{
    "question": "An act of Congress provides that \"no federal court shall order the implementation of a public school desegregation plan that would require the transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest or next closest to his place of residence.\" Which of the following is the strongest argument for the constitutionality of the act?",
    "answers": ["The Fourteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to define governmental conduct which violates the equal protection clause.", "Under Article III, Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.", "Transportation of students is subject to regulation by Congress because commerce is involved.", "Congress provides partial support for public education and is therefore entitled to establish conditions upon the expenditure of federal grants."],
    "correct_answer_index": 1, 
    "top10_e5": ["E5 PASSAGE: The IDEA also requires states receiving federal funds to educate disabled children in the \"[l]east restrictive environment\" appropriate for each child. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5). The statute mandates at § 1412(a)(5)(A):", 
            "Under the current iteration of Arkansas' school choice law-the 2017 Act-a school that claims a conflict with participating in school choice must show that it is subject to an active and enforceable desegregation court order or plan that \"explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts.\" Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(a)(2). Accordingly, for Junction City to receive an exemption from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act, it must show that it is subject to a desegregation order that explicitly bars \"inter-district\" student transfers.",
            "This is not to say that a school may unilaterally reject or revise a child's stay-put IEP-that would defang the stay-put requirement entirely. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that the IDEA \"strip[s] schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students.\" Honig , 484 U.S. at 323, 108 S.Ct. 592 (emphasis omitted); see also Sch. Comm. of the Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. , 471 U.S. 359, 373, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985). Courts should therefore view deviations from the IEP \"with a critical eye to ensure that motivations other than those compatible with the statute, such as bureaucratic inertia, are not driving the decision.\" John M. , 502 F.3d at 715. But context matters; for example, as a child moves \"from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school,\" not every change necessitated by a new educational environment will necessarily violate the IDEA. See id. at 714-15.",
            "Under § 79-209(2), all schools are required to have a policy that states the number of absences after which the school shall render services to address a student's barriers to attendance. Such services shall include, but not be limited to:",
            "To assure that children attending public schools obtain a high quality education, the legislature shall make adequate provision to ensure that ... there are a sufficient number of classrooms ....",
            "courts should not disturb a state's denial of IDEA reimbursement where the chief benefits of the chosen school are the kind of advantages that might be preferred by parents of any child, disabled or not. Rather, the unilateral private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction [specially ] designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.",
            "It is also likely that residents of the States will attend out-of-state schools that invoke the Exemptions, and that such students will seek contraceptive services through programs in their home states, also giving rise to fiscal injuries to the States that only a nationwide injunction can remedy.",
            "Although state classifications based on alienage are generally suspect, a state may reserve a government position for citizens if it is related to self-governance, involves policymaking, or requires exercise of important discretionary power over citizens. In these cases, only a rationality test is used. A public school teacher at the primary and secondary school level performs an important governmental function (e.g., he influences students' attitudes about government, the political process, citizenship, etc.), and therefore the exclusion of aliens is rationally related to the state's interest in furthering educational goals. [Ambach v. Norwick (1979)]",
            "The IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement. See §§ 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)-(IV). This reflects the broad purpose of the IDEA, an \"ambitious\" piece of legislation enacted \"in response to Congress' perception that a majority of handicapped children in the United States 'were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.' \" Rowley, 458 U.S. at 179, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, p. 2 (1975) ). A substantive standard not focused on student progress would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagnation that prompted Congress to act.",
            "Court to \"exclude\" religious schools from the scholarship program. The provision mandated only that the state treasury not be used to fund religious schooling. As this case demonstrates, that mandate does not necessarily require differential treatment. The no-aid provision can be implemented in two ways. A State may distinguish within a benefit program between secular and sectarian schools, or it may decline to fund all private schools. The Court agrees that the First Amendment permits the latter course. See ante, at 2261 - 2262. Because that is the path the Montana Supreme Court took in this case, there was no reason for this Court to address the alternative."],
    "generation_e5": "This generation is based on the E5 passages.",
    "top10_colbert": ["COLBERT PASSAGE: The IDEA also requires states receiving federal funds to educate disabled children in the \"[l]east restrictive environment\" appropriate for each child. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5). The statute mandates at § 1412(a)(5)(A):", 
            "Under the current iteration of Arkansas' school choice law-the 2017 Act-a school that claims a conflict with participating in school choice must show that it is subject to an active and enforceable desegregation court order or plan that \"explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts.\" Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(a)(2). Accordingly, for Junction City to receive an exemption from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act, it must show that it is subject to a desegregation order that explicitly bars \"inter-district\" student transfers.",
            "This is not to say that a school may unilaterally reject or revise a child's stay-put IEP-that would defang the stay-put requirement entirely. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that the IDEA \"strip[s] schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students.\" Honig , 484 U.S. at 323, 108 S.Ct. 592 (emphasis omitted); see also Sch. Comm. of the Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. , 471 U.S. 359, 373, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985). Courts should therefore view deviations from the IEP \"with a critical eye to ensure that motivations other than those compatible with the statute, such as bureaucratic inertia, are not driving the decision.\" John M. , 502 F.3d at 715. But context matters; for example, as a child moves \"from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school,\" not every change necessitated by a new educational environment will necessarily violate the IDEA. See id. at 714-15.",
            "Under § 79-209(2), all schools are required to have a policy that states the number of absences after which the school shall render services to address a student's barriers to attendance. Such services shall include, but not be limited to:",
            "To assure that children attending public schools obtain a high quality education, the legislature shall make adequate provision to ensure that ... there are a sufficient number of classrooms ....",
            "courts should not disturb a state's denial of IDEA reimbursement where the chief benefits of the chosen school are the kind of advantages that might be preferred by parents of any child, disabled or not. Rather, the unilateral private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction [specially ] designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.",
            "It is also likely that residents of the States will attend out-of-state schools that invoke the Exemptions, and that such students will seek contraceptive services through programs in their home states, also giving rise to fiscal injuries to the States that only a nationwide injunction can remedy.",
            "Although state classifications based on alienage are generally suspect, a state may reserve a government position for citizens if it is related to self-governance, involves policymaking, or requires exercise of important discretionary power over citizens. In these cases, only a rationality test is used. A public school teacher at the primary and secondary school level performs an important governmental function (e.g., he influences students' attitudes about government, the political process, citizenship, etc.), and therefore the exclusion of aliens is rationally related to the state's interest in furthering educational goals. [Ambach v. Norwick (1979)]",
            "The IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement. See §§ 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)-(IV). This reflects the broad purpose of the IDEA, an \"ambitious\" piece of legislation enacted \"in response to Congress' perception that a majority of handicapped children in the United States 'were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.' \" Rowley, 458 U.S. at 179, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, p. 2 (1975) ). A substantive standard not focused on student progress would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagnation that prompted Congress to act.",
            "Court to \"exclude\" religious schools from the scholarship program. The provision mandated only that the state treasury not be used to fund religious schooling. As this case demonstrates, that mandate does not necessarily require differential treatment. The no-aid provision can be implemented in two ways. A State may distinguish within a benefit program between secular and sectarian schools, or it may decline to fund all private schools. The Court agrees that the First Amendment permits the latter course. See ante, at 2261 - 2262. Because that is the path the Montana Supreme Court took in this case, there was no reason for this Court to address the alternative."],
    "generation_colbert": "This generation is based on the ColBERT passages.",
    "top10_contains_gold_passage": false, 
    "gold_passage": "This is the gold passage.",
    "gold_passage_generation": "This generation answers the question with the gold passage."
}