Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts

This report provides a history of the issue of fatherhood in policy debates and philanthropic action from the late 1960's through the present day. It then outlines research findings in seven core areas of fatherhood and discusses accomplishments and challenges for policymakers

A Time for Change: The Search for a New Superintendent in Carlton City

This case was commissioned by Public Education Network (PEN) and prepared by the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy. This case was designed for use at PEN's 2006 annual conference, and focuses on a fictitious capital city's search for a new superintendent of schools

Citizenship deprivation

Most critical analyses assess citizenship-deprivation policies against international human rights and domestic rule of law standards, such as prevention of statelessness, non-arbitrariness with regard to justifications and judicial remedies, or non-discrimination between different categories of citizens. This report considers instead from a political theory perspective how deprivation policies reflect specific conceptions of political community. We distinguish four normative conceptions of the grounds of membership in a political community that apply to decisions on acquisition and loss of citizenship status: i) a ‘State discretion’ view, according to which governments should be as free as possible in pursuing State interests when determining citizenship status; ii) an ‘individual choice’ view, according to which individuals should be as free as possible in choosing their citizenship status; iii) an ‘ascriptive community’ view, according to which both State and individual choices should be minimised through automatic determination of membership based on objective criteria such as the circumstances of birth; and iv) a ‘genuine link’ view, according to which the ties of individuals to particular States determine their claims to inclusion and against deprivation while providing at the same time objections against including individuals without genuine links. We argue that most citizenship laws combine these four normative views in different ways, but that from a democratic perspective the ‘genuine link’ view is normatively preferable to the others. The report subsequently examines five general grounds for citizenship withdrawal – threats to public security, non-compliance with citizenship duties, flawed acquisition, derivative loss and loss of genuine links – and considers how the four normative views apply to withdrawal provision motivated by these concerns. The final section of the report examines whether EU citizenship provides additional reasons for protection against Member States’ powers of citizenship deprivation. We suggest that, in addition to fundamental rights protection through EU law and protection of free movement rights, three further arguments could be invoked: toleration of dual citizenship in a political union, prevention of unequal conditions for loss among EU citizens, and the salience of genuine links to the EU itself rather than merely to one of its Member States

School Leader Update, May 2009

Monthly newsletter produced by Iowa Department of Educatio

Standing Up to Legislative Bullies: Separation of Powers, State Courts and Educational Rights

The separation of powers doctrine creates a strong presumption in favor of judicial deference to legislative policy determinations. This doctrine was developed for federal courts, however, and does not apply with identical force to state courts enforcing state constitutional rights. This Note examines rationales for the separation of powers doctrine and their potential application to state courts. After concluding that deference should be more limited in state courts, it then applies this conclusion to educational rights, which are frequently at risk due to political market failures. By examining case studies of constitutionally based education litigation in seven states, this Note concludes with recommendations to state courts facing the challenge of managing such cases: issue a strong first opinion, maintain jurisdiction by remanding the case rather than finalizing it, and demonstrate an upfront commitment to enforcing educational rights