Posted: September 19th, 2023

Equal Protection and Public Education Essay

Equal Protection and Public Education Essay

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:

Summarize the factual background on how the students are classified;
Identify the legal issues presented by these classifications; and
Describe what equal protection requires.
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 APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please 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 LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Ability Grouping and Equal Protection
In public education, students are often classified and grouped based on perceived academic ability. This is commonly referred to as ability grouping or tracking. Students deemed to be higher achieving or gifted are placed into advanced classes, while those perceived to be lower achieving are placed into remedial or basic level classes (Burris, 2014). The practice of ability grouping has been widely used in American schools for decades but remains controversial in terms of its impact on students and implications for equal protection under the law.
Ability grouping involves separating students into different classrooms or course levels based on standardized test scores and teacher recommendations (Burris, 2014). Students placed in lower tracks often receive a less rigorous curriculum focused more on basic skills, while those in advanced tracks experience a faster-paced, content-rich curriculum preparing them for college (Oakes, 2005). Proponents argue this allows teachers to better meet the individual needs of students at different achievement levels (Ansalone, 2010). However, critics argue it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where expectations become lowered for lower-track students in a way that hinders their learning and limits access to advanced coursework (Oakes, 2005).
This presents legal issues regarding equal protection. The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). When public education systems classify and group students in a way that denies some students equal access to learning opportunities based on characteristics like race, gender or perceived ability, it can violate this constitutional right (Ansalone, 2010). Several court cases have examined ability grouping practices through this lens. In Hobson v. Hansen (1967), a U.S. district court ruled that ability grouping in D.C. public schools was discriminatory, as black students were disproportionately placed in lower tracks (Ansalone, 2010). Similarly, in Parents in Action on Special Education v. Hannon (1980), an Illinois district court found Chicago’s tracking system denied students in lower tracks equal educational opportunities (Ansalone, 2010).
To comply with equal protection requirements, ability grouping practices must meet strict scrutiny by furthering a compelling state interest in the most narrowly tailored way possible (Oakes, 2005). Schools using ability grouping bear the burden of proving the system is not discriminatory and does not deny students in lower tracks meaningful access to learning (Burris, 2014). They must also have open and frequent re-evaluation policies to allow student mobility between tracks (Oakes, 2005). Overall, while ability grouping aims to individualize instruction, its use remains controversial and schools must carefully construct such systems to avoid potential equal protection violations.
Works Cited
Ansalone, George. “Tracking: Educational Differentiation or Defacto Segregation?” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 17, no. 3/4, 2010, pp. 145–154. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41674739. Accessed 16 Sept. 2023.
Burris, Carol Corbett. “On the Same Track: How Schools Can Join the Twenty-First-Century Struggle against Resegregation.” Beacon Press, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.apus.edu/lib/apus-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1749313.
Oakes, Jeannie. “Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality.” Yale University Press, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central, homework help writing assignment service https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.apus.edu/lib/apus-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3300439.
“Parents in Action on Special Education (PASE) v. Hannon, 506 F. Supp. 831 (N.D. Ill. 1980).” Justia Law, 1980, law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/506/831/1688602/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2023.
“Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (D.D.C. 1967).” Justia Law, 1967, law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/269/401/1688602/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2023.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: Clinical Field Experience C: Research-Based Intervention and Remediation Strategies »Clinical Field Experience D: Small Group Math Instruction