Kevin G. Welner

School Choice and the Pressure to Perform Déjà Vu for Children with Disabilities

Major principles underlying school choice—such as market competition and parental autonomy—are in serious tension with the principles underlying inclusion from both philosophical and legal perspectives. In this article, the authors explicate this tension and then examine the empirical evidence indicating that exclusion of students with special needs, particularly by schools that market themselves on the basis of test scores, has been a result of the implementation of school choice. The authors suggest that school choice has turned back the clock by once again encouraging public schools to exclude students with special needs on the ground that educating such students is beyond the scope of their mission.

Alternative Approaches to the Politics of Detracking

Notwithstanding empirical, pedagogical, and ethical criticism, the practice of tracking remains widespread. In part, this is because the process of detracking is seen as difficult and uncertain. This article uses case studies to introduce and illustrate 2 alternative approaches for moving forward with detracking reforms. The first, winning them over, is effective in a school community that is willing to engage in school reforms that promote equity while trusting that its educators will ensure a high-quality education even during times of change. The second, taking them on, becomes necessary in school communities that are more resistant to change and where equity and excellence are seen as incompatible. In such communities educational opportunities are generally viewed from a more competitive perspective.

K–12 Race-Conscious Student Assignment Policies: Law, Social Science, and Diversity

This fall, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of race-conscious K–12 student assignment policies. At a time when schools nationwide have become more racially isolated, some districts have used such policies to mitigate segregation. This article examines these policies in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions concerning affirmative action at universities. It explores the legal implications of differences between higher education and K–12 schooling, considering what the differences might mean for particular diversity goals and for policies designed to meet those goals. Beginning with a concise summary of research on the effects of K–12 student diversity, the article places the research in a current legal context, explaining relevant law, what the courts consider important, and how research addresses evidentiary issues.

Can Irrational Become Unconstitutional? NCLB's 100% Presuppositions

This article identifies two presuppositions underlying No Child Left Behinds (NCLB) system of adequate yearly progress. The first is that each state must bring 100% of its students up to proficiency on state tests by the 2013–14 school year. The second is that each students test score must effectively be treated by the state as if his or her school were 100% responsible for that score. The article demonstrates that these two 100% presuppositions are unsupportable and then explores the NCLB rules in the context of the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government from arbitrary exercises of power.

Evidence and Rigor: Scrutinizing the Rhetorical Embrace of Evidence-Based Decision Making

The nation’s lawmakers have frequently voiced the basic principle that important policy decisions should be evidence based. In this commentary, the authors describe the approach the U.S. Department of Education has taken in its Increasing Educational Productivity project. The authors argue that the department’s actual practice in this instance has fallen short of the rhetorical embrace of evidence-based decision making, and they explain the potential harm done when leaders do not heed the importance of grounding policy in high-quality research.

Rethinking Expert Testimony in Education Rights Litigation

Courts often rely on the testimony of experts to understand arguments and implications in education rights litigation. But expert testimony, and statistical testimony in particular, can offer a false sense of security for the unwary. This article uses expert testimony offered in two recent desegregation cases to consider whether sufficient protections are presently in place to protect judges, who are usually statistical novices, from being confused or misled by experts. These case studies illustrate how, without the use of additional protections, courts can be misled. Following this examination, we offer suggestions intended to improve judges’ comprehension of expert testimony. At its most general level, this article addresses the role of researchers in presenting important educational issues in ways that speak clearly to policy-makers.

Scholars as Policy Actors Research, Public Discourse, and the Zone of Judicial Constraints

Courts, students are told, will protect minorities’ legal rights against popular sentiment and political pressure. But courts can be expected to protect rights only within boundaries shaped in part by popular and political opinion. This suggests that litigation outcomes regarding education rights issues will depend on shifting the policymaking context through broad societal changes in perspective about the importance of equitable schooling. This dynamic of courts carrying out their limited countermajoritarian role within contextual constraints has substantial implications concerning the largely unrealized capacity of social science to affect judicial decision making. Accordingly, this article explores that dynamic and those implications, building on existing concepts from political science scholarship and introducing the concept of a zone of judicial constraints.

Social Movement Organizing and Equity-Focused Educational Change: Shifting the Zone of Mediation

In the first edition of this handbook, we recommended significant shifts in the way education change is understood and pursued. Specifically, we argued that reforms seeking to disrupt historic connections among race, social class, educational opportunities, and schooling outcomes are likely distorted or abandoned altogether during the implementation process. To succeed, such “equity-focused” change must move beyond conventional change to address a series of unique political and normative challenges (Oakes, Welner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 1998). A related recommendation from that earlier chapter was that the processes of formulating, adopting, and implementing include the active participation of members of less powerful communities as well as the professionals and elites who typically lead reforms. Finally, we joined many others in recommending that education leaders be held accountable for providing all students with a high-quality education and, in particular, for ensuring that the least well-off students are provided with the learning resources they need. Here too, however, we argued that the form of accountability most likely to support the implementation of equity-focused change is the accountability of policy makers and school officials to the public and, most notably, to members of marginalized groups whose educational chances depend on such reforms.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expenditures

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was put forward by President Bush to end what he called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” The Act passed Congress with broad bipartisan support, with many legislators agreeing to NCLBs testing regimen in exchange for White House promises of specific budget increases, embodied in the form of spending authorizations for 2002 and beyond. However, actual White House budget requests and actual congressional appropriations have fallen short of these promised levels and have now generated litigation. This article identifies and examines different approaches for calculating necessary funding for NCLB. It then considers the implications of past and current appropriate levels.

Charter Ranking Roulette: An Analysis of Reports that Grade States' Charter School Laws.

Since 1996, the Center for Education Reform has released an annual report card, grading each state’s charter school legislation and labeling as the “strongest” those laws placing the fewest and slightest restrictions on charter schools. While the Center for Education Reform rankings have undoubtedly been the most influential, at least four other systems have been developed. In this article, we analyze the different ranking systems, including a new approach we have developed in order to illustrate the arbitrariness of any given ranking system and to highlight some key charter school issues. We then investigate the general, popular phenomenon of rankings in the field of education, exploring the benefits, drawbacks, and appeal of such rankings.