Charles J. Russo

Female Administrators in Urban Settings: Legal Implications for Policy and Practice.

Many indexes suggest the existence of the bifurcation of the education profession into teaching (female dominated) and administration (male dominated). For numerous reasons, much of the historical research in educational administration has been dominated by the male experience and perspective. It is common knowledge that women have been excluded from the administrative ranks and other positions of authority in education. What we have witnessed is an absence of women from power. Recently, however, research on women in administration, management, and leadership has received increased attention, due primarily to social changes in the past decade. For example, the number of females in the workforce has increased substantially. More women than ever before are pursuing advanced degrees, and there has been a noticeable shift of females into business rather than education. This article examines the legal, historical, and pervasive under representation of women in administration, paying particular attention to women in urban settings. It also suggests changes in law, practice, and policy that may help to redress the inequity in administration in urban settings.

Legal Considerations in Providing Special Education Services in Parochial Schools

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public school districts to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities enrolled in private schools. When the private school is a parochial school this issue may be complicated because of the First Amendments separation of church and state doctrine. Until recently, providing most on-site special education services was prohibited. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision lifted the ban, and the 1997 amendments to IDEA have helped to clarify a school districts obligation for providing services to parochial school students. In this article the authors summarize and analyze the major court decisions concerned with the provision of special education and related services to parochial school students and discuss their implications for providing on-site special education services at parochial schools. In particular, two questions are addressed: Must private school students with disabilities be provided with the same level of services as their public school peers? Are school districts required to provide parochial school students with on-site special education services?

School-Based Decision Making, American Style: Perspectives and Practices Throughout the United States.

During the current era of reform, many of the proposals for restructuring urban American educational governance, with their attendant shift from traditional notions of centralized bureaucratic administration toward decentralized school-based management, are not entirely new.This article examines the phenomenon of local control, American-style, now more commonly referred to as school-based decision making (SBDM), in light of its promise for urban settings. The first part of the manuscript examines the implementation of local control in New York City and Detroit. The second part looks at current decentralization efforts in four locations: Miami-Dade County, Florida; Chicago; Texas; and Kentucky. The third, and final section, offers reflections and recommendations based on the similarities and differences between and among the sites that may be instructive to individuals in urban settings who are seeking to improve the quality of education for Americas most vital resource, its children.

Brown v. Board of Education and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Vistas of Equal Educational Opportunities for African Americans.

INTRODUCTIONPrior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by Congress in 1990, persons with disabilities occupied a similar position in status to African Americans during the period of de jure segregation. Individuals with disabilities did not typically enjoy equal access to traditional American institutions and amenities such as public schools, transit services, hotel and restaurant accommodations, entertainment venues, and employment opportunities. Thus, discrimination and denial were common experiences for members of the disabled community. Comparable to the emancipation ideals of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954), the ADA is aimed at dismantling discriminatory practices that deprive persons with disabilities of the freedoms afforded nondisabled citizens.The significance of the ADA is reflected in the sheer number of persons that it potentially protects. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), there are 43 million persons in the United States with a chronic or permanent impairment resulting from disease, injury, or congenital malformation (Adams & Benson, 1990). In comparison to the percentage (8%) of White Americans with disabilities, a much larger percentage (14%) of African Americans have one or more disabilities (Bowe, 1992). Bowe reports that an African American with a disability is more likely to be female, to have less than a high school education, and to be unemployed. Only 18% of African American with disabilities were employed in 1990, and they earned less than

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: An Overview with Reflections for Urban Schools.

10,000 a year on the average (Asbury, Walker, Maholmes, Rackley, & White, 1991).Given these statistics, it can be suggested that African Americans with disabilities experience the most severe underemployment, unemployment, undereducation, and miseducation compared to other disability groups. Thus, the empowerment objectives of the ADA have particular importance for African Americans with disabilities. Establishing a mandate of reasonable accommodations is one means of achieving the empowerment objective. A goal of the ADAs reasonable accommodations provision is to greatly increase the number of students with disabilities in primary, secondary, and postsecondary education. Reasonable accommodations may include providing academic program accommodations such as signers in the classroom, providing- students with learning disabilities additional time to complete tests, and obtaining special equipment for those with hearing impairments (Miles, Russo, & Gordon, 1991).As Russo, Harris, and Sandidge (1994) note, Brown and its progeny spawned an era of equal educational opportunities for African Americans. It demolished the separate-but-equal doctrine of Jim Crow segregation and endeavored to ensure equity in student representation, teacher training, pupil-teacher ratios, and physical plant facilities through integration (Salamone, 1986; Tushnet, 1994). Subsequently, Browns initial thrust for equal educational opportunities has been strengthened by the ADA and other laws against discrimination on the bases of race and disability.The unique status o being African American and having a disability places one in the position of benefitting directly from both Brown and the ADA. An abundance of information exists chronicling the solidification of Brown, defining its meaning for African Americans, and describing implementation strategies. However, there is a paucity of literature examining how the ADA can improve the educational opportunities of African Americans with disabilities. Thus, since the ADA is the most sweeping antidiscrimination legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is especially crucial for educators and human service professionals to be familiar with how the mandates of the ADA can be utilized to achieve educational equity and to improve professional preparation for African Americans with disabilities.The purpose of this article is threefold. …

Search and Seizure in the Schools.

In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, a highly contentious and divided Supreme Court invalidated race-conscious admissions plans in two urban school systems, Seattle and Louisville. As such, Parents Involved was the latest chapter in the Courts almost 40-year history of reaching mixed results in such far-reaching areas involving race-conscious remedies as admissions to higher education, employment in the general workforce and in education, minority set aside programs, and voting rights. In light of the impact that Supreme Court cases on race-conscious remedies have in education, particularly in urban settings, this article first reviews the opinions of the Supreme Courts justices in Parents Involved because of its potentially far-reaching effect. The second part of the article reflects on the meaning of Parents Involved.

Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools

Amid the growing tide of violence and drugs in U.S. schools during the past 20 years, educators have grown increasingly concerned about the safety of students and staff members. In response to this problem, administrators have turned to searches of students, their lockers, and their possessions. As might have been expected, these searches have led to litigation over whether the Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public schools.

One Step Forward, Half a Step Backward?.

This chapter addresses changes in the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB Act increases both federal involvement in K-12 education and funding for this purpose. The Act targets poor students and academically weak schools by shifting funding formulas, requiring annual testing of students in grades three through eight; and makes school systems accountable by tracking test results, reporting to parents, and disaggregate tests results by sub-group factors. The goal is to eliminate the achievement gap between minority and white students. We discuss the process and the achievement of this goal.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE USA: American update: the Supreme Court and affirmative action

In the first 25 years after Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down more than thirty cases involving desegregation of public school systems. Yet, over the past quarter of a century, the Court has not played much of a role in ensuring educational equity when dealing with segregated schools, resolving only six cases. The Courts lack of involvement in desegregation efforts has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that many school boards act as if Brown had never been decided. After reflecting on the status of school desegregation, the article concludes that while the Supreme Court and lower federal courts contributed a great deal toward the dismantling of desegregated school systems in the first 25 years after Brown, their actions in the last 25 years resulted in a situation of having the nation taking one step forward and half of a step backwards, because the very conditions that Brown sought to eliminate are unfortunately returning to the public schools. One can only hope that as the nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of Brown, the Court will remain true to the spirit of this landmark case and its progeny by safeguarding equal educational opportunities for all students. INTRODUCTION On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court decided its most important education case, perhaps its most significant ruling, of all time. In a unanimous nine-to-nothing opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) (Brown I), the Court held that the de jure segregation of public schools based on race deprived minority children of equal educational opportunities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A year later, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1955) (Brown II), the Court set about dismantling segregated school systems. While later cases attacked de facto and de jure segregation in schools as well as the wider arena of American society, Brown I remains the unchallenged catalyst for judicially initiated systemic change. Beginning with school desegregation and culminating in the Civil Rights Movement, Brown spawned an era of equal educational opportunities by heightening consciousness for protecting the rights of other disenfranchised groups, most notably women and students with disabilities. In the first twenty-five years after Brown, the Supreme Court handed down more than 30 cases involving desegregation of public school systems (Russo, Harris, & Sandidge, 1994). Yet, over the past quarter of a century, the Supreme Court has played a diminished role in ensuring educational equity, resolving only six cases. The Courts lack of involvement in desegregation efforts has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that many school boards act as if Brown had never been decided. One can only hope that as the nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of Brown, the Court will remain true to the spirit of this landmark case and its progeny by safeguarding equal educational opportunities for all students. Ten years ago, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Brown, this author and others (Russo, Harris, & Sandidge, 1994) reviewed more than three dozen cases on public school desegregation that the Court resolved in the 40 years since Brown I. Rather than cover the same ground, the essential purpose of this article is to pick up where the last one ended. The first and larger part of this article reviews litigation in the federal courts dealing with desegregation. The initial section of legal analysis reviews Supreme Court cases from the 1990s before examining lower federal court cases after the Court last acted, focusing on disputes over whether formerly segregated school systems achieved unitary. The latter part of the legal analysis highlights cases on unitary status because only by creating school systems that operate in such a fashion, meaning that schools function without regard to segregation by race by serving all children, can educators create the necessary pre-conditions for academic success. …

Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education: Dead on Arrival?

Affirmative action has long been a source of contention in the United States, especially in matters affecting schools. In companion cases from the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court reflected its own ambivalence in this regard, upholding the use of race-conscious affirmative action admissions policies in its law school in Grutter v. Bollinger (Grutter), but striking down is application in its undergraduate programs in Gratz v. Bollinger (Gratz). Even though Grutter and Gratz left a variety of questions unanswered, they are likely to impact on all levels of education in the United States. As such, this article is divided into three major sections. The first part reviews the judicial history of affirmative action, paying particular attention to Supreme Court cases. The second section examines the background and opinions in Gratz and Grutter, in which each of the nine Justices authored at least one opinion. The final section reflects on the potential ramifications of Gratz and Grutter for educators.