Curriculum Issues & Law PPT. - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

1. WHAT THE LAW SAYS
ABOUT CURRICULUM
ISSUES
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2. THE REQUIRED
CURRICULUM
 Since the early 1980s, a host of measures have been put
in place to strengthen the curriculum, measure student
achievement, and hold school districts and schools
accountable.
 Texas passed legislation in 1981 requiring a balance
between foundation curriculum (core subjects) and
enrichment curriculum (TEC §§28.001-.002) based on the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
 The state board can specify the content of the required
curriculum, but it cannot designate either the methodology
or the amount of time to be used in teaching it.

3. THE REQUIRED
CURRICULUM (cont.)
The State Board of Education (SBOE) must (TEC §§28.002,
§§28.025(b), §§28.053):
 adopt curriculum requirements for minimum, recommended, and
advanced high school programs,
 ensure that students enroll in recommended or advanced with
some exceptions
 require school districts to develop advanced placement tests
 give a one-time $3000 grant to schools offering AP courses
 award incentive grants to teachers
 subsidize test fees for needy students

4. THE REQUIRED
CURRICULUM (cont.)
 Legislation enacted in 2003 permitted TEA (TEC
§§32.151, 29.909)
 to establish a three year technology immersion pilot,
 to allow districts to participate in electronic courses and
virtual learning
 TEC §28.004 requires districts to establish a local health
education advisory council to assist in ensuring that local
community values and health concerns are reflected in
the district’s human sexuality course.
 TEC §29.085 authorizes public school districts to offer an
integrated program of educational and support services
for students who are pregnant or who are parents.

5. STUDENT ASSESSMENT
 TEC §28.022 provides that districts must establish a
policy that provides for parent- teacher conferences and
requires notice to parents of their student’s
performance in each class or subject at least once every
twelve weeks.
 The legislature has directed the State Board to establish a
statewide student knowledge- and skills-based
assessment program, currently the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) (TEC §39.022). Children
with disabilities or with limited English proficiency may be
permitted to take an alternate assessment and maybe
promoted based passing the alternate assessment
instrument (TEC §28.0211(b)).

6. STUDENT ASSESSMENT
(cont.)
 In 1997, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund (MALDEF) filed a federal lawsuit against the state’s former
exit test, TAAS, arguing that it was discriminatory against
Hispanics and Blacks who failed at higher rate. In 2000, the U.
S. District Court rejected the lawsuit by noting that the test
provided more positive than negative outcomes (GI Forum
Image de Tejas v. Texas Education Agency).
 The 1999 legislative session produced TEC §28.021 which
stipulated that students may be promoted only on the basis of
academic achievement. In addition, TEC §28.0211 specified the
circumstances under which a student can be retained for failure
to pass state assessment tests.

7. STUDENT ASSESSMENT
(cont.)
 According to TEC §§28.0211(c), 28.0213, and 29.081, after a
student fails the TAAS for a second time, a grade placement
committee will be established to determine what instruction the
district should provide the student before administering the test a
third time
 Students not likely to be promoted to the next grade are required
to attend an extended-year program, an accelerated reading
program, an accelerated instructional program, or a basic skills
program (TEC §25.085).
 Further, a district must develop a personal graduation plan for
each middle school or high school student who does not perform
well on the state assessment or is not likely to graduate on time
(TEC §28.0212).

8. STUDENT ASSESSMENT
(cont.)
 A student may receive a diploma when the student
completes the required curriculum and the exit-level
assessment. If a student fails the state assessment
requirement, they may be awarded a certificate of
coursework completion (C).
 According to TEC §31.104, a district may not withhold a
diploma or deny a student the opportunity of graduating or
participating in graduation exercised for failure to return
books or pay the price of the book.

9. STUDENT ASSESSMENT
(cont.)
 One of the appraisal criteria of teachers and school principals
must encompass the performance of the students (TEC §21.351,
21.354(e)). In McLean v. Quanah I.S.D. the commissioner of
education observed that significant lack of student progress can
be a reason for nonrenewal, however the district did not have
sufficient evidence of teacher incompetence to support the
nonrenewal, and the commissioner reversed the district’s
nonrenewal decision.
 A teacher cannot be required to change a student’s grade on a
course or exam, unless the board of trustees determines the
grade is arbitrary, erroneous, or not consistent with the school
district’s grading policy (TEC §28.0212).

10. SCHOOL DISTRICT
ACCOUNTABILITY
 TEC §39.051 directs the SBOE to establish a set of academic
excellence indicators for school campuses.
 TEC §11.253(c), requires that school principals must consult
annually with their site-based planning and decision-making
committee in reviewing and revising the campus improvement
plan relative to performance of the campus on the academic
excellence indicators.
 Each year, TEA prepares a “campus report card” that compares
the performance of the campus to other campuses around the
state. School boards are required to publish an annual report
describing the educational performance of the district and each
of its campuses on student achievement and other measures
(TEC §§39.052, 39.053).

11. SCHOOL DISTRICT
ACCOUNTABILITY
(cont.)
 School districts and individual schools are held
accountable to the TEA through the accreditation process
with classifications of exemplary, recognized,
academically acceptable, and academically unacceptable
(TEC §§39.131(a)).
 Sanctions for low-performing campuses can include
appointment of a campus intervention team to render
assistance, selection of a board of managers, and
reconstitution or closure of the campus if the school has
been deficient for two or more years (TEC §§39.132).

12. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
 The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 rocked the
education world when it was signed into law by President
George W. Bush to raise student achievement by holding
states and school districts to high standards with strict
accountability requirements (20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq.).
 It amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 and its accountability system seems to be
modeled after the Texas system.
 Congress tied adequate yearly progress (AYP) to all
public schools, but only the ones that receive Title I funds
are subject to the low-performance sanctions outlined
below.

13. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
(cont.)
 Each state’s definition of AYP must apply “the same high
standards of academic achievement to all public
elementary and secondary school students in the State”.
This means that all subgroups must meet standard and
states must disaggregate the data to show AYP of each
subgroup (20 U.S.C. §6311(b)(2)(C)(1)(5) et seq.).
 If a school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years,
then a school enters “school improvement” and all
students have “public school choice” (34 C.F.R. §200.32).
Schools enter “supplemental educational services” in the
third year, “corrective action” for the fourth year,
“restructuring” for the fifth year (34 C.F.R. §§200.42,
200.43, 200.45).

14. REMOVAL OF
OBJECTIONABLE LIBRARY
AND STUDY MATERIALS
 The removal of objectionable material was
addressed in a murky 5-4 decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court when it affirmed a lower court
decision ordering a trial to determine why a
school board removed controversial books from
the libraries (Board of Education of Island Trees
v. Pico).
 Since the majority of the court was not
consistent in its reasoning, no definite set of
guidelines can be derived from the decision.

15. REMOVAL OF
OBJECTIONABLE LIBRARY
AND STUDY MATERIALS
(cont.) Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit had an
 The U.S.
opportunity in 1995 to apply the Pico ruling to a Louisiana
school district’s removal of a controversial book Voodoo
Hoodoo (Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board).
 The board voted to remove the book from all school
libraries, but a lawsuit was filed by other parents who
objected to the removal.
 The Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the lower courts for
a determination of what motivated the school board’s
action, expecially considering that many of the members
either had not read the book or had read less than its
entirety.

16. COMPUTERS AND THE
INTERNET
 The federal Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) required
both libraries and schools using federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act funds for Internet use to have filtering
devices in place by July, 2002.
 The American Library Association filed a lawsuit against CIPA,
charging that it unconstitutionally censors academic material.
 The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional
(American Library Association v. U.S., 2003) since the
governmental interest in protecting children from harmful
materials was great, and the burden on adult library uses having
their use filtered was minimal.

17. COMPUTERS AND THE
INTERNET (cont.)
 Schools need to be careful when posting
personally identifiable information about
students that would violate the terms of the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
 School districts use “acceptable use policies” to
place restrictions on the use of its own
technology and to impose sanctions on those
who violate the conditions of the (Electronics
Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§2510-2520)).

18. EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES AND THE
UIL
 TEC §33.081 leaves to the SBOE the establishment of rules
limiting participation in extracurricular activities during the school
day and school week.
 TEC §33.081(g) provides that the decision of the Texas
Commissioner of Education in a dispute over student eligibility
for extracurricular activities may not be appealed in state court
except on the grounds of being arbitrary or capricious.
 The “no pass-no play” provision specifies that a student who
does not maintain a grade of 70 or higher in all courses must be
suspended from extracurricular activities sponsored by the
district or UIL for at least three school weeks or until the grade is
raised to 70 or higher (TEC §33.081(g)).

19. EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES AND THE UIL
(cont.)
 A flurry of litigation greeted the implementation
of the original “no pass-no play” rule in 1984.
 The Texas Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that the
law does not deprive students of any recognized
right to participate in extracurricular activities
and is not discriminatory (Spring Branch I.S.D.
v. Stamos), and was rejected again by the state
appeals court in 1991 (Texas Education Agency.
v. Stamos).

20. AT-RISK CHILDREN
 To reduce the dropout rate, the commissioner of
education is required to develop a process for auditing
school dropout records electronically and administer a
“middle college” education pilot program for students who
are at risk of dropping out (TEC §§39.055, 29.908).
 Education Code §§33.151-.158 outlines the “Communities
in Schools” program, a youth dropout prevention program,
and how those receiving funds under TEC §33.156 must
participate in the program.

21. AT-RISK CHILDREN
(cont.)
 TEC §29.081 requires each district to develop
appropriate compensatory or accelerated
programs for students who are not performing
well.
 Districts may operate an extended-year program
for students in kindergarten through grade eight
who are identified as unlikely to be promoted to
the next grade (TEC §29.082) or an optional
flexible year program (TEC §29.0821).

22. BILINGUAL CHILDREN
 In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Lau v.
Nichols that federal guidelines enforcing Title VI of the
1964 Civil Rights Act did require school districts to
eliminate language deficiencies where school board
policies discriminate against minorities.
 The case involved Chinese students who were not
receiving any instruction in learning English, yet were
enrolled in all-English classes.
 The Court decided that the district was required to take
affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiencies.

23. BILINGUAL CHILDREN
(cont.)
 The problem is that the Court did not specify exactly what form
bilingual programs are to have in order to comply with the 1964
act.
 As a result of United States v. Texas [Bilingual], Subchapter B of
Chapter 29 of the Texas Education Code set forth the law with
respect to bilingual education.
 These provisions were originally adopted in 1973, and revised
substantially in 1981. TEC §29.051 asserts that English is the
primary language of Texas, but did require school districts with
twenty or more students of limited English proficiency (LEP) in
the same grade to offer bilingual education throughout middle
school, and English as a second language (ESL) in high school.

24. GIFTED CHILDREN
 A gifted and talented student is defined as one “who
performs at or shows the potential for performing at a
remarkably high level of accomplishment when compared
to others of the same age, experience, or environment
and “who exhibits high performance capability in an
intellectual, creative, or artistic field; possesses an
unusual capacity for leadership, or excels in a specific
academic field” (TEC §29.121).
 Using the criteria developed by the SBOE, each district is
required to adopt a process for identifying gifted and
talented students and to establish a program for those
students in each grade level.

25. ABUSED AND
NEGLECTED CHILDREN
 Provisions of the Family Code require that anyone having
cause to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or
welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse
or neglect shall immediately make a report to any local or
state law enforcement agency or any other appropriate
agency (Family Code §§261.101, 261.103). Section
261.109 of the Family Code makes failure to report
suspected child abuse or neglect a Class B misdemeanor.
An appeals court in Morris v. State, 1992, and the
commissioner in Texas Education Agency v. Morris, 1994,
felt that since the teacher did not report the abuse by the
two aides, she should be convicted and have her teaching
certificate revoked.

26. HOMESCHOOLING
 One thing the chapter did not discuss was
homeschooling.
 Whether or not homeschooling was considered
a viable option was settle in 1994 when the
Texas Supreme Court ruled in Leeper v.
Arlington that home schools are private schools.
 Private schools are not regulated by the state of
Texas at this time and so parents did not have
to present their curriculum to the school district
and/or register with school officials.

27. HOMESCHOOLING
 The court in that case ruled that school districts are still
required to enforce the compulsory attendance laws and
that parents who are teaching their children at home must
cooperate with the school district in such inquires.
 In 1995, the Texas Education Agency clarified
cooperation as the following: “If the school district
contacts a family who maintains that they are teaching
their children at home, and the family provides a written
letter of assurance that they have a curriculum that covers
the basic areas of reading, spelling, grammar, math and a
course in good citizenship and they are pursuing it in a
bona fide manner (not a sham), this constitutes
cooperation with the school”

28. SUMMARY
 Although efforts have been made to give more autonomy
to local districts, federal and state authority still maintains
a great amount of control concerning requirements for the
state-mandated curriculum, sex education, student
testing, and controls on extracurricular participation.
However, these same federal and state laws have
strengthened school district, campus, and administrator
accountability measures and it is the hope of everyone
involved that these legislative efforts will reduce the
dropout rate and improve student achievement.