e-journal

The Court Versus Consent Decrees? Schools, Horne v. Flores and Judicial Strategies of Institutional Reform Litigation

---

Is the U.S. Supreme Court inviting litigants to take aim at unraveling injunctions in institutional reform litigation—especially consent decrees in the schools? In Horne v. Flores (2009), the court remanded a 17-year-old school reform case to a federal judge with orders to look beyond consent decrees on financing, reducing class sizes, and moving from bilingual education to structured English immersion—to look anew at whether the schools in Nogales, Arizona, provide equal opportunity. Those concerned with schools worry that the court has signaled the end of institutional reform litigation in the schools. However, we closely analyze these dense opinions and data tables to posit the court’s preference for a catalytic judicial strategy that may work best with institutional reform litigation. We place this analysis within a larger context of empirical studies of institutional reform litigation judicial strategies, including judicial roles of deferrer, director, broker, and catalyst. We also argue that these preferences demonstrate the court’s awareness of a sociolegal empirical literature on what works in institutional reform litigation—rather than the end of consent decrees in the schools.

Keywords
school reform, social justice, accountability, multicultural education,educational policy

---

Ketersediaan

Tidak ada salinan data

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

Education and Urban Society

No. Panggil

-

Penerbit

: The Author., 2014

Deskripsi Fisik

Education and Urban Society 2014, Vol 46(1) 88– 108

Bahasa

English

ISBN/ISSN

DOI: 10.1177/0013124

Klasifikasi

-

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

Edukasi

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

Wati/Agus

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar