Skip to main content

Home/ Diigo In Education/ Group items tagged legislator

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
meghankelly492

Legislation and Common Law Impacting Assessment Practices in Music Education - Oxford H... - 1 views

www.oxfordhandbooks.com/...oxfordhb-9780190248130-e-39

world Music

shared by meghankelly492 on 02 Mar 20 - No Cached
  • Russell and Austin (2010) have claimed that in music education, a system of benign neglect in assessment practices has been allowed to endure, even though there has (p. 4) been a long-term, consistent call for reform, for more meaningful assessments, and for policymakers to adapt to laws as they are enacted and court rulings as they are handed down.
  • ead to the growing body of scholarship in educational law, the evolving and more active role courts are taking in impacting educational practices,
  • chapter is to inform music teachers about contemporary court cases that have resulted in rulings on assessment issues in educational settings, and how these rulings impact assessment in the music classroom.
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • in teacher preparation programs and in professional development activities so that students and in-service music educators will better be able to negotiate the increasingly litigious educational world
  • egal issues facing music educators remain one of the least important topics of conversation for preservice music educators.
  • how active they have been willing in inserting their decisions in school-based assessment policy.
  • Historically, courts have been somewhat deferential to school leaders and have not been willing to hear too many cases dealing with educational law and assessment.
  • Based on this decision, courts would be more likely to defer to school leaders in making their final rulings.
  • distinguish issues are purely academic from those that are purely disciplinary.
  • s. Three basic factors must exist for constitutional due process to exist: a student must have proper notice, a student must be given the chance to be heard, and the hearing should be conducted in a fair manner
  • The court decided that denying a student of education, regardless of the amount of time, could not be considered an inconsequential thing and claimed that a person’s right to education was equitable to the rights to liberty and property. In the majority decisions, the Supreme Court justices argued:
  • The US Supreme Court’s decision in Goss created the opportunity for students, parents, and their representatives to challenge not only disciplinary suspensions and expulsions but also other decisions by school officials that may affect liberty or property rights, including grades and grading policies.
  • that of courts taking a more active role and deferring less often to school leaders.
  • Because of these high stakes (real or imagined),
  • little more than attendance and participation, others feel that grades must represent academic achievement and that “allowing non-academic factors to affect academic grades distorts the truth about students’
  • however, because music is addressed minimally in these laws, their enactment has had minimal direct impact on music educators’ assessment practices.
Tara Heath

Hate Speech and Hate Crime | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues - 3 views

www.ala.org/...hate

civil civil rights

shared by Tara Heath on 28 Feb 23 - No Cached
  • There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. 1 In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Hate Crime For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” including skin color and national origin.  Hate crimes are overt acts that can include acts of violence against persons or property, violation or deprivation of civil rights, certain "true threats," or acts of intimidation, or conspiracy to commit these crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim's race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs.  A hate crime is more than than offensive speech or conduct; it is specific criminal behavior that ranges from property crimes like vandalism and arson to acts of intimidation, assault, and murder.  Victims of hate crimes can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals.
  • Tara Heath on 28 Feb 23
     
    "Hate Speech There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. 1 In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Hate Crime For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity," including skin color and national origin.  Hate crimes are overt acts that can include acts of violence against persons or property, violation or deprivation of civil rights, certain "true threats," or acts of intimidation, or conspiracy to commit these crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim's race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs.  A hate crime is more than than offensive speech
‹ Previous 21 - 23 of 23
Showing 20▼ items per page