Education Law

A special issue of Laws (ISSN 2075-471X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (28 February 2021) | Viewed by 39813

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Law, University of Dayton, Ohio 45469, USA
Interests: family; education law; writing about education law

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, 

As the world continues to shrink amid growing interdependence, one of the major challenges facing the global community is ensuring the establishment of sound, working educational systems, at both the elementary-secondary and higher educational levels, designed to produce educated citizenries. Almost needless to say, the law is a major factor that helps to create educational systems while monitoring their quality, as it protects the rights of both teachers and students, along with the interests of parents. Clearly, this is a daunting task for legal systems around the world, as they seek to ensure national stability and well-educated citizenries. Aware of this challenge, this Special Issue of Laws focuses on the crucial topic of Education Law.  

The centrality of Education Law on an international level was first highlighted by the promulgation of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Declaration) in 1948. In fact, the Declaration was the first internationally accepted document to enunciate the value of education as a basic human right; this recognition has helped to shape not only the nature of school systems, but also the rights of students, their parents, and teachers. According to Article 26 of the Declaration:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Additionally, a variety of other international and domestic documents, including judicial opinions of the United States Supreme Court, and those of high courts in other nations, have recognized the rights not only of students to receive an education, but of the corresponding right addressing the freedom of teachers to teach as they deem fit, free from unwarranted governmental interference. At the same time, there has been incredible growth in the rate at which children attend school in developing nations, necessitating the creation of a body of well-educated teachers who can instruct these students.  

Starting with the enactment of compulsory schooling laws for primary schools in the middle of the nineteenth century, especially in Western industrialized nations, beginning with the United States, enrollments in elementary and secondary education have increased dramatically. Even so, a recent study of 146 nations reveals that, in 1950, 47.1% of people aged fifteen years of and older lacked any formal education; a number that has declined to 14.55%. Moreover, elementary school completion grew from only 17.1% to 17.3%, while the number of people who completed secondary education did increase from 5.2% to 25.9%. To this end, a study published by the World Bank noted that the patterns of educational attainment clearly vary greatly across various countries, as well as across population groups within these nations.

For some, basic education is practically universal, whereas for others, attainment is dismal, as the average years of study rose from only 3.12 to 7.89. A value of this proposed issue, then, is that it is designed to provide readers with an understanding of how laws in different countries promote the development of educational systems that can be used in nations where schooling for all is still not a priority.

Concerns over the need for primary and secondary schools, let alone higher education, have emerged as important throughout the world, largely as a consequence of the increasing range of rights accorded to citizens in their home countries. While there are similarities in the ways that educational institutions operate, there are also many differences. Furthermore, legislative and judicial systems around the world continue to draw increasingly on the knowledge and experience of educational leaders in other countries in order to improve on the quality of schooling in their own countries.

This issue is designed to address issues in Education Law in various countries, with the goal of enhancing international awareness of issues in Education Law. It is my hope that this volume can serve as a valuable resource for academicians, lawyers, and educational practitioners, by providing them with an enhanced awareness of strategies that are being used to manage problems commonly faced in multiple educational settings.

Of course, no single issue can ever hope to cover the myriad of legal topics, or laws of nations, addressing the legal status of Education Law. Even so, I hope that these informative, thought provoking, well-written and researched articles can serve as up-to-date and ready sources of information, to help keep educational leaders, academics, and students abreast of the many changes in the ever-growing area of comparative Education Law.

Prof. Dr. Charles J. Russo
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Laws is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Education law
  • Legal Issues in elementary and secondary education
  • Legal issues in tertiary/higher education
  • Comparative education law

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (5 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
18 pages, 520 KiB  
Article
Religious Freedom and Education in Australian Schools
by Paul Babie
Laws 2021, 10(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10010007 - 30 Jan 2021
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 6055
Abstract
This article examines the constitutional allocation of power over primary and secondary education in Australia, and the place of and protection for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Australian government and religious non-government schools. This article provides both an overview of the [...] Read more.
This article examines the constitutional allocation of power over primary and secondary education in Australia, and the place of and protection for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Australian government and religious non-government schools. This article provides both an overview of the judicial treatment of the constitutional, legislative, and common law protection for FoRB and a consideration of emerging issues in religious freedom in both government and religious non-government schools, suggesting that the courts may soon be required to provide guidance as to how the available protections operate in both settings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education Law)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 224 KiB  
Article
Student Speech and Social Media: The Supreme Court Finally Enters the Fray
by Charles J. Russo
Laws 2021, 10(2), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020019 - 25 Mar 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 6944
Abstract
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a watershed moment involving the First Amendment free speech rights of students in American public schools. In Tinker, the Supreme Court affirmed that absent a reasonable forecast of material and substantial disruption, educators [...] Read more.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a watershed moment involving the First Amendment free speech rights of students in American public schools. In Tinker, the Supreme Court affirmed that absent a reasonable forecast of material and substantial disruption, educators could not discipline students who wore black arm bands to school protesting American military action in Viet Nam. Not surprisingly, litigation continues on the boundaries of student speech, coupled with the extent to which educators can limit expression on the internet, especially social media. As the Justices finally entered the fray over cyber speech, this three-part article begins by reviewing Tinker and other Supreme Court precedent on student expressive activity plus illustrative lower court cases before examining Levy v. Mahanoy Area School District. In Levy, the Court will consider whether educators could discipline a cheerleader, a student engaged in an extracurricular activity, who violated team rules by posting inappropriate off-campus messages on Snapchat. The article then offers policy suggestions for lawyers and educators when working with speech codes applicable to student use of the internet and social media by pupils involved in extracurricular activities. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education Law)
9 pages, 196 KiB  
Article
Special Solicitude: Religious Freedom at America’s Public Universities
by William E. Thro
Laws 2021, 10(2), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020030 - 20 Apr 2021
Viewed by 3915
Abstract
Rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment requires identical treatment for religious organizations and secular organizations, the Supreme Court held such a “result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the [...] Read more.
Rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment requires identical treatment for religious organizations and secular organizations, the Supreme Court held such a “result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.” (Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 189). This “special solicitude” guarantees religious freedom from the government in all aspects of society, but particularly on public university campuses. At a minimum, religious expression and religious organizations must have equal rights with secular expression and secular organizations. In some instances, religious expression and religious expression may have greater rights. The Court’s 2020 decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, reinforce and expand the “special solicitude” of religion. Indeed, Espinoza and Our Lady have profound implications for student religious groups at America’s public campuses. This article examines religious freedom at America’s public universities. This article has three parts. First, it offers an overview of religious freedom prior to Espinoza and Our Lady. Second, it briefly discusses those two cases. Third, it explores the implications of those decisions on America’s public campuses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education Law)
15 pages, 265 KiB  
Article
Sex Discrimination in Schools: The Law and Its Impact on School Policies
by Suzanne Eckes
Laws 2021, 10(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020034 - 11 May 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 10031
Abstract
The law has the potential to influence school policy in the United States. Specifically, statutes, constitutional provisions, and the outcomes of court cases can impact the civil rights of students, which, in turn, can presumably lead to policies that prohibit discriminatory practices. For [...] Read more.
The law has the potential to influence school policy in the United States. Specifically, statutes, constitutional provisions, and the outcomes of court cases can impact the civil rights of students, which, in turn, can presumably lead to policies that prohibit discriminatory practices. For example, Congress has enacted federal laws (statutes) that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, and disability; these laws arguably impact school practice. After setting the legal context, through an analysis of statutes, constitutional provisions and case law, this article examines how law has the potential to influence education policy related to sex discrimination. In doing so, a few illustrative cases related to sexual harassment, single-sex programs, pregnant and parenting teens, dress codes, transgender student rights, and athletics are discussed to provide examples about how case outcomes may help create more equitable school environments. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education Law)
11 pages, 1239 KiB  
Article
Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs
by Michael Rozalski, Mitchell L. Yell and Jacob Warner
Laws 2021, 10(2), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020038 - 17 May 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 11902
Abstract
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free [...] Read more.
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education Law)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop