staffed and led by individuals with some degree of expertise in the relevant policy area. This lack of expertise helps to explain in part why statutes such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act contain an administrative exhaustion requirement.
See Crocker v. Secondary Sch. Federal courts — generalists with no expertise in the educational needs of handicapped students — are given the benefit of expert factfinding by a state agency devoted to this very purpose. But nearly all of these findings are contested by other studies. Times Oct. Yet, adequacy-based challenges necessarily require courts to choose certain measures and metrics over others. See supra p. The findings of that study, however, are far from conclusive, and in fact have been squarely disputed.
Policy Ctr. But see Raj Chetty et al.
Yet this testimony similarly relied on research that scholars have called into question. To be sure, factfinders routinely weigh witness credibility, parse through conflicting pieces of evidence, and ultimately decide matters touching upon unfamiliar and complicated topics. Chafee, 89 A.