Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
Seclusion and restraint have been used in various situations to deal with violent or noncompliant behavior. Because of congressional interest in the use of seclusion and restraint in schools, including passage of H.R. 4247 and the introduction of S. 2860, 111th Congress, first session, this report focuses on the legal issues concerning the use of these techniques in schools, including their application both to children covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and to those not covered by IDEA.
Several reports have documented instances of deaths and injuries resulting from the use of seclusion or restraints in schools but, until the Department of Education (ED) issued reporting requirements in March 2010, there was no general reporting requirement. On May 19, 2009, in conjunction with a hearing by the House Education and Labor Committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study examining the use of seclusion and restraint in the education setting, finding hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death due to the use of seclusion and restraint. On July 31, 2009, the Secretary of Education sent letters to Chief State School Officers noting the problems identified by the GAO report and in the May 19 congressional hearing, encouraging each state to review its current policies, and stating that the Chief State School Officers would be contacted by ED by August 15, 2009, to discuss relevant state laws, regulations, policies, and guidance. The results of these discussions are posted on ED’s website.
Federal law does not contain general provisions relating to the use of seclusion and restraints, and there are no specific federal laws concerning the use of seclusion and restraint in public schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities, and an argument could be made that some uses of seclusion and restraint would violate this requirement. In addition, certain procedures may violate constitutional rights or state laws. Although there are some judicial cases, they do not provide clear guidance on when, if ever, seclusion and restraint may be used in schools. H.R. 4247, and S. 2860, 111th Congress, first session, and S. 3895, 111th Congress, second session, would establish minimum safety standards in schools to prevent and reduce the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. H.R. 4247 was passed by the House on March 3, 2010.
Date of Report: October 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R40522
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Cynthia Brougher
Legislative Attorney
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) contains a number of separately authorized programs, which generally distribute funds by formulas that prescribe how funds are to be allocated among state educational agencies (SEAs) or local educational agencies (LEAs) nationwide. The ESEA raises a number of legal issues, particularly relating to the First Amendment, regarding state assistance or involvement in issues of religion or religious schools. As Congress considers whether to reauthorize the ESEA, it may be interested in the state of the law with respect to church-state issues in education. This report will highlight the legal and policy issues that arise in the context of elementary and secondary education programs. In particular, it will address a variety of contexts in which First Amendment concerns may be raised in education related legislation, including teaching of creationism, school prayer, civil rights protections in schools, funding for faith-based organizations (FBOs) and school vouchers, supplemental services, and Title I reimbursement for religious schools.
Several points of the analysis provided by this report stem from concerns that government assistance for religious schools or religious purposes in public schools is improper, or that government involvement in particular issues may be construed as support for a religious purpose. These issues are generally governed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed a number of First Amendment issues arising in the education context, as discussed in this report. These cases indicate a general rule that the First Amendment prohibits a state from utilizing “its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals.”
This report focuses on the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the range of topics that involve religious concerns in education. The first sections of the report address issues arising from the constitutionally permissible role of religious activity in public schools, including whether governments may impose curriculum restrictions with religious implications and whether any or all forms of prayer and religious activity in schools may be prohibited. The report then examines the legal implications of government aid to religious schools, including both aid provided directly to the schools and indirect payments such as school vouchers, including a discussion of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship program. This is currently the only federally funded elementary and secondary education voucher program that provides funds for students to attend private schools, including religiously affiliated schools. The last sections of the report focus on the involvement of private schools, including religiously affiliated schools, and FBOs in current elementary and secondary education programs. The first of these sections includes a discussion of provisions governing the equitable participation of private school students in programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). This is followed by an examination of FBOs’ ability to serve as supplemental educational service (SES) providers for schools that have been identified for school improvement under Title I-A of the ESEA.
Date of Report: October 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41445
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Shannon M. Mahan
Specialist in Education Policy
The Federal Pell Grant program, authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA; P.L. 89-329), is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting postsecondary education students. The program is estimated to have provided over $32 billion to approximately 8.3 million undergraduate students in fiscal year (FY) 2010. For FY2010, the total maximum Pell Grant was funded at $5,550. The program is funded primarily through annual appropriations, although mandatory appropriations play a smaller, yet increasing, role in the program.
Pell Grants are need-based aid that is intended to be the foundation for all federal student aid awarded to undergraduates. There is no absolute income threshold that determines who is eligible or ineligible for Pell Grants. Nevertheless, Pell Grant recipients are primarily low-income. In FY2008, an estimated 62% of Pell Grant recipients considered to be dependent upon their parents had a total family income at or below $30,000. Of Pell Grant recipients considered to be independent of their parents, an estimated 83% had a total family income at or below $30,000.
The Pell Grant program has garnered considerable attention over the past several years in Congress. Most recently, the SAFRA Act, passed as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA; P.L. 111-152), established indefinite mandatory appropriations beginning in FY2010 to provide for increases to the maximum award amount funded with annual discretionary appropriations. Prior to the SAFRA Act, the program also received substantial discretionary and mandatory supplemental funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). The statutory authority for the Pell Grant program was most recently reauthorized by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA; P.L. 110-315).
The Pell Grant program recently experienced substantial increases in program costs—largely due to a weakened economy, increases in the number of students enrolling in college and applying for Pell Grant aid, and legislative changes that have led to increased benefits for more students. The combination of these factors has led to relatively large funding shortfalls in the program over recent years. Many of the issues concerning the Pell Grant program that confront Congress include potential challenges associated with funding the program—both in the short term and the long term.
In the short term, additional discretionary funding for the Pell Grant program may be required in order to ensure current award levels are maintained, leading to the program comprising an increasingly larger share of the discretionary funding allocated for programs that are funded in Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education appropriations. As a long-term strategy for funding the program, one option Congress could consider is reclassifying the program as an entitlement, and thus providing only mandatory funding for the program each year. Such action would preclude annual funding shortfalls and surpluses in the program, but the initial costs of reclassification could be substantial under congressional budgetary rules.
Congress might also choose to focus on the quality of institutions that receive Pell Grant aid, or examine the role proprietary (for-profit) institutions play in the disbursement of Pell Grant aid to students. .
Date of Report: September 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 45
Order Number: R41437
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
Currently, federal law prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes. Legislation to amend this federal law has routinely been introduced in previous Congresses, and several similar bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress, including H.R. 1751, S. 729, and H.R. 4321. Meanwhile, some states have passed laws aimed at making unauthorized state residents eligible for in-state tuition without violating this provision. This report provides a legal overview of cases involving immigrant access to higher education, as well as an analysis of the legality of state laws that make in-state tuition rates available to illegal aliens. For a policy analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.
Date of Report: September 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22500
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
