Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students

Lara S. Kaufmann is Senior Counsel and Director for Education Policy for At-Risk Students. She works on the advancement of women and girls at school and in the workplace. Lara engages in litigation, advocacy, and public education, with a particular focus on improving educational outcomes for at-risk girls, including pregnant and parenting students. Lara co-authored the Center’s 2012 report, A Pregnancy Test for Schools: The Impact of Education Laws on Pregnant and Parenting Students, as well as its 2009 report, Listening to Latinas: Barriers to High School Graduation. Before joining the Center, Lara was a Staff Attorney with the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, and prior to that she was an Assistant United States Attorney in Chicago. Lara also worked with the law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery, and was law clerk to then-Chief Judge Marvin Aspen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Lara is a graduate of the University of Michigan and Northwestern University School of Law.

Expert in: Pregnant & Parenting Students, School Reform & Dropout Prevention, Sexual Harassment & Bullying, Education & Title IX

My Take

The Personal is Political, Not Judicial

Posted by Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students | Posted on: July 15, 2009 at 07:53 pm

by Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

This morning, Senator Tom Coburn questioned Judge Sotomayor on a number of topics. While I have been watching the hearings mostly to hear what is said on women’s rights issues, my ears perked up when he was talking about the Second Amendment, as he went beyond Constitutional doctrine and asked: “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself -- personal self-defense?” In response, Judge Sotomayor explained that “the issue of self- defense is usually defined in criminal statutes by the state's laws,” but that was not enough for Senator Coburn. He went on: “But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?” Again, Judge Sotomayor’s response was based on the law; she said that did not know if that legal question had ever been presented. Senator Coburn continued his badgering: “I wasn't asking about the legal question. I'm asking about your personal opinion . . . I think that's what American people want to hear, Your Honor, is they want to know. Do they have a right to personal self-defense? . . . Does what the Constitution -- how [the American people] take the Constitution, not how our bright legal minds but what they think is important, is it OK to defend yourself in your home if you're under attack?”

Tags: Supreme Court, Judges & the Courts | Add new comment

Teen Parents Falling Through the Cracks

Posted by Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students | Posted on: June 11, 2009 at 08:00 pm

by Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel,
National Women’s Law Center

I know, I know – we’re in a recession, the economy is terrible, it’s a tough time for everyone. Still, I try to be hopeful. But then I wake up and see a headline like this one: Program for Teen Parents Dropped: About 100 students in county schools learned skills to help them graduate while caring for their kids.

I’ve heard of this program – it’s called GRADS (Graduation, Reality, and Dual-Role Skills), and the curriculum has been used in a number of states. In the Springfield, Ohio area it serves about 100 students per year – predominantly female, but some are male – and about 25 of them attend the school that is cutting the program. The Ohio Department of Education did a study of the program’s effectiveness, and found that teen parents involved in GRADS are more likely to stay in school, to get early prenatal care, and to increase their knowledge of “positive parenting practices.” They also are less likely to have a second child (critical to dropout prevention) and to deliver low-weight babies. So why was it dropped? Budget cutbacks, of course! It costs $99,000 a year to run the program, and the state reimburses the district for only $33,000 of that. The superintendent explained that the school simply can no longer afford to have the program there. He said that perhaps guidance counselors can work with parenting students instead, and added: “We are looking at if there’s any way at all that the students could be served.” Whoa.

Tags: Education & Title IX | Add new comment