Legal Issue Analysis
Pamela R. H. Bailey
Legal Issue Analysis
The following are essays on five different topics assigned for the course final analysis for Education Law 612.
1. Relationship
between institutional framework in schools and the legal and political systems
Discuss the
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in San Antonio Independent School District v.
Rodriguez and explain how this decision impacts education in public
schools. Be sure to explain the relative influence and role of state
constitutions and the U.S. Constitution on education. Be sure your discussion
includes the legal, ethical and practical implications of the
Response
Overview
of
The San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez (1973) case
presented the court with the issue of school financing being a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Students of poor and/or
minority families, residing in areas where property taxes generated were not
equivalent to the norm, felt that they were in disadvantaged schools (Alexander
& Alexander, 2005). The court ruled that the method of funding schools in
Compare and Contrast
Rodriquez and Keys
If they must attend school should
the education students receive be of the same quality? Is it possible to
receive the same quality of education if the schools are segregated even if
funding is adjusted? Goodwin Liu (2006) compares Brown v. Board of Education to San
Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez and Keys v.
Teachers are human beings. When
they are given a choice of working in a poor area or in a neighboring school
system where the pay is better as well as the conditions, the choice usually
comes down to economics and/or living situations. Even if the pay increases in
poor areas it is sometimes difficult to still employ quality teachers. Kathy
Holtsclaw, employee of WV Department of Transportation working on legislative
issues shared that school systems in southern
Compulsory
Attendance of All Students and Funding.
The Virginia Code on compulsory attendance (COV § 22.1-254, 2007) states that all children between the ages of five and eighteen must attend school. It does not matter which “side of the tracks” the children live, all must go to school. Compulsory attendance was recognized in 1925 by the Supreme Court as a valid application of state power in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (Harvard Law Review 1323, 2007). Through Brown v. Board of Education schools have and are providing a remedy for de jure segregation. What about de facto segregation and the necessary funding to provide an equal and equitable education? The segregated families are generally living in poorer areas. They may not want to live in other areas, choosing to live in familiar neighborhoods with other members of their ethnicity and culture. The same goes for going to school. Children may feel more comfortable going to school with those in the same economics and social situation. Plyler v. Doe (1982) adds another aspect to thinning school budgets with the ruling that illegal undocumented aliens have the right to receive an education. More children that need to receive an education but whose families contribute little, or none, to the tax base for a school system. If one pays more taxes will one’s children receive a better education or is education quality for one and for all? Can one receive a quality education without being integrated with other children from different backgrounds? Will their education still be lower in quality if those in poor situations continue to not experience different cultures and expectations?
Conclusion
of
Funding is a huge issue in the efforts of school systems to provide a quality education however it will be an issue that will be discussed and debated for years to come. One must realize that if the children are not educated that the cycle of poverty, welfare, continued government support, will repeat and possibly get worse. Answering the questions of how to disburse the funds to each school district and how the funds should be spent is subject to much research and analysis (Liu, 2006). Liu states that “the only feasible and constitutionally acceptable program – the only program which furnishes anything approaching substantial equality – is a system of desegregation and integration which provides compensatory education in an integrated environment.”
2. Risk management
practices (i.e., safe schools)
Discuss whether or not “Zero Tolerance” promotes safe schools. Include a thorough explanation of how community, educator and student rights or interests are impacted by “Zero Tolerance” policies. Discuss and explain the social science research, relevant state laws, and court decisions that have shaped and informed the debate around “Zero Tolerance” policies. Be sure your discussion includes the legal, ethical and practical implications of policies and/or practices that school administrators adopt and follow in their quest to reduce risk and promote safe schools.
Response
Zero
Tolerance overview.
Zero tolerance is the result of a study in 1982 by Wilson and Kelling, social scientists, who projected the “broken window” idea (Webb & Kritsonis, 2006). The concept was that smaller crimes just lead to serious ones and that the outward show of disorder perpetrates criminal activity. To eliminate the perception of the tolerance of misbehavior, administrators and school boards dole out severe punishments for even minor infractions. Many school boards across the country began implementing zero tolerance policies which led to The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, enacted to address drugs and violence in schools (Alexander & Alexander, 2005). If schools receive any federal funds they must abide by the Gun-Free Schools Act as it was reauthorized in the No Child Left Behind Act (2001).
Challenging
zero tolerance policies and why.
Concern over the harshness of zero tolerance
led to the formulation of the Youth Force Coalition, comprised of twenty youth
organizations, to fight for educational reform and challenge the zero tolerance
policies. The Civil Rights Project at
Fairness.
Students do not feel that the policy is fair and that the concept of innocent till proven guilty does not apply (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). Kim Fries and Todd DeMitchell (2007) revealed in their study that teachers discussed the unreasonableness of the policy and the lack of their ability to have input into judgments being made. Principals and administrators are using the zero tolerance policy as the answer to all of the discipline problems that arise in the school instead of using their own discretion when determining the appropriate punishment (Civil Rights Project, 2000). Children are being suspended unfairly with punishments much more severe than the degree of the crime. An example is when the young man took a knife away from a suicidal girl. He was not a threat to the school environment however was suspended as ruled and upheld in Ratner v. Loudoun County Public Schools (2001). The teachers and students knew he was unfairly punished but was unable to prevent the actions being carried out. Research has shown that African American students are disciplined much more than white students (Civil Rights Project, 2000) and female crimes are increasing (Webb & Kritsonis, 2006). Are we protecting the students or setting them up for a life of crime?
Conclusion
of zero tolerance.
United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was quoted as being “…worried that zero tolerance laws [are] too willing to sacrifice common sense for the politics of public safety…Implementation always must leave room for us to adjust to the circumstances (Fries & DeMitchell 2007).” It is possible to have a safe environment, positive student achievement, and low discipline referrals in today’s schools (Civil Rights Project, 2000). Approaching discipline positively, giving the opportunity for students and teachers to bond, professional development on classroom management, being proactive to discipline, and keeping the students actively involved in the classroom are elements necessary for productive, positive school environments in which students excel. This takes everyone involved, the community, parents, school staff, and the students.
3. Legal Rights
(Equity & Equality Issues)
Explain the impact of Brown v. Board of Education on the educational rights of African American children. Identify lingering concerns about the achievement of and equal educational opportunities provided to minority children. What has the federal government done to address the “achievement gap” in public schools for all children? Discuss these efforts and explain how equity and equality are promoted in education. Share at least one example of a program or policy that is focused on minimizing the achievement gap, which has been adopted in your school system.
Response
Desegregation to resegregation.
One of the
purposes of Brown v. Board of Education
was to equal the playing field to provide an education to all students. It was
a slow start but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Johnson administration
accelerated the process (Orfield & Lee, 2007). Desegregation gave way to
resegregation in the early 1990’s when the Supreme Court decisions in Missouri v. Jenkins and Freeman v. Pitts limited desegregation
orders (Orfield & Lee, 2007). Gary Orfield and Chungmei Lee (2007) also
discussed the latest Supreme Court decision, Parents Involved in Community Schools v.
Quality of education.
So what does this mean to the African American student? The current population is composed of a larger number of minority children and a smaller number of white students than during the civil rights era (Orfield & Lee, 2007). In 1995, Missouri v. Jenkins acknowledged the need for salary increases for teachers in schools containing a high minority student population in an attempt to obtain quality teachers. Achievement levels within these schools were being maintained or below national levels at many of the grade levels. Wisconsin journalist, Alan Borsuk (2004), notes that the difference in white and black eighth grade students math and reading test scores obtained by the federal government were larger in his state than elsewhere in the United States. To add to the dilemma of low scores Freeman v. Pitts (1992) held that control was being returned to school districts that had not achieved unitarian status. School systems had not met all the requirements to become desegregated but were being relieved of judicial supervision. Segregated schools, inadequate funding of teacher’s salaries and the latest Supreme Court decision all lead to achievements gaps that could possibly get wider.
The
federal government and local school role in narrowing the achievement gap.
National goals to equalize and upgrade education have been set by the last three Presidents and include Goals 2000 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Orfield & Lee, 2007). Currently NCLB’s ultimate goal is to close the achievement gap by 2013 with incrementally increasing yearly pass rates. The accountability process, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), is not just the pass rate of all students but of specific categories such as blacks, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, and limited English proficient students. Federal funding is also attached to NCLB raising the bar for all school districts to want to make AYP. Spotsylvania County Schools are incorporating after school tutoring hours, extra practice electronically using on-line tutorials, quarterly benchmark assessments for a formative analysis to guide differentiation, and teachers are collaborating to share ideas, lessons and activities. Middle schools in the county are also taking advantage of Algebra Readiness, a state-wide program providing online assessment and tutorials for mathematics.
Conclusion
of the impact of Brown v. Board of Education.
Orfield & Lee (2007) posit that the federal government is not helping close the achievement gaps of whites and non-whites but is instead hindering all efforts. Even if school systems received adequate funding to provide an equitable education many other factors also come into the equation such as the student’s economic situation, attitudes, and his or her peers in order for equality to be obtained (Borsuk, 2004). Those whom one associates with, in school and at home, have lasting effects and influence on student success. Education Trust (Brennan, Grayson & Holmes, 2004) believes that “All children will learn at high levels when they are taught to high levels.” Some strategies mentioned include insuring rigorous courses in middle and high school, teachers providing quality instruction with strong teachers teaching those who have the most need, and providing extra time, instruction and support to the students. Katie Haycock, director of the Education Trust (cited in Brennan, Grayson & Holmes, 2004), states “…fifty years after the Brown decision launched us down the path to equalizing opportunity for all young Americans, the kids cannot afford to wait any longer. We can both raise overall achievement and close gaps in the rates at which students pass state assessments. The only question is whether we will.”
5. Advocacy and
promotion of improved education policies and laws
Discuss the role – from both an ethical and practical perspective - of educators as promoters of educational rights for all students. Identify specific actions that educators may take or have taken previously, to improve educational policies and laws. Locate and discuss several sources of information that an educator may access in order to increase awareness and understanding of current policy and legal initiatives that affect education at both state and federal levels. For this question, I would like you to think of an area that is of particular interest and importance to you. For example, if you are concerned about the educational achievement of students who qualify for ESOL services, you should locate numerous and varied sources, such as articles, books, websites, cases, and statutes, that address the achievement of ESOL students. You must then explain by providing a thorough discussion of the articles, books, websites, cases, and statutes that you selected.
Response
Distance
learning in the public school system.
Distance
learning is a fairly new concept for school systems. The U.S. Department of
Education reported that distance learning courses on a college level have
doubled in a three year period (Crews, 2003). In many cases distance leaning is
more convenient, considered more reasonable and less prejudiced than a
classroom in the local school system (Goldberg & Riemer, 2006). Higher
institutions have dealt with the issues surrounding distance or online learning
longer than public school systems. High school classrooms are now using more
and varied types of learning and communication over the internet.
History
of the laws pertaining to copyright issues.
Many students are turning to distance learning when their home school does not offer advanced courses or for remediation and test preparation (Goldberg & Riemer, 2006). Communication via internet, whether through email or SCORE, is becoming more commonplace with teachers on-call. With public school systems becoming involved in the various aspects and concerns for distance learning, everyone concerned should be aware of all laws and policies applicable to copyrighting. This includes faculty, students and parents. Nemire (2007) discusses the history of copyright laws as they relate to the classroom and distance education. The Copyright Act of 1976 adopted a fair use doctrine which is complicated to utilize and conservative in nature. Rules relating to distance learning first appeared in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Educating teachers who are members of nonprofit educational institutions, and their students, in the laws associated with copyright are addressed in DMCA so that the institution will not be held liable for any infringements. In 2001 the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act (TEACH) “… attempts to come to a consensus about intellectual property in the digital age.” The last law Nemire discusses is the Copyright Laws of the United States Circular 92 in 2003, a collection from DMCA and the Copyright Act of 1976.
One of the objectives of the TEACH Act is to balance protection of materials that are copyrighted with the ability for teachers to use materials online (Crews, 2003). Copyright material being posted for a limited amount of time, access to the material for only a limited number of students, and permission for school systems to keep copies of all posted materials are a few of the issues addressed under the TEACH Act according to Crews. Fair Use Guidelines were developed to “… assures learning is not impeded by copyright but still protects intellectual property (Baird & Hallett, 1999).”
Ownership
of personal material posted online.
Instructors need to be aware of the institutions policies, sometimes called the “work for hire” concept, as they pertain to published work (Sweeney et al., 2006). Diane Baird and Karin Hallett (1999) suggest that the transmission of materials in a distance learning situation to communicate with students is very different from the classroom. It involves the creation of the materials as well as the disbursement. Higher institutions like to claim ownership as the electronic materials are dispersed using their equipment and programs however instructors like to retain their “intellectual investments” since they did give their time and effort to produce the materials (Sweeney et al., 2006). Ruth Nemire (2007) reveals that many members of distance learning faculties are unaware who owns their personal contributions, even the syllabus, that is posted online for a distance learning course. Teachers in the regular classroom use their own materials without fear or concern of losing ownership of their materials or student’s ownership of their materials. School systems must understand the many copyright laws and educate faculty and students so that all will be cognizant of their rights and responsibilities.
Posting
copyrighted material online.
Scanning a handout to post online, an article that students read in the classroom posted for those who were absent, a movie clip or even a comic posted on SCORE is subject to copyright laws. Baird and Hallett (1999) discuss how distance learning requires the transmission of materials using modes of communication vastly different from the traditional classroom setting such as via a network of some type. Crews (2003) found that it takes many individuals to comply with copyright laws due to what is entailed in the communication/technology process. The TEACH Act requires institutional policies, technological controls, and the observance of portion limits of permitted materials (Crews, 2003). Intellectual Property (2002) published a checklist that an institution may use to see if they are ready to use and to comply with the TEACH Act.
Case studies involving copyright.
Nemire’s (2007) research brought to the forefront two lawsuits of the past that dealt with copyright issues which could be translated to posting items online. Basic Books v. Kinko’s dealt with copying entire works; Court held in favor of Basic Books. The issue in Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services involved Document Services not obtaining authorization and publicizing a savings to students; Court held in favor of Princeton University Press. If teachers are not aware of the laws, each of the above cases may be revisited when copyrighted materials are transmitted and posted electronically.
Sweeney and colleagues (2006) discussed the ownership of materials produced while working in a traditional setting. The case, Committee for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989), gave the ownership to the employer since the employee received pay and benefits. Prior to the copyright laws being revised Sweeney and colleagues revealed that teachers could retain ownership of materials, Williams v. Weisser (1969). It is wise to have discussions regarding ownership, etc. with your employer and decisions in writing.
Student
privacy.
Elaine Cassel (2001) relates Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo to distance learning. The case involved student’s knowledge of grades as they were announced in the classroom. The Falvo’s felt that this practice was a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974. Now translate the facts of this case to teachers using computers, accessing the internet, using Integrade and SCORE interactively. A distance learning student will sometimes take an assessment, it is scored by some type of software, posted on an online grade book, and returned to the student. All of these actions are accessible to other individuals beside the instructor and student. Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo revisited in a technological setting. School systems and teachers need to be proactive. “Rather than waiting for the law – and lawsuits – to find them, distance learning educators and administrators should prepare themselves for ….(Cassel, 2001).”
Student
interactions with peers and faculty.
The social aspect of distance learning is also a new concern for educators. Distance learning was described by P. Starr as “race-neutral, location-neutral, age-neutral, income-neutral, disability neutral …” (cited in Goldberg & Riemer, 2006). These neutralities lead to a completely different approach to courses taken via the internet resulting in changes in interactions between students and students and students and teachers. Students may only deal with desirable communications, ignoring challenges and confrontations that may result in the online classroom. Adapting to technological settings adds these new dimensions to communicating and getting to know the student as teachers attempt to make concepts relevant to their lives.
Future
concerns and conclusion.
In the near future schools will need to address students involved in distance learning and their associations with the local school system with regard to extra-curricular activities. Taking courses via distance learning may be the new wave of the future. This wave may be an answer to many situations so that more students may take courses that in the past were unable to due to time, distance, work or family obligations. Following the wave may be many more concerns that need to be addressed on the local, state, and federal level.
6. Impact of laws, policies, and regulations on schools
Identify and discuss several of the current policy and legal initiatives that affect education at both state and federal levels. Specifically, identify an area that has been or is likely to impact your role as an educator. In order to answer this question, you should locate numerous and varied sources, such as articles, books, websites, cases, and statutes, that relate to the policy and legal initiatives that you have identified. You must then explain the area you have selected, by providing a thorough discussion of the articles, books, websites, cases, and statutes.
Response
High stakes testing and the
achievement gap in mathematics.
Two current issues in education are the results and implications of high stakes testing and the achievement gap in mathematics education. High stakes testing affects mathematics achievement and vice versa. Both involve testing but more importantly they involve individuals. Spotsylvania County Schools (SCS) currently did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the accountability component of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. AYP reports student achievement on state assessments by race, gender, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and Limited English Proficiency. The major area of concern in SCS is mathematics but more specifically mathematics with regard to student achievement in the categories of ethnicity, students with disabilities and Limited English Proficiency.
High stakes testing.
Tests are
used to measure student progress and performance as well as to adjust
instruction to meet student needs. However when one test is given to students
to measure performance undesirable consequences may result (APA, 2001). Students
in
Mathematics and the achievement gap.
One high school and five middle schools did not make AYP in the area of mathematics. Programs to address achievement have been implemented in the elementary schools such as Head Start and Title I and after school tutoring on all academic levels (Hill & Lubienski, 2007). Teachers need to address student needs but the question arises as to the ability of the teachers to do so. Licensure of teachers in mathematics implies that the individuals have adequate content knowledge for the subject. NCLB requires teachers to be highly qualified which is acknowledged through licensure in the content area. Licensure does not imply that the instruction provided will lead to better student achievement (Hill & Lubienski, 2007).
The 90’s was considered to be the
“standards era” (Cohen-Vogel, 2005). Standards were created to guide state,
county, and school assessments. Teacher training to address the content of the
standards was left up to higher education institutions. NCLB (2001) not only
requires highly qualified teachers in the content areas but has permitted
alternative routes to obtaining licensure and becoming highly qualified. Again
we are assuming that licensure, having content knowledge, leads to quality instruction
(Cohen-Vogel, 2005). Routes to obtain licensure and required assessments vary
from state to state (Youngs, Odden & Porter, 2003). The Higher Education
Act of 1998 does requires colleges and universities that have teacher
preparation programs to report pass rates of tests which is compiled into state
and institutional report cards (Earley, 2000). Youngs and colleagues (2003)
share four types of teacher assessments for licensure: basic skills, content
knowledge, pedagogy, and performance assessment.
Unsuccessful mathematics students need high-quality instruction but are less likely to receive it (Hill & Lubienski, 2007). Principals and school administrators are also weakly qualified to assess mathematics teachers’ knowledge and pedagogical practices. Hill and Lubienski’s investigation found a relationship between the school population and the teacher’s mathematical knowledge. With the implementation of high stakes testing, AYP, and dropout rates, a vicious cycle has begun. NCLB requires highly qualified teachers (content knowledge) and high stakes testing. Students dropout of school because they are unsuccessful at passing high stakes tests (mainly mathematics in SCS). Many teachers do not possess the “specialized knowledge” needed to aid students in passing the state mandated mathematics tests but are considered to be “highly qualified” by the state and NCLB. Accountability has led to a search for those who are responsible for correcting the situation (Earley, 2000). Hill and Lubienski (2007) suggest from their study that attention needs to be focused on “…legislation and related efforts to improve teacher quality” with the goal of increasing student achievement. This might be accomplished by including “…more proximal indicators as the metric for grading state and local efforts.” Local education agencies need to take actions that would provide teachers with professional development and follow ups that would aid in their acquiring the “specialized knowledge” of mathematics. Teachers would truly become highly qualified, students would benefit from the instruction and learn to understand mathematical concepts, mathematics would become relevant to the students lives, students would learn to like mathematics, all resulting in better pass rates on high stakes tests and lower dropout rates in high school.
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2005).
American Psychological Association (APA). (2001, May). Appropriate use of high-stakes
testing
in our nation’s schools. Retrieved on
Baird, D. & Hallett. K. S. (1999). Copyright in the academic environment: An
introduction.
Borsuk, A. J. (2004, January 3). Dream of equal schooling is
unrealized.
Journal
Sentinel. Retrieved on
Brennan, J., Grayson, N. & Holmes, K. (2004). A dream deferred 50 years after Brown v.
Board of Education, the struggles
continues… A 50 state look at achievement, attainment and opportunity gaps. The Education Trust [electronic
version]. Retrieved
Brown v. Board of
Education, 347
grade each other and announce the
results may impact online learning. Retrieved on
The Civil Rights Project. (2000, June). Opportunities suspended: The devastating
consequences of zero tolerance and
school discipline policies. Retrieved
Clarke, M., Haney, W. & Madaus, G. (2000, January). High stakes testing and high
school completion. National Board on Educational Testing and
Public Policy, 1(3). Retrieved on
Cohen-Vogel, L. (2005). Federal role in teacher quality: “Redefinition” or policy
alignment? Educational Policy [electronic version]. Retrieved on
Committee for Creative
Non-Violence v. Reid, 490
Crews, K. D. (2003, Nov.-Dec.). Copyright and distance education: making sense of the
TEACH Act. Change, 34.6. Retrieved on
Earley, P. M. (2000). Finding the culprit: Federal policy and teacher education.
Educational
Policy [electronic version]. Retrieved on
Freeman v. Pitts,
503
Fries, K. & DeMitchell, T. A. (2007). Commentary: Zero tolerance and the paradox of
fairness: Viewpoints from the classroom
(36 J. L. & Educ. 211). Journal of
Law & Education. Retrieved on
Goldberg, A. K. & Riemer, F. J. (2006). All aboard – destination unknown: A
sociological discussion of online
learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 9(4). Retrieved on
The Harvard Law Review. (2007). A right to learn? Improving educational
outcomes
through substantive due process (120 Harv. L. Rev. 1323). Harvard Law
Review Association. Retrieved on
Hill, H. C. & Lubienski, S. T. (2007). Teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching and
school context: A study of
Intellectual Property. (2002). The TEACH Act: Finally becomes law. Retrieved on
Liu, G. (2006). Law and Inequality. In Symposium on “With All Deliberate Speed: Brown
II
and Desegregation’s Children: The parted paths of school desegregation and
school finance litigation (24 Law & Ineq. J. 81).
National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. (2005, April). Closing the achievement
gap.
Retrieved on
Nemire, R. E. (2007, Winter). Intellectual property development and use for distance
education courses: A review of law,
organizations, and resources for faculty. College
Teaching, 55(1). Retrieved
No Child Left Behind Act, 115 U.S.C. § 1425 (2001).
Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the
need for new integration
strategies. Civil Rights Project, UCLA. Retrieved
The Oyez Project,
(1973). Retrieved
Parents
Involved in Community Schools v.
F.3d
1059; (2007). Retrieved
Plyler v. Doe, 457
Ratner v.
Loudoun County Public Schools,
2001 WL 855606 (4th Cir. 2001).
Sweeney, P., Loggie, K. A., Barron, A. E., Gulitz,
E., Hohlfeld, T. N., Kromrey, J. D. et
al. (2006, Winter). An analysis of copyright
policies for distance learning
materials
at major research universities. Journal
of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3). Retrieved on
Virginia Code, COV § 22.1-254 (2007, July).
Retrieved on
http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/CodeofVA.htm
Webb, P. & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006).
Zero-tolerance policies and youth: Protection or
profiling?
National Journal for Publishing and
Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3(1). Retrieved
Williams v. Weisser, 273 Cal.App. 2d 726 (1969).
Youngs, P., Odden, A. & Porter, A. C. (2003). State policy related to teacher licensure.
Educational
Policy [electronic version]. Retrieved on