While there has been no legal action to challenge Louisiana's standardized testing laws that would open up the option of Opting Out, parents do have certain rights under Federal law. A test case would open that conversation. Also see www.UnitedOptOut.org
* * * * * * *
School districts electing to sanction parents for
opting out or refusals to take high-stakes standardized tests may be in
violation of the United States Constitution, The Equal Protection Act, and in
cases where the student has a learning disability, The Americans with
Disabilities Act.
If you feel that your civil rights have been
violated, please file a discrimination complaint with the Office for Civil
Rights within 180 days from when the offense has occurred. Also, please send a
copy of your complaint to Nina Bishop. We are pursuing a class action lawsuit.
Nina
Bishop:
3065
Windward Way
Colorado
Springs, CO 80917
719-233-1508
nbish@attglobal.net
High-stakes testing and the federal
and state imposed sanctions of No Child Left Behind violate the Equal
Protection Act. Similar to Brown v. Board of Education in which the Supreme
Court determined that segregation established an unequal system. Because income
is the scientifically proven number one correlation to test scores, high-stakes
standardized testing, like segregation establishes a separate and unequal education
system that further prohibits employment for protected classes including race,
color, age, and disability.
“Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the
EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the
EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting
wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of
employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes.”
In Meyer,9
the Supreme Court held that the right of parents to raise their children free
from unreasonable state interferences is one of the unwritten
"liberties" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.10
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Against this backdrop, the Constitution limits the
use of state power to diminish parental rights and undermine the family.
Although the Constitution does not deal explicitly with parental authority, the
Supreme Court has specifically recognized parental rights of custody and
control. In the landmark decision of Meyer
v. Nebraska,5
closely followed by Pierce
v. Society of Sisters,6
the Court stated that parents have a substantive due process right to
"bring up children."7
Although these cases were handed down in the 1920s they are no mere archaisms,
but rather have withstood the test of time. Indeed, Justice Brennan has
remarked of Meyer and its progeny: "I think I am safe in saying that no
one doubts the wisdom or validity of those decisions."8
The precedents Meyer and Pierce generated have further solidified the principle
that parents should have the predominant role in raising their children.
The Court invalidated a state statute prohibiting
foreign language instruction to school children, recognizing the right of
German-speaking parents to have their children taught German. The Court found
that the state's interest in encouraging American ideals by prohibiting the
teaching of foreign languages is not great enough to permit infringement of the
rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit.11
The Court rested its opinion in large part on the rights of parents to control
the activities of their children,12
concluding that the statute was an interference "...with the power of
parents to control the education of their own."13
Two years after Meyer, the Supreme Court in Pierce14
invalidated an Oregon statute requiring parents to send their children to
public school, holding that the statute "unreasonably interfere[d] with
the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of
children under their control."15
Pierce made clear that the constitutional rights of a parent are not limited to
physical custody, but that parents possess the right to direct their child's
"destiny."16
The principle enunciated by Meyer and Pierce, that
parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their
children, has survived the many turbulent changes of the last several decades.
A line of decisions following Meyer and Pierce further cemented the rights of
parents to exercise their own best judgment in raising their children. For
example, twenty years after Pierce, the Supreme Court in Prince v.
Massachusetts17
stated that "[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and
nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and
freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor
hinder."18
4)
Sec. 12112. Discrimination
6)
No covered entity shall discriminate against a
qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application
procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee
compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment.
8)
As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term
“discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability”
includes
9)
(1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job
applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or
status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such
applicant or employee;
10) (2)
participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has
the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee
with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such
relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency,
labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the
covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship
programs);
11) (3)
utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration
12) (A) that
have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability;
13) (B) that
perpetuates the discrimination of others who are subject to common
administrative control;
14) (4)
excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual
because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified
individual is known to have a relationship or association;
15) (5)
16) (A) not
making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of
an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or
employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation
would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered
entity; or
17) (B) denying
employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise
qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of
such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental
impairments of the employee or applicant;
18) (6)
using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria
that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a
class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other
selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related
for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and
19) (7)
failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most
effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job
applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or
speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or
whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to
measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking
skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors
that the test purports to measure).
Source: http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12112
_____________________________________________________________________________
Requesting
your child’s test scores:
On
June 1, 1999 the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) sided with Debra Gaudette
after the Connecticut State Department of Education refused to provide her
daughter's test answers on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). The USDE agreed
that Connecticut State Department of Education violated Mrs. Gaudette's
parental rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in denying her
access to the test information.
When his daughter was denied her diploma, Martin Swaden of Edina, Minnesota asked to see his daughter's answers from the test used to determine who graduates from high school. Initially the state refused this father's request. Mr. Swaden, an attorney, persisted threatening to sue the school district; When he was given the test and his daughter's answer sheet and sat in a room with state officials, he found his daughter had accurately answered six questions that National Computer Systems, NCS, had scored wrong. Had they scored her correctly it would have been enough to raise her above the cut score determined for graduation. "When it was all over, the state determined that errors by NCS had caused 47,000 Minnesota students to get lower scores than they deserved, 8,000 to fail when they should have passed, and 525 seniors to be unjustly denied diplomas."
When his daughter was denied her diploma, Martin Swaden of Edina, Minnesota asked to see his daughter's answers from the test used to determine who graduates from high school. Initially the state refused this father's request. Mr. Swaden, an attorney, persisted threatening to sue the school district; When he was given the test and his daughter's answer sheet and sat in a room with state officials, he found his daughter had accurately answered six questions that National Computer Systems, NCS, had scored wrong. Had they scored her correctly it would have been enough to raise her above the cut score determined for graduation. "When it was all over, the state determined that errors by NCS had caused 47,000 Minnesota students to get lower scores than they deserved, 8,000 to fail when they should have passed, and 525 seniors to be unjustly denied diplomas."
Sample letter that you can submit to see your child's test, answers,
and scores.
Additional Reading:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130304/NEWS01/130304005/Lawsuit-against-Brevard-school-closures-claims-civil-rights-issue
Additional Reading:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130304/NEWS01/130304005/Lawsuit-against-Brevard-school-closures-claims-civil-rights-issue
What if Parents and Teachers call for publishing of tests http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-parents-and-teachers-call-for.html
Harvard Education Letter; Opt out Movement Gains Steam http://www.hepg.org/hel/article/548#home
NY Television Network Features Parents Opting Out
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your Comments Welcome