DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing Climate, Safety, and Discipline in Georgia Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing Climate, Safety, and Discipline in Georgia Schools Addressing Climate, Safety, and Discipline in Georgia Schools School‐wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports June 2013 Contents Purpose Statement ......................................................................................................................... 1 Why Should Georgia Assist Schools Choosing to Implement PBIS? ............................................... 1 What is PBIS? .................................................................................................................................. 2 How does PBIS improve student outcomes? .................................................................................. 4 How does PBIS address specific concerns? .................................................................................... 5 1. School discipline issues ........................................................................................................ 5 2. Mental Health Concerns ...................................................................................................... 6 3. Juvenile Justice ..................................................................................................................... 6 4. Bullying Prevention & Intervention ..................................................................................... 6 What Does PBIS Cost? ..................................................................................................................... 7 Future Budgetary Considerations to Reach Goals ...................................................................... 7 What are the financial considerations at the District/School level? .......................................... 7 What is the current status of PBIS in Georgia? ............................................................................... 8 Schools Trained ........................................................................................................................... 8 Types of Schools Trained ............................................................................................................. 8 Are there school districts in Georgia implementing PBIS with fidelity? ................................... 10 How do we know schools are doing it right? ............................................................................ 11 What are the PBIS efforts in Georgia’s Department of Juvenile Justice? ................................. 12 What is the National Technical Assistance (TA) Center on PBIS? ................................................. 13 Established State PBIS Projects ..................................................................................................... 16 What is Georgia’s PBIS State Summit? ......................................................................................... 17 References .................................................................................................................................... 18 Discipline: Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement by instruction and practice. (Derived from the Latin word disciplina meaning pupil.)1 Purpose Statement The purpose of this report is to provide a plan and framework for proactively addressing school climate, safety, and discipline in Georgia schools through school‐wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). This report has been generated by the PBIS Team at Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) with input and support from Heather Peshak George, Ph.D., Research Partner with the federally‐funded OSEP Technical Assistance Center for PBIS; Dr. George is the PBIS Resource Agent for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Puerto Rico, and Texas. This report provides an overview of the need for schools in Georgia to adopt proactive disciplinary approaches, a plan for scaling up implementation of PBIS in Georgia schools, and an evidence‐based approach for meeting this need through the PBIS framework. Why Should Georgia Assist Schools Choosing to Implement PBIS? As first appeared in Education Week (2013) Georgia’s high school graduation rate is near the bottom of the nation. Nearly one‐third of Georgia’s students fail to finish high school in four years. Currently, Georgia’s graduation rate is 67.4%, the third lowest in the nation, followed only by Nevada and New Mexico. When comparing graduation rates, Georgia also ranks near the bottom nationally for students with disabilities (30%), economically disadvantaged students (59%), black students (60%), students with limited English proficiency (32%) and white students (72%) (Education Week, 2013). In 2010, roughly 8% of Georgia’s students were suspended at least once (Walz, 2011). In 2010, Georgia students lost more than 1.8 million days of instruction due to suspension. The Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, in cooperation with the Atlanta office of a Big Four Accounting Firm, reviewed and assessed student discipline data collected by school districts and compiled by GaDOE for seven years (school years 2003‐04 through 2009‐10). The key findings include the following: In School Year 2009‐10, 8.1% of students in Georgia’s K‐12 public school system received at least one out‐of‐school suspension (OSS) disciplinary action. This reflects an overall reduction from the 9.3 to 9.5% rates experienced in the first five years of the period under review. 1 Discipline [Def.1]. (n.d.). American heritage dictionary of the English language online. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discipline, May 14, 2013. Georgia Department of Education Dr. John D. Barge, State Superintendent of Schools All Rights Reserved During the most recent school year for which credible national data are available (2005‐ 06), Georgia ranked tenth highest among all the states and the District of Columbia in the rate of OSS discipline. Use of exclusionary discipline is highly variable among the school districts in Georgia. In some districts, its use is rare. Other school districts consistently impose OSS on more than 20% of the school population annually. In some individual schools, the percentage of OSS actions can effect up to 40% of the student population per year. During the 2009‐10 school year, 69% of the OSS actions were imposed for nonviolent behaviors. A very substantial percentage of the incidents were not described with specificity but were categorized as “other discipline incident.” Male students received two‐thirds of the OSS actions and three quarters of the expulsions during the period under review. African‐American students were consistently more than three times as likely to receive an OSS as students of other racial classifications. Poor African Americans were markedly more likely to receive OSS than more affluent African American students. Students eligible for the free and reduced meal program (children in poverty) and English Language Learner (ELL) students were subject to OSS discipline at a rate more than twice as high as students who were not in these subgroups. Students with disabilities received OSS at a rate slightly higher than 1.5 times the rate experienced by general education students. What is PBIS? School‐wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a systematic framework that is designed to enhance academic and social‐behavior outcomes by implementing a continuum of evidence‐based interventions. (Sugai et al. 2000; Horner et al. 2009; Sugai & Simonsen, 2012) PBIS is not a curriculum, intervention, program or practice, but rather a data‐based decision making framework that guides selection, integration, and implementation of evidence‐based practices to improve student outcomes. A particularly important feature of PBIS is the focus on developing and sustaining a proactive and preventive system, which is rooted in the public health and disease control model. This three‐tiered prevention model applies to both academic and behavior instruction and intervention to meet the needs of all students in a school (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012; Childs, K. E., Kincaid, D., & George, H., 2007‐2008). Georgia’s application of this model occurs at four levels that are fluid and that are analyzed through structured problem solving to inform the needs of students, before interventions are developed, monitored, and altered based upon the need(s) of the students (see figure below). Georgia Department of Education Dr. John D. Barge, State Superintendent of Schools All Rights Reserved Georgia Student Achievement Pyramid of Interventions Academic and Behavior Supports Tier 1: All students, in all settings are provided with standards‐based instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, and direct behavioral instruction to prevent the development of academic and/or behavior problems. Tier I support should meet the needs of at least 80% of all students in a given school. Tier 2: Systems of support are designed to provide additional interventions to students who have access to Tier 1 supports but are not responding to them. Approximately 10‐15% of the students within a given school may need Tier 2 supports. Tier 3: The most intensive/individualized support system is provided for students who exhibit patterns of severe or extreme problem behavior. Student’s needs are discussed at a structured meeting of the Student Support Team (SST), which oversees the intervention process. Almost 5% of students within a school will require this type of support. Tier 4: If a student does not respond
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effective School Discipline Policies and Practices: Supporting Student Learning
    Research Summaries Effective School Discipline Policies and Practices: Supporting Student Learning Effective school discipline policies and practices are critical to promoting students’ successful learning and well-being. They strengthen students’ behavioral skills by addressing the causes of their misbehaviors while preserving the integrity of the learning environment, ensuring the safety and dignity of all students and staff, and fostering progress toward long-term learning and behavioral goals. There are many barriers to effective school discipline, however, including the widespread use of punitive approaches and inconsistent policies and practices that students view as unfair and that often disproportionately impact minorities and students with disabilities. DISCIPLINE AND DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS IN SCHOOLS In the 2015–2016 school year, 2.3% of U.S. public schools reported widespread disorder in classrooms on a daily or weekly basis, 4.8% reported student verbal abuse of teachers, and 10.3% reported other student acts of disrespect for teachers.1 These figures were 2.5%, 4.8%, and 8.6%, respectively in the 2009–2010 school year.2 More serious infractions resulted in about 2.7 million K-12 students receiving one or more out-of-school suspensions and approximately 120,700 students receiving expulsions with or without educational services during the 2015–2016 school year.3 These represent slight improvements from the approximately 2.77 million and 130,000 reported in the 2013–2014 school year.4 Regrettably, both racial minorities5 and students with disabilities6 are overrepresented in school discipline practices. PUNITIVE APPROACHES TO DISCIPLINE Punitive, “get tough” approaches do not work. They simply suppress unwanted behavior temporarily while increasing negative consequences, such as reduced perceptions of safety and connectedness among students and the perpetuation of the school-to-prison pipeline.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief Filed in This Very Case, Inflexible Punishment for Speech Does Not Make Schools Safer
    No. 20-255 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. B.L., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER LAWRENCE LEVY AND HER MOTHER BETTY LOU LEVY, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit BRIEF OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PROFESSORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS GABRIEL ROTTMAN RICHARD W. MARK JENNIFER A. NELSON Counsel of Record IAN C. KALISH ANNE CHAMPION THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LEE R. CRAIN SCHOOL OF LAW AMANDA L. LESAVAGE FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 580 Massie Road 200 Park Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903 New York, NY 10166 (434) 924-7354 (212) 351-3818 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5 I. Punitive Approaches To Bullying Are Ineffective And Harmful To Students. .......... 5 A. Punishment-Based Policies Do Not Alleviate Bullying or Harassment in Schools. ................................................. 5 B. Punishing Students For Speech Actively Harms Their Educational Experiences and Long-Term Prospects. ....................... 9 1. Zero-Tolerance Systems Adversely Affect Students’ Educational Experiences and Make Children More Likely to Struggle Long Term. ........ 10 2. Using Exclusionary Anti-Bullying Policies Disproportionately Harms Students
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Tolerance and Exclusionary School Discipline Policies Harm Students and Contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline ® the Problem: Pushing Students out of School
    ISSUE BRIEF November 2012 Zero Tolerance and Exclusionary School Discipline Policies Harm Students and Contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline ® The Problem: Pushing Students Out of School ut-of-school suspensions and expulsions—discipl ine Opractices that exclude children from school—have increased dramatically in the United States since the 1970s. This increase is largely due to schools’ overre - liance on “zero tolerance” policies. The Dignity in Schools Campaign describes zero tolerance as “a school discipline policy or practice that results in an automatic disciplinary consequence such as in-school or out-of-school suspension, expulsion, or involuntary school transfer for any student who commits one or more listed offenses. A school discipline policy may be a zero tolerance policy even if administrators have some discretion to modify the consequence on a case-by-case basis.” 1 Zero tolerance policies impose automatic and harsh discipline for a wide range of student infractions, s s i L including non-violent disruptive behavior, truancy, e v e dress code violations, and insubordination. Even when t S © o school policies don’t impose automatic suspensions for t o h behavior, the culture of overzealous exclusion from P school that is fostered by the zero tolerance mindset school year involved weapons or drugs, while 64% of has created a situation in which children are being suspensions were for “disobedient or disruptive behavi or,” removed from school for increasingly minor behavior truancy, or “intimidation.” 3 These policies are a issues. An October 2011 report from the National Edu - problem for all children, regardless of background or cation Policy Center found that only 5% of suspensions home-life.
    [Show full text]
  • Proactive & Inclusive School Discipline Strategies
    W H no. A T 11 W O EF RKS BRI PROACTIVE & INCLUSIVE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES and school building administrators. Traditional discipline dis·ci·pline practices were based on the assumption that punishment noun \ˈdi–sə–plən\ would reduce undesired behaviors, thereby improving : control that is gained by requiring that rules or orders be obeyed and punishing bad behavior school safety. School discipline tended to be reactionary : a way of behaving that shows a willingness to obey rules and punitive—adults responded to undesired behaviors or orders with punishments (e.g., detention, suspension) that : behavior that is judged by how well it follows a set of rules or orders excluded students from social and learning opportunities. These discipline strategies were generally considered ‘effective’ if they improved adults’ perceptions that the school was functional and orderly. n this Brief, we review the limitations of “traditional” obedience–oriented, punitive approaches to school Why move away from traditional discipline Idiscipline and describe a range of innovative alternatives philosophy and strategies? focused on cultivating students’ self–regulation through Innovative school leaders have moved away from positive behavior supports and interpersonal relationship reactionary, punitive school discipline approaches building among students and between students and because they generally do not work to reduce the problem staff. behavior for which they are applied and, more often, Traditional Approaches they have unintended negative and counterproductive
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado School Discipline Law: Gaps and Goals
    COLORADO SCHOOL DISCIPLINE LAW: GAPS AND GOALS JACQUE PHILLIPS, ELIE ZWIEBEL, RACHEL DORE, IGOR RAYKIN, MAKENZIE BOGART & MICHAEL NOLT† ABSTRACT This Article emphasizes the problem iN Colorado with school disci- pline laws that fail to protect children. The school-to-prison pipeline runs stroNg for studeNts of color, studeNts with disabilities, aNd LGBTQIA stu- dents in particular. A comparison with the other states in the Tenth Circuit is included. HoweVer, as loNg as the Trump AdministratioN refuses to pro- vide guidance regarding discipline and disparity, our children will con- tinue to suffer. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 348 I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 351 A. Due Process Rights ..................................................................... 351 B. Search and Seizure Protections ................................................... 352 C. Appeal Procedures ...................................................................... 354 II. SCHOOL DISCIPLINE LAWS OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT ........................ 354 A. Colorado...................................................................................... 354 1.Local Control ........................................................................... 355 2. Search and Seizure ................................................................. 356 a. GeNeral Searches ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle School Teachers' Perceptions of Discipline
    Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions of Discipline Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anitra Wheeler, M.A. Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee Antoinette Miranda, Advisor Kisha Radliff Joe Wheaton Copyright by Anitra Wheeler 2013 Abstract Exclusionary discipline is a punitive measure used to address problem behavior. Negative outcomes for students have been associated with the distribution of exclusionary methods. More recently, schools have begun to move toward implementing more positive approaches to correct problem behavior. As teachers work with students more regularly than administration, they should hold a functional position within the discipline policy development process. Minimal research exists on teachers’ perceptions as they relate to school discipline polices and previous research suggests administration should collaborate with teachers when developing such policies. The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions of appropriate discipline and determine how well those align with school discipline policies. In addition, this study explored the level of involvement the school psychologist has in addressing problem behavior and examined the role teachers want the school psychologist to fulfill. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who has been my eternal rock and source of refuge. My faith in him has given me the strength to complete this work. I also dedicate this dissertation to my husband, parents, family, and academic educators that have supported me throughout my educational career. iii Vita December 2007……………………………B.A. Psychology and Communication, The Ohio State University June 2010………………………………….M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Students' Civil Rights: the Federal Role in School Discipline
    Protecting Students’ Civil Rights The Federal Role in School Discipline Jessica Cardichon and Linda Darling-Hammond MAY 2019 Protecting Students’ Civil Rights The Federal Role in School Discipline Jessica Cardichon and Linda Darling-Hammond Acknowledgments The authors thank their LPI colleagues who contributed to this report: Janel George for her support related to the historical context of the issue and Patrick Shields and David Daise for their research support. We also thank Erin Chase, Aaron Reeves, and Caitlin Scott for their editing, production, and design contributions to this project. We acknowledge the work of organizations and individuals that have identified and developed the evidence-based strategies and interventions included in this report that serve to create more inclusive and supportive learning environments that recognize the dignity and potential in every child. Most important, we acknowledge the tireless grassroots efforts to end the school-to-prison pipeline. This work began many decades ago and continues to be championed by civil rights organizations, community-based organizations, parents, and youth. This research was underwritten by core operating support for the Learning Policy Institute provided by the Sandler Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. We are grateful to them for their generous support. The ideas voiced here are those of the authors and not of our funders. External Reviewers This report benefited from the insights and expertise of three external reviewers: Anum Malik, K12 Education Program Analyst, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Zakiya Sankara-Jabar, National Field Organizer, Dignity in Schools Campaign; and Mark Warren, Sociologist and Professor, University of Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices: Alternatives to Zero Tolerance
    By: Juliana Rosa Research and Evaluation Specialist, Expelled and At-Risk Student Services Kathleen Keelan Senior Educational Consultant, Expelled and At-Risk Student Services Janelle Krueger Program Manager, Expelled and At-Risk Student Services November 2015 Office of Dropout Prevention and Student Re-engagement 201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 [email protected] 2 Expulsions and Suspensions Academic Outcomes Systematic Outcomes School to Prison Pipeline Disproportionate Disciplinary Practices School Wide Prevention and Universal Interventions Individual Student-Focused Alternatives School and Community Collaborations Increase Awareness Understand the Problem- One size does not fit all Actions of Last Resort Develop a Diverse Discipline Team Consider Several Solutions Reconnect Promote Cultural Competency Examine Current School Policies Set Clear Policies Cap Discipline Days Provide Training Contact for Behavioral Incident BEST PRACTICES 3 Zero tolerance school policies typically refer to disciplinary policies which include predetermined consequences such as expulsions, suspensions, and referrals to law enforcement for specific offenses such as possession of firearms or other weapons, drug violations, or violent behaviors. In 2012, Colorado House Bill 12-1345 was passed which eliminated zero tolerance policies in the state. The bill eliminated mandatory expulsions for drugs, weapons (except firearms), assaults, and robbery. The bill also promoted use of alternatives to discipline to decrease out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement (Colorado Department of Education, 2012). This brief report highlights several evidence-based, supportive disciplinary methods that serve as alternatives to suspensions and expulsions as well as recommendations on ways to help decrease Colorado’s disciplinary gaps based on gender, race, and discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • AAFP Backgrounder: Corporal Punishment in Schools
    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS AAFP Position The American Academy of Family Physicians opposes corporal punishment in schools, defined as the purposeful infliction of bodily pain or discomfort by an official in the education system upon a student as a penalty for disapproved behavior. Evidence shows that corporal punishment is not as effective as other means of behavior management and can make behavior worse. The Academy calls for an end to corporal punishment of children and recognizes that positive reinforcement and alternative methods of behavior management and modification are effective and contribute to a student’s optimal learning. The Negative Consequences of Corporal Punishment Corporal punishment can be inflicted upon students for nearly any infraction, including tardiness, using the restroom without asking permission, running in the hallway, failing to turn in homework or performing poorly on assignments, talking out of turn, using a cellphone, talking in class, and more. 1 The use of corporal punishment has no proven effect at improving students’ behavior, and consensus among researchers and medical professionals is that corporal punishment is actually harmful to children – especially those who have experienced abuse, trauma, and neglect.1 Not only does corporal punishment fail to teach students social, emotional, and behavioral skills, it also contributes to physical injury, lower academic success, increased absenteeism from school, increased bullying, and behavioral and mental health challenges. The use of corporal punishment
    [Show full text]
  • School Discipline That Works Better Options for Helping All Kids Learn and Thrive
    SCHOOL DISCIPLINE THAT WORKS BETTER OPTIONS FOR HELPING ALL KIDS LEARN AND THRIVE JANUARY 2019 January 2019 Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families Main Office: Union Station 1400 W. Markham St., Suite 306 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-9678 Northwest Arkansas Office: 614 E. Emma Avenue, Suite 235 Springdale, AR 72764 (479) 927-9800 SCHOOL DISCIPLINE THAT WORKS BETTER OPTIONS FOR HELPING ALL KIDS LEARN AND THRIVE by Ginny Blankenship, Ed.D AACF Education Policy Director. Safe, orderly, and caring school cultures are the foundation for helping all students learn and thrive. Kids need clear expectations for behavior and logical consequences to grow academically and learn from their mistakes. And teachers need to feel supported by administrators and parents when it comes to setting boundaries for student behavior. However, many outdated school discipline policies and practices in Arkansas are doing more harm than good. Harsh, arbitrary, or “zero tolerance” policies often defy common sense, such as sending a child home from school for not wearing the correct uniform. The more that students are sent out of the classroom, the further they fall behind. A growing body of research shows that “exclusionary” discipline (suspensions) and corporal punishment (spanking) are not only ineffective at improving student behavior and school culture but also have negative long- term effects on mental health, graduation rates, and preparation for college and careers. And children of color are being punished far more frequently and unfairly for the exact same behaviors as their white peers. This report summarizes some of the effects of school discipline policies and offers more effective, research- based options for Arkansas’s public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusionary Discipline in New Jersey: the Relationship Between Black Teachers and Black Students
    Journal of Educational Controversy Volume 12 Number 1 Black Lives Matter and the Education Article 7 Industrial Complex 2017 Exclusionary Discipline In New Jersey: The Relationship Between Black Teachers And Black Students Randy Rakeem Miller Sr. Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, Camden, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Randy Rakeem Sr. (2017) "Exclusionary Discipline In New Jersey: The Relationship Between Black Teachers And Black Students," Journal of Educational Controversy: Vol. 12 : No. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol12/iss1/7 This Article in Response to Controversy is brought to you for free and open access by the Peer-reviewed Journals at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Educational Controversy by an authorized editor of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Exclusionary Discipline In New Jersey: The Relationship Between Black Teachers And Black Students Cover Page Footnote Thank you to Autumn Miller, my wife, for her consistent love, encouragement, and support. Thank you to Stephen Danley for his guidance and advising through this process. All remaining errors are my own. This article in response to controversy is available in Journal of Educational Controversy: https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/ vol12/iss1/7 Miller: Exclusionary Discipline In New Jersey: The Relationship Between B Exclusionary Discipline in New Jersey: The Relationship between African-American Teachers and African- American Students Randy Rakeem Miller Sr. Department of Public Policy & Administration Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey Abstract There are a host of variables that affect the disciplinary outcomes of African- American students, for example, poverty rates and students with special needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative and Compensatory Education Required by the State's Interest in Keeping Children in School
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW School Discipline "As Part of the Teaching Process": Alternative and Compensatory Education Required by the State's Interest in Keeping Children in School Amy P. Meek* IN TRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 156 I. ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICIES AND THE HARM OF EXCLUDING STUDENTS FROM SCHOOL ............................................................................... 158 II. LIMITS ON SCHOOL DISCIPLINE UNDER THE FEDERAL C ONSTITUTION .......................................................................................... 164 A. ProceduralDue ProcessProtections for Students .................................... 165 B. Support for the State's Interest in Educating All Students in Other Supreme Court Opinions.............................................................. 167 C. Equal Protection Analysis and the State's Interest in Educating Students ................................................................................................... 169 D. Substantive Due ProcessProtections for Students ................................... 170 III. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS MANDATED BY STATE INTERESTS IN EDUCATION ............................................................................. 172 A. Massachusetts and Nebraska: No FundamentalIndividual Right to Education ............................................................................................. 173 B. Mississippi, West Virginia, and New Jersey: State Interests in EducatingA
    [Show full text]