Posted: January 3rd, 2024

Equal Protection and Public Education

Equal Protection and Public Education

Paper instructions:
Choose one of the following groups:

Classifications based on English language learners;
Classifications through ability grouping/tracking;
Classifications in academic programs based on gender;
Classifications in sports programs based on gender; and
Classifications to assign students to specific schools for racial balance.
In a 500-750-word essay, address the following for the group that you have chosen:

Assignment Help – Summarize the factual background on how the students are classified;
Identify the legal issues presented by these classifications; and
Describe what equal protection requires.
Get custom essay samples and course-specific study resources via course hero homework for you service – Include at least five references in your essay. At least three of the five references should cite relevant court cases. See the attached document, as well as the assigned readings for this topic, for appropriate sources.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the Ace homework tutors – APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. I need help writing my essay – research paper review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesAce my homework – Write. A link to the LopesAce my homework – Write technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Equal Protection and Public Education

 
Classifications in academic programs based on gender
Gender-based classifications in academic programs have faced legal challenges under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. While providing separate but equal educational opportunities based on perceived differences between male and female students was once accepted, over time courts have moved towards stricter scrutiny of such classifications to prevent discrimination.
Background
Historically, many public elementary and secondary schools offered different academic programs or course tracks for male and female students based on assumptions about appropriate roles and abilities (National Women’s Law Center, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). For example, girls may have been steered away from advanced math and science courses and into programs focused on home economics, art, and other “feminine” subjects perceived to prepare them for traditional roles (National Women’s Law Center, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). At the college level as well, some public institutions maintained single-sex academic programs or entirely men’s or women’s colleges (National Women’s Law Center, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online).
Legal Issues
Classification of students into different academic programs solely based on their sex raises equal protection issues under the 14th Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). The equal protection clause guarantees equal treatment under the law and prohibits discrimination by the government (Cornell Law School, n.d.). When state actors like public schools classify students differently based on an immutable characteristic like sex, it is subject to heightened scrutiny to ensure the policy serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to achieving those objectives (United States v. Virginia, 1996). Separating students into different academic tracks based on overbroad generalizations about gender roles and abilities does not meet this standard and risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 1982). It also denies individual students equal educational opportunities based solely on their sex (United States v. Virginia, 1996).
Equal Protection Requirements
Under the equal protection clause, public elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools cannot maintain separate and non-equivalent academic programs for male and female students solely on the basis of sex (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 1982; United States v. Virginia, 1996). Generalizations and assumptions about differing interests or abilities of students due to their sex are not sufficient to justify such classifications (United States v. Virginia, 1996). Schools must allow students to freely enroll in any academic program for which they are qualified without regard to their sex (National Women’s Law Center, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). They also cannot provide demonstrably unequal support or opportunities to programs serving students of one sex (United States v. Virginia, 1996). Overall, equal protection requires that public educational institutions treat male and female students as individuals and not impose sex-based barriers or limitations in access to programs.
From that, while separate academic programs for male and female students were once accepted, equal protection now prohibits public K-12 schools and colleges from classifying students into different programs solely based on assumptions about gender roles or abilities. Schools must judge students as individuals and allow them to access any programs for which they qualify regardless of sex. This standard aims to prevent discrimination and harmful stereotyping in public education.

References
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Equal protection. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/81-406
National Women’s Law Center. (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online, September). Equal access to high-quality education. NWLC. https://nwlc.org/issue/equal-access-to-high-quality-education/
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1941
Wagner, A. (2022, March 30). The evolution of gender equity in education. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/the-evolution-of-gender-equity-in-education/
_________________________

Sample 2
Classifications through ability grouping/tracking
Ability grouping, also known as tracking, refers to the practice of dividing students for instruction based on their perceived capacities for learning. Students are often grouped by test scores or teacher recommendations. Proponents argue this allows for tailored instruction targeting each student’s level. However, critics say it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with lower tracks receiving less rigorous material and higher tracks benefiting from higher expectations.
The legal issues presented by ability grouping relate to equal protection. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. If data shows lower tracks contain disproportionate numbers of students from certain demographic groups, it could indicate the system violates equal protection by discriminating on the basis of a protected class like race or disability. Courts examine whether the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, or if it amounts to an arbitrary distinction.
Equal protection requires that students receive reasonably comparable educational opportunities regardless of ability level. While tailoring instruction is a legitimate goal, the system must avoid stigma or reduced access associated with lower tracks. Placement procedures and criteria must be objective, with opportunities to change placements if inappropriate. Curricula and resources across levels should be substantially equal. Overall, ability grouping passes legal muster if it provides equal treatment to similarly situated students.
Sources:
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press.
National Education Association. (1994). Ability grouping. https://www.nea.org/resource-library/ability-grouping
Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112697
Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 594-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508600808
Welner, K. G., & Oakes, J. (1996). (Li)Ability grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to legal challenges. Ace my homework – Write my essay – Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.3.b706726x7j372v48

Order | Check Discount