The Implications of the Use of Parental Choice as a Legal "Circuit Breaker"

Autor/inn/en	Mead, Julie F.; Lewis, Maria M.
Titel	The Implications of the Use of Parental Choice as a Legal "Circuit Breaker"
Quelle	In: American Educational Research Journal, 53 (2016) 1, S.100-131 (32 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0002-8312
DOI	10.3102/0002831215613561
Schlagwörter	Parents; Legal Responsibility; Federal Legislation; Parent Rights; Court Litigation; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Student Placement; Racial Factors; Single Sex Schools; Disabilities; Special Education; Constitutional Law; Freedom of Speech; Religion; Citizenship; Gender Discrimination; Educational Legislation; Sex Fairness; Equal Education; School Choice; Educational Discrimination; State Government; Federal Government + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Eltern; Strafmündigkeit; Bundesrecht; Elternrecht; Rechtsstreit; Bildungsfonds; Finanzielle Förderung; Schülerpraktikum; Single-sex schools; Single-sex classes; Single sex classes; Getrenntgeschlechtliche Erziehung; Schule; Handicap; Behinderung; Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen; Staatsrecht; Redefreiheit; Staatsbürgerschaft; Bildungsrecht; Schulgesetz; Sexualaufklärung; Choice of school; Schulwahl; Bund-Länder-Beziehung; Bundesregierung
Abstract	This study explores four instances where parental choice has been employed as a legal "circuit breaker": (a) First Amendment Establishment Clause cases related to public funding, (b) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection cases regarding race-conscious student assignment, (c) Title IX regulations concerning single-sex education, and (d) a provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) related to parental refusal to consent to initial special education services. In each example, while the end result would not be legally permitted if directed by some governmental decision maker, the presence of parental choice produces a permissible indirect path to the same policy outcome. This study traces the legal underpinnings of each example and discusses their implications for policymakers and practitioners. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01