1
Education Law and Policy Syllabus
Dean Kaufman
Room 1235; (312) 915-7143
mkaufma@luc.edu
Spring, 2016
Required Text: Kaufman, Education Law, Policy and Practice: Cases and Materials (3d Edition Aspen 2013)
EDUCATIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND LEARNING OUTCOMES
There are many educational objectives in this class. I hope that each student will acquire a deep and
broad understanding of the essential and fundamental legal concepts, doctrines, and templates that inform the
law governing education.
Moreover, I hope that each student will develop habits of mind, professional competencies, lawyering
skills, and strategies that will be helpful in the practice of education law, whether in litigation, client-counseling
or policy-making. Among those fundamental professional attributes are: the ability to understand, appreciate,
respect, and support the thoughts, feelings, and intentions of others; the ability to develop meaningful
professional relationships; the ability to design strategies for solving complex legal and political problems in the
area of education; the ability to analyze and apply the legal rules and principles governing education; the ability
to identify and research important legal and political issues in the field of education; the ability to conduct
factual and empirical investigations regarding education; the ability to communicate the law and policy of
education effectively; the ability to draft education research and policy papers; the ability to counsel clients
regarding education issues; the ability to negotiate and resolve disputes that arise in the field of education in a
responsible and ethical manner; the ability to collaborate with colleagues; the ability to manage group and
individual work; the ability to assume a leadership role in the development of education reform; and the ability
to view American education law from diverse perspectives, including in comparison with the education systems
employed in other countries.
Finally, I also hope that each student will be inspired to question the fundamental legal, political, and
pedagogical assumptions underlying American education law and policy. Our text and our class will be shaped
around the recurring question of whether the law governing American education is designed to facilitate or to
frustrate the creation of a nation of good schools.
CLASS EXPECTATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
The class sessions will meet on Wednesday from noon to approximately 1:50 in Room 1103. Absent a
compelling reason, we will not take a break. Please feel free to bring lunch to class. The format of the class
sessions is unique. As the syllabus suggests, the class is emergent, student-centered, and student-led. In
presenting the material, I hope that we can all try to replicate best practices in education. The latest
neuroscience research indicates that we all learn best when we construct our knowledge collaboratively in an
engaged and respectful learning community.
Throughout the semester, I also will create and post a series of short videos that preview or review the
material that we will be discussing in our class sessions. I will send you an email with a link to each of the
videos as soon as they are available. The videos are not “required,” but they may help you to analyze the issues
that we will be addressing in class.
All aspects of the class, of course, are governed by American Bar Association attendance standards and
2
by the School of Law’s Code of Conduct.
As detailed below, there are three methods of student assessment in this class: (1) the student’s
collaborative in-class teaching exercise; (2) the student’s engaged and respectful participation in class
discussions and exercises; and (3) the student’s published paper.
3
A.
STUDENT COLLABORATIVE IN-CLASS TEACHING EXERCISE
Each student will “sign-up” to be responsible for working with one or two other students to facilitate
class discussion of a particular case or concept. Collaborating with me and with the other students who have
signed-up for a related segment of the course, the student should present the basic “doctrine” demonstrated by
the material, but should also try to engage the class in a dialogue or interactive project inspired by the material.
The Rubric for the Collaborative Teaching portion of the class is attached. The grade will reflect the student’s
ability to communicate the material to the class in an engaging manner, and the student’s ability to manage
group work. The collaborative in-class teaching exercise will make up 40% of the student’s grade.
B.
STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE LEARNING COMMUNITY
The class depends for its success on the active contributions of every student. The student presenters
will greatly appreciate the respectful attention and responsiveness of all of the other students. All students of
course benefit from the contributions of others in the class. The quality of student participation in class
discussions and exercises constitutes 20% of the final grade.
C.
THE PUBLISHED PAPER
All students must complete a 10-12 page analytical or research paper on a topic or issue relevant to the
class. The page guidelines include footnotes. The Rubric for the paper is attached. In appropriate situations,
students may be able to co-author their papers. My expectation is that the paper will be published in either the
2016 Loyola University Chicago Childlaw and Education Forum, or the 2016 Loyola University Chicago
Journal of Early Childhood Education Law and Policy. The Forum and the Journal can be viewed on our
website by following the links from the Education Law and Policy Institute page. If you would prefer not to
have your paper published, let me know upon its completion. Otherwise, I will publish all worthy papers.
Please email your paper to me by 5:00 p.m. on Friday May 13, 2016. The paper makes up 40% of the final
grade.
4
Week
Subject
January 20
Student Presenters
I. INTRODUCTION
Text, pp. 3-29
Chapter 1: The Integration of Education Law, Policy, and Practice
Chapter 2: The Structure of American Education Law, Finance, Practice, and Policy
January 27
II. THE PARAMETERS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, CHURCH AND STATE
Chapter 3:
A.
Text, pp. 33-73
THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PUBLIC EDUCATION AND HOME SCHOOLING


B.
The Limits of Public Education
Meyer v. Nebraska, and Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Wisconsin v. Yoder
1. ________________
2. ________________
THE REGULATION OF HOME SCHOOLING: REPORTING, CERTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND
EQUIVALENCY REQUIREMENTS
1.
2.
The Landscape of Home Schooling
Governmental Monitoring Mechanisms for Home Schooling
3. Fellowship Baptist Church v. Benton, and Murphy v. Arkansas
February 3
Chapter 4:
A.
THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC EDUCATION AND EQUITABLE FUNDING UNDER
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


B.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
Plyler v. Doe
THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC EDUCATION AND EQUITABLE FUNDING
UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS
Text, pp. 114-146

C.
The Right to a Public Education and the Equitable Distribution of Public Educational
Resources
Text, pp. 75-108
Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, and
DeRolph v. Ohio
THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION
1. The Degree of Funding Inequality in the States
2. The Relationship Between Funding and Quality
3. The Practical Problems with Remedying Constitutional Violations
in School Finance Cases
4. The Effective Use of Scarce Resources
3. ________________
4. ________________
5.________________
5
Week
Subject
Student Presenters
February 10
Chapter 5: The Law, Policy, and Pedagogy of Early Childhood Education
Text, pp. 147-179


6.________________
Abbott v. Burke
Hoke v. State and its Aftermath
February 17
Chapter 6:

The Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test: Public Resources
for Religious Education
Text, pp. 181-183; 198-209
Lemon v. Kurtzman
7. _______________
Chapter 7: The Modification of Lemon, and the Rise of Private Choice
8.________________
and Vouchers
Text, pp. 223-245


Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Locke v. Davey
Chapter 8: Religious Observance in the Public School
Text, pp. 247-274
February 24
A.
March 2
B.
PRAYER, BIBLE READING, RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS, MOMENTS OF SILENCE AND
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN THE CLASSROOM
1. Prayer--Engel v. Vitale
2. Bible Reading
 School District of Abington Township
Pennsylvania v. Schempp
3. The Ten Commandments - - Stone v. Graham
and McCreary v. ACLU
4. Moments of Silence and “Voluntary Prayer”
 Wallace v. Jaffree
 Sherman v. Koch
5.
Religion in a School’s Instructional Practices
 Epperson v. Arkansas
 Edwards v. Aguillard
Text, pp. 274-293
RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AT PUBLIC SCHOOL EVENTS
 Lee v. Weisman, and Santa Fe Indep. School. v. Doe
9.________________
10. _______________
11.________________
12.________________
6
Week
Subject
C.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1.
2.
Chapter 9:
March 16
III.
Chapter 10:
A.
Student Presenters
Text, pp. 293-309
Pledging Political Allegiance
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Pledging Religious Allegiance
 Newdow v. United States Congress
The Use of School Facilities
 CLS v. Martinez
Text, pp 311; 326-338
THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL GOVERNANCE
The Legal Structure of School Governance Text, pp. 343-358; 366-384
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF EDUCATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Supremacy Clause
13.______________
The Commerce Clause Power
 United States v. Lopez and School Safety
14._______________
The Congressional Spending Power: From No Child Left Behind
to the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
Local Control and its Limits
 Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District
No. 26 v. Pico
 Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District
March 23
Chapter 11:
The Legal and Practical Mechanics of School Board
Governance
Text, pp. 444-447
INTERNAL GOVERNANCE PRACTICUM: POLICY GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING EXERCISE
March 30
IV. THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STUDENTS
Chapter 12:
A.
Equal Educational Opportunities
Text, pp. 451-464; 471-478
RACIAL SEGREGATION, DESEGREGATION AND RE-SEGREGATION
1.
Establishing the Constitutional Violation
 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
15. _______________
7
Week
Subject
2.
3.
Student Presenters
The Rise of Remedial Power
 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board
of Education
Desegregation, Retrenchment and Evolving Remedial Limits
 Freeman v. Pitts
April 6-13
B.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF VOLUNTARY
RACE-CONSCIOUS EDUCATIONAL POLICIES
Text, pp. 486-579



1.
2.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Grutter v. Bollinger
Gratz v. Bollinger
16. _______________
17. _______________
PICS v. Seattle
Fisher v. Texas (I and II)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin-2/
and Anti-Affirmative Action Ballot Initiatives
April 13
C.
GENDER EQUALITY IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Text, pp. 579-623
1.
2.
The Constitutional Protections and Their Limits
 United States v. Virginia
Title IX Statutory Protections and their Limits
 Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
 Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education
 Title IX Policies
18. _______________
19._______________
April 13-20
Chapter 13:
A.
The Rights of Students
Text, pp. 625-654; 656-659; 809-815
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1.
2.
3.
Political Expression That Does Not Substantially Interfere With School
 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Offensively Lewd and Indecent Speech
 Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
20. _______________
School-Sponsored Expressive Activities
8
4.
5.
6.
Week
 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Morse v. Frederick
Speech Codes and Anti-harassment Policies
Bullying and Cyberspeech
21._______________
Subject
Student Presenters
April 20
B.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Text pp. 659-698
1.
2.
The Fourth Amendment’s Reasonableness Standard
in the School Setting
 New Jersey v. T.L.O
 Stafford v. Redding
Drug Testing of Students
 Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
 Board of Education of Independent School District
No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
22. _______________
April 20-27
C.
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF STUDENTS
Text, pp. 687-692
-- Goss v. Lopez
23._______________
-- Student Discipline and Restorative Justice
April 27
Chapter 14:
Students with Educational Disabilities
Text, pp. 707-729; 738-744
A.
THE HISTORY OF EDUCATING CHILDREN WITH EDUCATIONAL DISABILITIES
B.
THE FEDERAL STATUTORY STRUCTURE AND GOVERNING CASE LAW
1.
2.
3.
The Statutory Duty to Accommodate Students with Educational Disabilities
 Southeastern Community College v. Davis
24. _______________
The Statutory Duty to Provide a Free, Appropriate Education
for Students with Educational Disabilities
 Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson
Central School District v. Rowley
25. ______________
The Statutory Duty of Placement in the “Least Restrictive
Environment” for Students with Educational Disabilities
 Sacramento v. Rachel H.
9
Rubric for Education Law and Policy Paper
1
Thesis
The thesis is
nonexistent
Organization
2
The thesis is unclear
3
4
The thesis is clear
The thesis is clear and
meaningful
There is no
The organization is
organization principle not consistent
The organization is
clear
The organization makes
logical sense
Argument
The paper lacks an
argument
The argument is
unclear
The argument is clear
The argument is clear and
significant
Support
The paper lacks
support
The paper has
sporadic support
The paper has support
in legal authorities
The paper has support in
law and facts (i.e.,
empirical studies,
anecdotal evidence)
Originality
The paper lacks
originality (i.e.,
repeats other articles
The paper restates
other articles
The paper restates
parts of other articles,
but transcends them
The paper presents a new
idea, or a new way of
looking at a traditional
issue
Overall Quality
The paper fits the
page requirements
The paper makes
some interesting
points
The paper presents a
topic in a thoughtful
and clear manner
The paper presents an
original idea in a
thoughtful and clear way,
or achieves unique depth
on a traditional topic in a
thoughtful and clear
manner
10
Collaborative Teaching Rubric
1
2
3
4
Content
Did the
presentation
communicate
valuable material?
Presentation
contained little to
no valuable
material.
Presentation had
moments where
valuable material
was present but as
a whole content
was lacking.
Presentation had a
good amount of
material and
benefited the class.
Presentation had
an exceptional
amount of valuable
material and was
extremely
beneficial to the
class.
Collaboration
Did everyone make
a valuable
contribution to the
presentation?
The teammates
exhibited a lack of
fair distribution of
responsibilities, a
lack of cooperation
and/or a lack of
mutual respect.
The teammates
sometimes worked
from others’ ideas.
However it seems
as though certain
people did not do
as much work as
others.
The teammates
worked from
others’ ideas most
of the time. And
it seems like
everyone did some
work, but some
people are carrying
the presentation.
The teammates
always worked
from others’ ideas.
It was evident that
all of the group
members
contributed equally
to the
presentation.
Organization
Was the
presentation well
organized and easy
to follow?
The presentation
lacked organization
and had little
evidence of
preparation.
There were
minimal signs of
organization or
preparation.
The presentation
had organizing
ideas but could
have been much
stronger with
better preparation.
The presentation
was well organized,
well prepared and
easy to follow.
Presentation
Did the
presentation
effectively
communicate the
material?
Presenters were
insincere,
disrespectful of the
audience or
unprofessional.
Presenters were
not consistent with
the level of
professionalism
and preparation.
Presenters were
professional and
effective.
Presenters were all
professional, clear
and cohesive in
their delivery.
Group preparation
is very evident.
Engagement
Did the teachers
create an effective
strategy to engage
the class?
Presentation relied
only on power
point or other
medium.
Presentation
involved lecture
and some student
interaction.
Presentation
provided ample
opportunity for
student
participation and
active learning.
Presentation fully
engaged the class
in small or large
group projects.