Bethel School District vs. Fraser :: essays research papers

On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student elective office to his fellow high school mates. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self government. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor." However, no obscene language was used. Fraser discussed his speech with three of his teachers. Two of the teachers testified at the trial that they informed Matthew the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it." They also mentioned that the speech might have "severe consequences," but none of the three suggested that the speech might violate a school rule. So Matthew gave his speech, during which a school counselor observed the reaction of students. Some hooted and yelled; others appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibited the use of obscene language in the school: Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. The morning after the assembly, the assistant principal called Matthew into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. The assist ant principal informed Matthew that he would be suspended for three days and would be ineligible as a candidate for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises. Matthew went to the school's hearing officer for a review of the disciplinary action. The examiner determined that the speech fell within the ordinary meaning of "obscene," as used in the disruptive-conduct rule, and affirmed the discipline in its entirety. Fraser served two days of his suspension, and was allowed to return to school on the third day. Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.

Constitutional reform has gone too far, or not far enough

Constitutional reform is a process whereby the fundamental nature of the system government (as well as the relationships between governing institutions) is changed, or where change is proposed. In the case of the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Such reforms have arguably been frequently present over recent years, with the introduction of numerous constitutional reforms since 1997-the Golden Date, some might argue. The UK currently has a Two-and-a-Half Party System, with the Liberal Democrats being the half. As such, there are of course many competing points of view, some of which differentiating due to a party’s position on the political spectrum. This essay will identify and explain the differences in opinion concerning whether or not constitutional reform has gone far enough. The Conservative party, made up of many traditionalists of Great Britain, very much believe that constitutional reform has gone too far. They believe that numerous sudden changes have occurred since 1997 under Labour, but there has not been a pause. Britain therefore needs to stop and see if the system is working, before any further/additional-and perhaps unnecessary-changes are made. One of several major constitutional reforms that the Conservative party are opposed to/believes that it is a step too far, is having a codified (written) constitution. This codified constitution would to some extent limit government power, which the Conservatives are very much against; preferring strong government. The party also believe that an uncodified constitution allows it to evolve gradually and naturally over time, ensuring that it suits that particular time period. For example, if the constitution would have been codified one hundred years ago, then the women of today would not be able to vote. The Conservatives therefore argue that the constitution should remain uncodified as many aspects would soon be outdated. The Conservatives also believe that the constitution should only change when there is an obvious problem; and where a clear solution that will improve things exists. The Conservatives also believe that devolution (a process of constitutional reform, whereby power, but not legal sovereignty, is distributed to national or regional institutions) was a step too far, but have reluctantly accepted it. However, they did warn that devolution-especially at the speed that it has occurred at in recent years-may lead to the eventual break up of Great Britain. This is a possible reason for Prime Minister, David Cameron, attempting to dictate the referendum concerning Scottish Independence. The formation of the Scottish Parliament-a result of devolution-has limited the power of the British government over subjects such as education and health in devolved areas. Moreover, although the Conservatives have reluctantly ‘accepted’ devolution, they have given a definite no to Scottish Independence, much to the annoyance of Alex Salmon. The Conservative party, the traditionalists of Great Britain are very much against ‘reform for reforms sake. ’ They were therefore rather reluctant to reform the House of Lords. However, as they are currently in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who wish to dramatically reform the House of Lords, they had to come up with a compromise. This compromise came in the form of proposing for 80% of the members to be elected, with the remaining 20% being appointed by Appointment Committees. The Conservatives have argued against a fully elected House of Lords because they believe that it is sensible to have experts present in the legislative process. Although such constitutional reform has been proposed, the Conservatives would much rather have not reformed the Lords at all, keeping true to traditional views, which have aided Britain so well in the past. On the other hand, the Conservatives have agreed to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons from 650 to 600. As a result, there will be less representation of the people and also less scrutiny; which is the main negative repercussion. Less scrutiny could allow an ajar backdoor for further corruption and manipulation in politics to be present. This particular constitutional reform is one of the few that the Conservatives believe has not gone too far, insisting that it has the potential to aid Great Britain. A further constitutional reform that links to the previous point is the attempt at making boundary sizes more equal. This is to be done in order to achieve political equality, for votes. A prime example of this is the Isle of Wight which has one representative for the entire area. With the implementation of equal boundary sizes, there will be several representatives for the area, which would go some way to ensuring that votes are equal. Nevertheless, this particular constitutional reform is favourable to the Conservatives, as the Isle of Wight is a predominantly Conservative area. The Liberal Democrats, made up of many eager reformists, strongly believe that constitutional reform has not gone far enough. With this view in mind, they wish to reform many aspects of Britain, in the hope of promoting democracy. The Liberal Democrats also believe that prior reforms have laid some of the basic foundations for democracy to be developed, such as the proposed reforms to the House of Lords, but believe they should continue. One of several constitutional reforms that the Liberal Democrats believe have not gone far enough is the constitution remaining uncodified. The Liberal Democrats favour a codified (written) constitution as it outlines the rights of the people, and in a sense, limits government power. A codified constitution could also allow human rights to become entrenched (the device which protects a constitution from short-term amendment). As human rights and liberties are at the heart of many Liberal Democrats, it is obvious why they wish to have a codified constitution, and are not at all content with the current uncodified constitution. This may be because the government has found ways to go around issues in the past, due to the uncodified constitution not distinctly outlining their power, roles and limitations. The Liberal Democrats also believe that a codified constitution could be more democratic, in the sense that popular sovereignty (sovereignty lies with the people, as is the case in America) could be integrated. The Liberal Democrats are also in favour of devolution, which fits in with the idea of federalism (the process by which two or more governments share powers over the same geographic area). During the 1990s and in the run up to the 1997 general election, the Liberal Democrats developed a joint policy with Labour, showing their commitment to devolution. After the invitation onto a cabinet sub-committee, the Liberal Democrat leader and a number of senior figures found itself working with the machinery of government. The policies that they worked on were some of those closest to the hearts of many Liberal Democrats. Although the Liberal Democrats agree with devolution, many would like to take it a step further and go federal. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe that constitutional reform has not gone far enough when it comes to devolution, as a crossover between devolution and federalism is not yet present. Furthermore, the beloved idea of federalism links to both devolution and a codified constitution, which is present in both America and Germany. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats disagree with Scottish independence; even though it fits in with the beloved idea of federalism. It therefore seems that the Liberal Democrats are only in favour of constitutional reform that suits them/increases their power and number of seats. The Liberal Democrats believe that constitutional reform has not yet completely reached the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats are eager for 100% of members of the House of Lords to be elected, similar to a senate present in America and Australia. The members would be elected by proportional representation instead of FPTP, as this has been strongly argued by the Liberal Democrats to be undemocratic. However, due to the coalition, a compromise had to be made which allowed the proposal of a House of Lords with 80% of its members elected to be put forward. This is a clear compromise between the coalition members as the Liberal Democrats are eager to reform many aspects of Britain, including the House of Lords, whereas the Conservatives, the dominant member of the coalition, would prefer not to reform the Lords at all as it has never caused any violent uprisings or revolutions in the past. The Labour party, ‘a party of the working class,’ was the party that first introduced ‘radical’ reforms, stemming from 1997 under Tony Blair. The current Labour party, under Ed Miliband, are reviewing all of their policies and are yet to publish a manifesto. However, the policies that are yet to be published may go back to the roots of Old Labour, have influence from Tony Blair’s Third Way or may set out on a completely different path. The Labour party are said to be somewhere in the middle, agreeing that constitutional reform has gone too far in some aspects, but not far enough in others. For example, when it comes to the constitution, the Labour party are very much in agreement with the Conservatives. This is true in the sense that they also believe that the constitution should be allowed to evolve naturally, instead of being dictated by predecessors. The Labour party also argue that introducing a codified constitution would be very time consuming and very costly. At this point in time, considering that a deficit of over ?1tn exists, introducing a codified constitution would not necessarily be the best thing to spend a large sum of money on. Labour argues that a codified constitution would be fixed/static and could not be easily changed, which would not be ideal in a crisis. The Labour party are in favour of reducing the number of MPs in the House of Commons from 650 to 600, as long as it is done in the old manner, which would be more beneficial to them. However, the party give a firm ‘no’ to equal boundary sizes. This is predominantly because they would lose out significantly, making it very difficult for Labour to form a significant majority. On this particular issue, Labour believes that equalling boundary sizes is a constitutional reform that is just a step too far. As previously stated, this is most likely because they would lose out dramatically. Similar to the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party are strongly in favour of devolution, but are against Scottish Independence. This is because Labour has a strong grasp on Scotland, and if Scotland was to go independent, they would lose many seats. This loss would make it very difficult for Labour to form a majority, meaning that their chances of being elected as the next government would be extremely slim. This would of course be very beneficial to the Conservatives, but would be very damaging to Labour. Hence why Labour believe that Scottish Independence is a step too far. In conclusion, each of the three main parties have different opinions concerning the true extent of constitutional reform: with the Conservatives predominantly believing that it has gone too far, the Liberal Democrats believing that it has not gone far enough and Labour lying somewhere in between. However, under the coalition, the two members have compromised and have strayed slightly from their original views. The Conservatives, for example, have proposed to reform the House of Lords, which is arguably quite ‘untraditional’ of them. The Liberal Democrats have agreed to reduce the number of MPs in the Commons, even though there will be less scrutiny and they will lose out. The numerous differences in opinions and views over constitutional reform has sometimes allowed for some parties to spring up: the bid for Scottish Independence created the Scottish Nationalist Party and issues concerning the EU have created UKIP. It can be strongly argued that constitutional reform has not gone far enough, in the sense of improving democracy, as several aspects of the UK remain undemocratic, such as reducing the number of MPs in the Commons and not completely reforming the House of Lords.

The No Child Left Behind - 8655 Words

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, the 2001 update of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Klein, 2015), was put into place to ensure that all students, regardless of disability label, would meet state mandated academic goals by the 2013-2014 school year. The law was a collaborative effort between both political parties on Capitol Hill, as well as key stakeholders in the civil rights and business groups. The aim of NCLB was to â€Å"advance American competitiveness and close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers† (Klein, 2015). NCLB required that each student population, which was to include each defined subgroup, must meet a measurable objective which would be set forth by the state.†¦show more content†¦However, this study sought to increase understanding related to the impact of the inclusive classroom on general education students, who do not have a disability, in rural southwestern Virginia mathematics cla ssrooms. Additionally, this study analyzed whether general education students in the inclusive classroom performed as well on the Virginia Mathematics Standards of Learning test for grades 5-8 as their peers in the non-inclusive classroom. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative study on the impact of inclusion on general education students in middle school mathematics is to examine achievement outcomes, as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning test, of the co-teaching model on general education students being taught in the inclusive classroom. This research will be valued by educators in order to plan and assess the effectiveness of current teaching strategies, so that findings can be used to better equip current and aspiring teachers in creating/maintaining an effective model of inclusive teaching. Data-driven modifications, if needed, to the inclusive model will be an effective tool to ensure that students are achieving maximum scores on state testing, and to provide a framework for successful inclusive instruction. ProblemShow MoreRelatedNo Child Left Behind958 Words   |  4 Pages Good intentions are no excuse to continue a fail policy. Since the No Child left Behind Act (NCLB) became in effect, teachers have been restricted to teach in a certain way. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, which was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. President Bush once said; â€Å"education is the gateway to a hopeful future for America’s children. America relies on good teachersRead MoreThe No Child Left Behind952 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"In 2002, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was the first to mandate nationwide testing at various grade levels† (Breiner, 2015). Since then, summative tests have been used to assess the achievement of students and increase accountability for both the schools and teachers (Kubiszyn Borich, 2013, p. 15-25). These summative tests, also referred to as high-stakes tests, are given annually to students in third to ninth grade in language arts, math, and reading (Roach, 2014; Shepard, 2003). ThereRead MoreThe No Child Left Behind1693 Words   |  7 Pagesnumber one nation that spends on per student than any other nation in in the world. With the high price of education and the high cost of funding, the country aims to ensure that all public schools in all states achieve quality education. The â€Å"No Child Left Behind† Act is America’s law that expanded the role of the federal government in education reform, particularly focused on improving the education of marginalized American students. At the core of this act are various measures in increasing studentRead MoreIs The No Child Left Behind?1626 Words   |  7 PagesOver the past decade or longer schools in the United States of America have been tasked to produce successful students. In 2002, then-President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, yet another phase of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Cook, 2011). This has done little if anything to prepare students for college or life in general as the standardized tests used for assessing knowledge are actually a ranking method for evaluating aptitude rather than achievementRead MoreNo Child Left Behind1538 Words   |  7 Pagesand falls behind compared to other countries. Children today are tomorrow’s future. They are the next innovators, scientist, doctors, etc. However, the only way children can grow to make the future a better place is if they receive a world class education. It takes a team effort and collaboration of teachers, principals, school leaders and parents. A policy that appeared in the United States, which was close to addressing the flaws within the education system, is the No Child Left Behind policy (NCLB)Read MoreNo Child Left Behind2277 Words   |  10 PagesIn the case of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), is politics the enemy of problem solving? By examining selected political controversies surrounding NCLB, it will be demonstrated that politics is the enemy. Since NCLB’s enactment, vast amounts of research literature and news stories have been published on its effects, which demonstrates the impact and debate generated by this law. The major goals of this bipartisan legislation were to improve student performance through standardized testing by usingRead MoreThe No Child Left Behind1974 Words   |  8 Pagesorder to improve education in America, we have to go to the root of our problem in the school system and find better ways to enforce new rules and regulations that wouldn’t be detrimental to both students, scho ols, and educators alike. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is having a negative effect on our education system because it reduces the choices of schools for parents, and the distribution of qualified teachers. It also has a negative impact on the amount that kids are able to learn in schoolRead More No Child Left Behind1472 Words   |  6 Pagesgone into many wars. Not just physical wars that I am considered about but also wars on education. The nation could destroy its own glory and way of the source of great future that it rely on by initiating a war on the minds of the children. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a federal education policy that was developed in 2001. (Lagana-Riordan and Aguilar 135). NCLB is a program designed to minimize the differences in the level of education that white or rich people get to poor African-American, HispanicRead MoreNo Child Left Behind555 Words   |  2 Pagesschools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background in every part of America.† Pr. George W. Bush. The No Child Left Behind Act has plenty of advantages such as: helping students with disabilities, guiding teachers and parents so that they can help the child, and push the child to succeed. Students with language disabilities will be at a disadvantage in reading. The No Child Left Behind has provides students with tutors and extra help with homework. PresidentRead MoreNo Child Left Behind2624 Words   |  11 Pagesthis Paper The No Child Left Behind Act has stacked the deck against schools with special needs. At this point in time with the 2004 elections right around the corner, it seems that this Act is taking a lot of criticism for its rigid approach to the educational progress of our children today. No Child Left Behind has some wonderful goals and aspirations: to close the student achievement gap, make public schools accountable, set standards of excellence for every child, and put a qualified