 |
Articles of Interest
|
State & Local Policy
UVa board approves sharp tuition hike
Richmond Times-Dispatch
March 25, 2015
The University of Virginia board of visitors approved a series of tuition increases Wednesday that will sharply raise rates for first-year in-state students in the fall.
The increases include a 3.6 percent rise in tuition and mandatory fees — about $470 — for Virginian undergraduates and 3.7 percent — about $1,580 —for non-Virginians.
But overall, incoming first-year Virginia undergraduate students will see their tuition and fees go up about 11 percent, or $1,470, next year as the result of approval Tuesday of a new pricing model called Affordable Excellence.
Expedited SOL retakes this year for Virginia middle schoolers
The Daily Press
March 24, 2015
Elementary and middle school students who narrowly miss a passing grade on their state Standards of Learning tests this year will be able to re-take the test quickly.
The Virginia Board of Education is set to approve the new policy Thursday, following legislation that passed during the latest General Assembly session, board president Chris Braunlich said Tuesday. The plan is to implement this policy this year, a year earlier than contemplated.
It will cost an estimated $200,000 to provide the retakes, which will be given within the three- to four-week period SOLs are given at the end of the school year. The retakes won't be available on writing tests.
Amherst Co. attorney seeks to block Sweet Briar College closure
Richmond Times-Dispatch
March 30, 2015
The Amherst County attorney is seeking an injunction to block the closing of Sweet Briar College and force removal of the president and board of directors.
“The closure attempt is not only precipitous and unwarranted, it is also unlawful,” County Attorney Ellen Bowyer said in a complaint filed Monday in Amherst Circuit Court.
She asked that a special fiduciary be appointed to take control of the college’s assets and appoint a new president and board.
Federal Policy
Federal Education Officials Release List of Monitored Colleges
The Wall Street Journal
March 31, 2015
The Department of Education made public for the first time on Tuesday a list of more than 500 colleges and universities the agency is concerned about and has placed under increased financial oversight.
The schools included for-profit colleges, bible schools and state universities. Each of the 556 institutions was placed under one of two levels of so-called heightened cash monitoring for reasons ranging from “serious to less troublesome,” according to Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell. Among the reasons for the action: late financial statements, outstanding liabilities and accreditation issues.
“Heightened cash monitoring is not necessarily a red flag to students and taxpayers, but it can serve as a caution light,” Mr. Mitchell said. “It means we are watching these institutions more closely to ensure that institutions are using federal student aid in a way that is accountable to both students and taxpayers.”
Reports Show Small Gains After Common Core
US News and World Report
March 25, 2015
Years after most states adopted the Common Core State Standards, it's unclear if the academic benchmarks are having a positive impact on student learning. And it might be a while before we know for sure.
Two studies released this week – one from the Brookings Institution's Brown Center on Education Policy and the other from the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research – showed small gains on students' scores nationally on the National Assessment of Educational Progress and in Kentucky on the ACT. But it hasn't been determined whether those gains can be attributed to the Common Core standards, which most states only fully implemented within the last one to two years.
Some supporters of the standards have said in the past that it's too soon to measure the impact of Common Core and that national exams such as NAEP only test every other year – 2011 and 2013, for example – when implementation arguably wasn't very far along. Students also have been making incremental gains in reading and math on the NAEP exam for years.
Schwarzenegger urges Congress to keep after-school funding
USC News
March 25, 2015
Arnold Schwarzenegger led a National After-School Summit at USC on March 24, urging Congress not to terminate federal funding for after-school programs.
The former governor also announced that he’s launching a movement for every student to have the opportunity for the adult supervision and life-enrichment these programs provide.
“After-school programs protect our single-greatest resource — our kids,” said Schwarzenegger, Governor Downey Professor of State and Global Policy at USC. “We know students in these programs are statistically more likely to graduate from college and less likely to get arrested for crimes they may commit if they drift around on the streets.”
|
|
Do we think administrators can reduce the number of sexual assaults on campus?
Legislation to make reporting of sexual assault on college campuses a mandatory action was one of the most debated issues of the last General Assembly session. While several bills originally contained a requirement that any campus employee report any suspected sexual assault directly to police, the final bill passed by the General Assembly set up a requirement to report sexual assualts to the University Title IX coordinator. That person, in consultation with a law enforcement representative and a student affairs representative, would determine within 72 hours whether immediate disclosure is needed for ongoing public safety.
While CEPI's annual Commonwealth Education Poll showed 92% of Virginians supported a mandatory reporting requirement, concerns that such mandatory reporting would further reduce the number of assaults reported to university officials informed the final legislation. (The graphic below comes from a 2014 article James Madison University's
The Breeze
2014 article James Madison University's
The Breeze and notes that 60% of sexual assault cases go unreported.)
The Cavalier Daily reported that under the legislation:
"survivors of sexual assault can choose how much information to share with the threat assessment committee and how they would like to participate in the process. Even in cases where the team decides to take action against the alleged assailant or notify law enforcement based on factors in the report that involve risks to community safety, such as repeat offenders and misconduct perpetrated with a weapon or involving drugs and alcohol, there is no requirement for survivors to take part in the disciplinary process."
The increased visibility of the issue of campus sexual assault continues to produce calls for legislation at the federal and state levels (including New York and Alaska.) And some voices are beginning to ask why the issue of sexual assault is largely focused on college campuses. An article in Elle magazine recently asked "Why Aren't We Talking About Sexual Assault In High School?" The article cites a recent survey by the Religion and Public Policy Institute that found that 53% of millenials said sexual assaults are somewhat or very common in high schools.
In light of all this, in our poll snapshot, we look at another question from our 2015 Commonwealth Education Poll - whether the public believes administrator actions can reduce the prevalence of sexual assualt.
We also excerpt a 2012 Ed Law Newsletter that reviewed legal responsibility of school systems when it comes to peer-to-peer sexual harassment.
Sincerely,
CEPI
|
Poll Snapshot: School choice and charter schools in Virginia
As noted above, the vast majority of Virginians polled in December 2014 felt that universities should be required to report sexual assaults to police. The percent in favor of such a policy was lower among respondents aged 18-34, but still very high at 84%.
Less studied in the focus on recent legislation, however, is the question of whether people feel that what administrators at a college do will have an impact on the incidence of sexual assaults.
This is potentially important for two reasons. First, it provides potential understanding of why respondents are so strongly supportive of mandatory reporting. If they believe that administrator actions can't make a difference, they may see local non-university law enforcement as a better option. However, if they believe administrators can make a difference, but also believe mandatory reporting is needed, this may suggest a lack of confidence in university administrators to pursue sexual assault allegations fully. (Some research has noted that university leaders often lack incentive to increase reporting because they do not want the bad publicity that might come with stories about an increase in reports of sexual assaults.)
Second, responses may give insight as to whether the public feels that the primary issue when looking for ways to reduce sexual assualts is the mix of policies and implementation or whether the public feels that the core driver of sexual assaults are larger or more deeply ingrained forces within our society which policies may not be able to change significantly.
The chart above shows that a majority of Virginians (61%) believes that actions available to college administrators can significantly decrease the number of sexual assaults, compared to 35% who think sexual assaults will happen regardless of administrator actions. Those with a college degree (70%) said more frequently that administrator actions will make a difference. Political independents (44%) and respondents in the West region said more often that assaults will happen regardless of actions taken.
(To read the full results of the poll, visit our website. Questions 22 and 23 are cited above on campus policy regarding sexual assault - topline results are on page 31; crosstabs are on pages 67-68.)
|
Student-on-Student Peer Sexual Harassmant: Title IX and the Deliberate Indifference Standard
Excerpted from Dr. Vacca's April 2012 Ed Law Newsletter.
" Overview
Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C 1681(a) mandates in pertinent part that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the bases of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal assistance….” When Title IX first came on the scene attention was primarily focused on issues of gender equity in athletic programs and extra-curricular activities. Over three-plus decades, however, court decisions have expanded the scope and coverage of Title IX to other areas of school system operation ( e.g., employment, sexual harassment)—having a profound impact on both local school board policy makers and school administrators.
Student-on-Student Peer Sexual Harassment. Past issues in this commentary series were devoted to policy implications of Title IX as a source of remedy in situations involving student-on-student peer sexual harassment. (Vacca,
CEPI Education Law Newsletter, vols. 7-6 (2009) and 8-5 (2010)) The sum and substance of these commentary discussions can be briefly summarized in the following statements:
- Incidents of student-on-student peer sexual harassment have grown in number in public school systems across this country.
- With few exceptions a clear, narrowly characterized, specific, and readily acceptable definition of“student-on-student peer sexual harassment” (different from teasing, name calling, taunting, bullying) has not been established.
- While a number of court decisions on point have been handed down, the extent and scope of responsibility of school officials to protect students from unwanted, unwelcome, and sexually harassing acts of other students remains unclear and ripe for litigation.
- Judges consistently show judicial restraint (refuse to “second guess” school officials) in reviewing the day-to-day decisions made by local school officials—especially those involving student discipline.
- Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681,
et seq., (often coupled with other statutes and case law) has been relied on as a key source of remedy in student-on-student peer sexual harassment cases."
- Title IX does not preclude a Section 1983 action.
- A claim of monetary damages is possible as remedy under Title IX.
- To establish liability a complaining party in a Title IX law suit carries the burden to demonstrate that the sexual harassment she/he suffered at the hands of another student or students was unwelcome and “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it deprived, or in some way excluded (i.e., effectively denied equal access to) her/him from the educational resources, opportunities, and benefits provided to all students (including students covered by special education law).
- To be successful in court plaintiff must also demonstrate by clear evidence that: (1) the specific acts of peer sexual harassment occurred in situations under the direct control of school officials; (2) school officials had
actual knowledge of the harassment but were “deliberately indifferent to the behavior;” i.e., school officials knew (had
actual knowledge of) but did not take reasonable and adequate steps (including efforts to
investigate) to remedy the situation; and (3) a causal relationship exists between the
deliberate indifference (different from mere carelessness, or simple negligence) of school officials and the injury actually suffered by the student victim plaintiff.
* * * *
Policy Implications
In today’s public school systems it behooves local school board policies to make it clear that:
- The Board does not tolerate any acts of discrimination and/or harassment (including, but not limited to, name calling, taunting, bullying, physical contact) perpetrated by students on their peers, while on school property (including, but not limited to, school bus stops and school buses), and/or while in attendance at school sponsored and/or school sanctioned activities and events.
- School staff members are required to report all acts of suspected student-on-student peer discrimination and/or harassment to their building level administrator.
- All reported acts shall be immediately investigated by building level administrators and where verified immediate and appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken as specified in the school system’s
Student Code of Conduct.
- Parents (of both victim and perpetrator) will be immediately notified and involved where such conduct is verified.
- Local police and/or other appropriate community agencies (e.g., social welfare, child protective services) shall be notified and involved in situations where the facts uncovered in an administrative investigation require such notification and involvement.
|
|
