Brown vs Board of Education

Friday June 27th

Brown vs Board of Education Topeka 

Supreme Court of the United States  1954

Background

Most schools are currently segregated based on the doctrine of "separate but equal" established by Plessy v Ferguson in 1896. As long as the facilities are equal white children and black children will attend separate schools.  This is an established practice.  In 1954 four states all had similar cases move to the supreme court for judgment in this matter. All claimed that even though the facilities were similar or even equal the level of education in the black schools were inferior to the level of education being given to the white students. The black students should be allowed to attend a school in their district if it offers a better level of education and they should not be turned away because of their color. In all four states ( Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware) black students were denied admission to a local school under laws which require or permitted the segregation of students according to race. 

Note:  The Separate but Equal doctrine developed from the Plessy Vs Ferguson case was in regard to a transportation question.  It was not argued as a case for education. Yet separate but equal was the standard of the day in 1954.

Ruling

The schools in question do in-fact appear to be equal in respect to buildings, curricula, qualification of teachers and other tangle factors.  So the question presented is this: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?  We the court believe it does.  We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" has no place. 

Comment

ALright, lets shake the bucket on this one!!!!

I disagree with the courts ruling

I think they deprived the schools of the natural abilities to develop into quality learning facilities in their own regard.  

I understand the domino effect ... I know there can not be out standing scholars with out basic education programs in place. In 1954 it probably did seem more like an impossible dream than a just a matter of time for many segregated schools to develop into world class teaching facilities.  That does not mean there were not black teachers doing outstanding works. That does not mean that there were not outstanding schools within the segregated communities.  To lump the entire group of american society together and say "Black schools are not as good as White schools" is a real slap in the face to those who strive for academic excellence within there own schools where ever they may be.  I think the separate but equal status of schools was more opinion than reality. I find it had to believe that the segregated schools did in fact get equal facilities, equal pay for teachers, equal budgets from the state and alike. I think the schools were being punished for the color of their students. 

The US was moving in a direction of a much more integrated social structure during the 1950-1960s and integration at all levels of society was going to evolve. The school system would be a natural part of that evolution as was the work place, public transportation and alike. I think a blanket statement from the court that says:"White schools are good/Black schools are bad" is a slap in the face to an entire group of our society.

Rumrunner

Fort Worth Cohort

San Antonio V. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of the United States, 1973
411 U.S. 1,93 S. Ct. 1278, rehearing denied

Background:
In San Antonio, TX a group of Mexican American parents whose children attended Edgewood Independent School District, an urban school district on the west side of San Antonio, filed a suit against attacking the poorly structure public school financing process in Texas. Their complaint was that schoolchildren across the state who were of a minority class or who were poor and reside in school districts having a low property tax base did not have access to an education equal to that of children in districts with high property tax rates.

Ruling

The high court ruled that children in a district with a low property tax rate cannot be considered a suspect class. They were not being discriminated against according to the Supreme Court because poor families do not all reside in poor school districts. Therefore because no suspect class was recognized there was no need to apply strict scrutiny. The court also ruled that contrary to parent's assertion that education was a fundamental right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, education is not listed anywhere, explicitly or implicitly as a Constitutional right. The court believed this to be an issue best handled by the State of Texas. Thus, the court reversed the ruling of the appeals court.

My Side:
I completely agree with the court in that there was no suspect class here because funding for education is based on property tax bases within districts which fall across class and race. Poor families live in rich districts, middle class districts and poor districts. I also agree with the courts that the system must be fixed to equitably share the responsibility of educating the children of Texas. The court also said that they are in no position to rule on something that is reserved for the Texas State Legislature. They send this back to the state to fix which set in motion a myriad of school finance cases which developed several solutions only to end up with a future shortfall in excess of $9 billion in 2009.

Something will have to be done. Either a state income tax will be passed or the Texas State Constitution will have to be amended to permit statewide ad velorem taxes to be paid to the state and then redistributed on a per pupil basis statewide in order for all districts, rich or poor, to begin down road to educational equality.

This case would fall under Domain 1.2 because of the social, political and economic implications affecting public education in Texas.

Lemon v.Kurtzman
US Supreme Court, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

The states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had actions brought against them by citizens and taxpayers of the states. The appellees clamed the states statutes for supplementing secular nonpublic schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both states had adopted statutory programs that would provide financial support to nonpublic elementary and secondary school.

Pennsylvania’s statute would reimburse schools for moneys spent on books, teacher salaries, and instructional materials. These funds could only be used for classes, teachers and materials that were “presented in the curricula of the public schools.” It was limited “solely” to courses in the following “secular” subjects: mathematics, modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical education. The schools seeking aid had to keep separate financial books on moneys spent. This act went into effect on July, 1968

Under the Rhode Island statute, the state would pay directly to the teachers in nonpublic schools a supplement not more than 15% of their salary and no more than that of a public school teacher’s yearly pay. To be eligible for the supplement the teacher must teach in a nonpublic school that has a less than average per-pupil expenditure of the public school. The teacher must only teach the subjects that were taught in the public school, nothing religious. This act was enacted in 1969.

The court in this case developed a three-step test for laws dealing with religion, The Lemon Test. In this three-step process the courts look at the states statutes: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion. The Supreme Court found that the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes passed the first two questions but not the third. They determined that to aid the nonpublic religious school furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the surveillance necessary to enforce the laws of the statues would cause entanglement of the states and the religious affiliations. With this the court found that the statues did in-fact violate the First Amendment.

I believe the Supreme Court did file correctly in this case. They also set precedence to use in later court cases that had religious relations. I understand and applaud the states for their actions. They believed they took all precautions to help aid in education of students both at public and private schools. However, these were still private-religious schools, and their foundations are instilled throughout the buildings and grounds on which they set. For the state to say they would have no dealings with the religious portion of the schools is very juvenile thinking on their part.

I believe this case falls under Domain 1 which is to respond to pertinent political, social, and economic issues in the internal and external environment. These case forces me to think about the statutes and laws we produce whether be at a state level or at a campus level. Even though the law is to protect or support for positive outcome, there may be others they are offended by the act.

jagem

Morse v. Frederick

At a school sponsored event, the principal saw students holding a banner that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus", which she thought promoted illegal drug use. Morse (the principal) directed the student to take it down, and he refused. Morse took the banner away and suspended the student. Superintendent agreed, as did the school board. Frederick (the student) filed suit alleging the school board and Morse violated his first amendment rights. The district court sided with the principal, but the decision was later overturned by the 9th Circuit Court. They held that the school punished Frederick without proving that his speech was truly disruptive. They also stated that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick's rights to display the banner were established, and that Morse should have known that what she was doing was unconstitutional.

Supreme court overturned the ruling and held that schools must take care to safeguard students from speech with encourages illegal drug use, and that school officials did not violate Frederick's first amendment. They stated that Frederick was in fact "at school" and that a principal may restrict student speech at school events that can be reasonably viewed as promoting drug use.

I completely agree with the actions of the principal, and if I had been in the same situation as the principal, I would have acted in the same manner. I am thankful that the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Circuit Court because it would have been a devastating blow to a principal's power in a school had they not. It will be our duty as principals to do what we think is the best for ALL students, even it it means one student doesn't get to say everything he or she wants to say. If this one student had gotten away with it, where would the next banner have said?? With the responsibility of principal must come some liberty to stop behaviors that are not conducive to a safe learning enviornment.

Posted by Kiska

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

This case deals with first amendment rights in regards to student articles in a school newspaper. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier several former students filed suit agains the school district and school officials claiming that their first amendment freedoms had been violated when the principal had removed several pages from a paper that was set to be printed. One of the stories to be omitted contained information regarding teen pregnancy as well as sexual activity and birthcontrol that he deemed innappropriate for some high school students. He also objected to another article about a student that complained about her parents' behavior during a divorce, the parents had not been given the opportunity to comment on what was said or do object to its publication. Due to the content of these articles and the fact that the principal didn't believe that there was time to make the needed changes and have the paper printed by the end of the year the pages containing the articles were removed.

The district court found that there was no violation of the First Amendment, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision and the Supreme Court finally upheld the right of high school administrators to censor certain things. It was determined that a different standard/test could be used when the forum was a school-sponsored activity, ie. school newspaper rather than a public forum such as in Tinker v. Des Moines. It was also determined that if there was a "reasonable educational justification" that the censorship would hold.

I agree with the decision of The Supreme Court. Ultimately, in education, we want to provide students with the tools necessary to become productive citizens with strong values and an ability to modify and adjust when necessary. We also must create and environment where students are safe from issues that they may not yet be ready to deal with. Finally, schools also need to be able to teach students what it means to be responsible members of society. By simply allowing students to publish whatever they want without teaching them to censor their own words we are failing to do part of our job.

I feel that this case falls under Domain 1.3, model and promote the highest standard of conduct, ethical principles, and integrity in decision-making, actions, and behaviors. Whether it be regarding other students, members of the faculty, parents, community members, etc. the choices that students in our schools make reflect on the entire school community. I think that as educators and administrators we have to ensure that we take into consideration the rights of everyone that might be affected when making any decision.

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. School Dist. (1969)

This case dealt with the denial of freedom of expression (speech) which is protected by the First Amendment.

Students, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. When school officials learned of their plan, they implemented a policy stating that anyone who wore the black armbands to school would be suspended until they returned to school without the armbands.

The students wore the black armbands to school and were suspended on the assumption of school officials that the armbands would cause disruption and disorder. The students were allowed to return to school after New Year’s Day when the period for wearing the armbands had expired.

The court ruled that this expulsion was a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech or expression. They stated that the wearing of the black armbands was “closely akin to “pure speech””. They also concluded that the school’s action was based on their fear of what might happen (disruption and disorder) rather than what really did happen.

I completely agree with the court’s decision in this case. The First Amendment clearly states our right to free speech and freedom of expression. As a future administrator, I understand the concern for possible disruption and disorder, but the key word there is possible. We cannot assume what will happen. We all know what happens when we assume things. We can only deal with the disruptions when they happen.

blogged by Tiffany

Irving ISD v. Tatro (1984)

In this case, parents of a little girl, Amber, are requesting that she receive some special services at school. Without these special services Amber would not be able to attend school. The parents are contesting that the Education of the Handicapped Act or the Rehabilitation Act or 1973 should provide these special services.
Amber is an eight-year-old girl who has spina bifida, which has left her with an orthopedic and speech impairment and a neurogenic bladder. Thus, she needs someone to catheterize her every three to four hours so that it does not damage her kidneys. The training for this procedure is less than an hour long and can be administered by anyone with the appropriate training. Both parents and her brother are trained to perform this catherization. Amber is not quite able to perform this procedure yet, but she will in the near future. The school has been giving her special education services, such as physical and occupational therapy. Amber's parents believe that the special servies should also include the catherization. However, the school district does not feel that this procedure falls under their umbrella.
The court looked at several aspects in making their decisions for this case. The court first had to look at the definition of "special education" and "related services". Amber's case was one of special education based on her needs. Looking at the related services definition, the court determined that Amber would not be able to attend school if this procedure was not performed. This clearly makes this a supportive service. Also, the court examined on whether this procedure would cost the district an extensive amount of money to perform. The training for this procedure only took less than an hour, and anyone is able to provide this service. Based on this evaluation of the definitions of special education and related services, the school ditrict needs to provide this service to Amber.
I agree with the court's decision. Amber has every right to be educated as a person even if she has some handicap. Handicaps should not deter the education system from providing them with the opportunities of a free and public education. Many great people in history were handicapped. For example, Helen Keller and Beethoven were both handicapped, but they both contributed to the greater society. This little girl should have the opportunity to a quality education.

Domain 1.3: Apply legal guidelines (e.g. in relation to students with disabilities, bilingual education, confidentially, discrimination) to protect the rights of students and staff and to improve learning opportunities. I will be able to apply this domain to my school by ensuring that all students are given an appropriate education. If some students need special services, then my duty is to help decide, with others, what services are specifically needed to give the student the best education possible.

Domain 3.9: Apply local, state, and federal laws and policies to support sound decision-making related to school programs and operations (e.g. student services, food services, health services, transportation). I will be able to apply this domain by referencing the laws involved in the health services. I need to make sure that I provide all the services available to those students who are in need of them.

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

This case deals with California's School Systems failing to provide English-Language instruction to over 1,800 Chinese-speaking children. The class suit was brought by these non-English speaking Chinese students against the operating officials of the San Francisco Unified School District. The students alleged that the schools had unequal educational opportunities, and this violated the 14th Amendment.
The California Education Code states that "English shall be the basic instruction in all schools", and states the school district "may" give instruction bilingually. The problem is that Chinese students are taken out of the educational curriculum until they can master the English language. The students in this case rest their case on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race color, or national origin,". The school district got into deeper trouble because their federal funds depended on compliance with this statute. HEW is responsible for making sure that funded schools make affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiencies. The Respondent school district agreed to comply with the regulations.
I agree with the courts decision for schools to comply with providing a bilingual education. If the Chinese students didn't know English and all instruction was in English, then they will never learn the curriculum the schools require in order to graduate. In turn, these students become a "suspect class" due to their national origin, and they were not receiving an equal education. This is very important to me as a future educator with changing demographics of Texas. This is very similar to the Hispanic students that do not know English when they enter our school systems. It is our duty to make sure that they receive the best education possible.

Domain 1.3): Apply legal guidelines (e.g. in relation to students with disabilities, bilingual education, confidentiality, discrimination) to protect the rights of students and staff and to improve learning opportunities.

sucram54

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education

~Belle~

In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation violates the 14th Amendment. But because of the housing patterns, many schools remained segregated.
The NAACP on behalf of the Swann Family and their 6 year old son sued the Charlotte School District. They wanted their son to attend a school in their neighborhood that was one of the few integrated schools in Charlotte. James McMillian, the federal district judge in the case ruled on behalf of the Swanns and oversaw the implementation of a bussing strategy the integrated schools in the district. This decision was appealed and the Supreme Court upheld it.
Busing, that’s what it’s all about. The Swann decision meant that segregated districts needed to balance their district racially, even if it required cross-town busing to do so. In theory, this sounds great and a noble idea. But, let’s think about it. Back in the 70’s most city neighborhoods were “self-segregated”. Not just Black and White. We had Irish, Jewish, Puerto Rican…. So, that meant kids were put on busses no matter what the ethnicity and were being bussed across town, sometimes riding for an hour or more, in order to create racially balanced schools. Is this really in the best interest of the child? Probably in the south and in small communities it did not have the same effect.
Times are different now and neighborhoods are more diverse so I do not see this being such a big issue. In the context of the 70’s I would have to disagree with the court. I think another remedy could have been found.
The student learning outcome that this would apply to is: Domain 1.3- Apply legal guidelines (e.g. in relations to students with disabilities, bilingual ed., confidentiality and discrimination to protect the rights of students and staff to improve learning opportunities.

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka

Supreme Court
Decided: May 17, 1954

In this case, the plaintiffs are arguing that by denying minors of the African American race admission to schools attended by white children they are being deprived of the equal protection laws of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that segregated public schools were not equal and could not be made equal.

The plaintiffs were African American children of elementary age living in Topeka, Kansas. At that time, there was a Kansas statute permitting, but not requiring, cities with a population of at least 15,000 to have separate schools for African American and white children. Under that statute, the Topeka Board of Education decided to have segregated elementary schools. The District Court found that segregated education was detrimental to the African American children but allowed it because of Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal.

The court first looked at history and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendement. It was decided there was not enough information there to base their decision on. They also felt like the history of the Fourteenth Amendment did not aid them in making this decision due to the radically different state of public education at that time. They then looked at history in reference to Plessy v. Ferguson. This is the "separate but equal" ruling; however, it was noted that it originally applied to transportation. There had been some education cases involving Plessy v. Ferguson but none that had involved a question similar to that in Brown v. Board of Education. In one case, the courts had even questioned whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held applicable to education. The court instead decided to examine the effects of segregation on public education. They felt that separating the children would leave them with a sense of inferiority and would in turn affect their motivation to learn. They also concluded "separate but equal" should not be applied to public education.

I agree with the court here. At one point, the court stated that education is one of the government's most important functions and some goals of that education are to provide foundations of good citizenship, cultural values, and produce a person who can adjust to their environment. Segregation silently says that one group of human beings is better than another, is not accepting of others' culture, and does not mimick the environment of society after education. It can then be conluded that segregation prevents the government from fulfilling one of its most important duties and denies a group of people their rights afforded to them under the Fourteenth Amendment.

I would say this falls under Domain 1.3, model and promote the highest standard of conduct, ethical principles, and integrity in decision-making, actions, and behaviors. Also in Domain 1.3, apply legal guidelines to protect the rights of students and staff and to improve learning opportunities. I think we as administrators and educators have to do everything we can to ensure all students receive a quality education. Even though this particular case dealt with one race, it is our duty to ensure that no student is treated with prejudice whether it be because of race, religion, or any other reason.

Hunt74

Kitzmiller v Dover

Okay, I have been kicked-off twice now. This is my third attempt at posting. Here goes. Pray for me.

The case is about whether or not "intelligent design" now known as "ID Policy" should be taught in the public school system as part of the science curriculum.

In order for there to be further examiniation of the case, the courts had to determine if the premise of "ID" was a science or not. The judge found that intelligent design is a religious, non-scientific proposition. Since it was found to be a religous concept because of its historical roots, the judge applied the Lemon Test. Also, the school board put in writing to the teachers that a statement had to be read to the students that said the scientific theory of evolution was just a theory, not a fact, and presented "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory as evolution.

Intelligent design is creationism. Creationism is linked to religion. This is endoctrinated in the Christian community. How can you not say intelligent design is religion? If intelligent design had be viewed as a science, this case would have been dismissed. Imagine there being no defense for this.

In applying the Lemon Test: A. does it have a secular purpose. (No) B. Is its primary effect is not to advance religion. (it does) C. the state must not foster excessive government entanglement with regard to religion (it does because of the statement by the school board) D. Endorsement government endorses religion when a reasonable person would view the government action as disapproval of religious choice. (it does) E. Coercion occurs when the government directs formal religous exercise...(it does because of the school board creating a statement)

This case meets the criteria set out in the Lemon Test. The judge had no choice but to rule that "intelligent design is religous, non-scientific proposition, and that teaching intelligent desing in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." I agree with the decision of the judge because it did meet the criteria of the Lemon Test.


I believe this falls under the category of Domain 1.2. I think the community(external environment)felt compelled to address the social issue at the time.I think they had a direction in mind for the school, but just didn't know how to deal with such a controversial concept. I also don't think they believed it would explode into the magnitue it did which would lead into Domain 1.3 about as a supervisor making good decisons. Had the school board had a better leader/supervisor, maybe things could have been handled more effectively at the local level. One thing I did notice in the reading is that the idea of separation of church and state was used as another aspect of the case, but it didn't go too far because of the Lemon Test and the decision as to whether "ID" is a science.

As an afterthought, doesn't this validate creationism. Shouldn't the Christian community be proud because now it has been recognized by the courts as religious? Doesn't this put creationism on the map? So, what's going to happen in the future?

Trout Fish

Goss v. Lopez

Goss V. Lopez; Supreme Court of the United Staes, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729.

In Goss v. Lopez, the Columbus, Ohio Public School System was trying to get the supreme Court to overturn a decision made in a federal court that declared some students in the school system were denied due process when they were suspended temporarliy without a hearing before the suspension or within a reasonable amount of time after the suspension took place. The federal court ordered that the administrators had to remove the references to the suspensions from the students' files.

In the original federal court, nine students claimed that they had been suspended from a public high school for up to ten days without a hearing. They had been suspended from their various schools for "disruptive or disobediant conduct committed in the presence of an administrator." None of the students were given a hearing to discuss the facts of the situation, but were allowed to attend a conference after the suspension to discuss their future at their schools. The federal court declared that the students were denied due process provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.

When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled in the same manner, and did not overturn the federal court's decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the students were denied due process because they were not given a hearing prior to the suspension or within a reasonable time frame. The Supreme Court did clarify that their ruling only applied to short-term suspensions of 10 days or less and that the Due Process clause did not protect students from suspensions that were properly imposed.

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Students must be given the right to due process when they are percieved to be acting in a manner that is worthy of a suspension. Too many times disciplinary actions are taken based on the emotion of the moment, rather than the facts of what is actually occuring or what has just taken place. This can also lead to one-sided versions of the events that occured. By allowing a hearing, either before the suspension is handed down or within a couple of days of the suspension beginning, it will allow for all parties involved (including both school staff and students) to calm down and rationally think about what has happened. By holding a hearing, it will also allow for a discussion about whether or not the offense merits a suspension and how long the suspension will be.

blogged by: cdedad

Abington School District v. Schempp

Abington School District v. Schempp
Supreme Court of the United States, 1963. 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560
In the case, Abington School District v. Schempp, the issue addressed was one of whether or not the school requiring bible reading and prayer at the beginning of each school day was in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States in 1963 said that it was. There was a precedent set by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Dec. 17, 1959) that said, “Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian.” The Schempps argued that this was a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights under the constitution. The courts said, “Nor are these required exercises mitigated by the fact that individual students may absent themselves upon parental request, for that fact furnishes no defense to a claim of unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause….”
Due to the Constitution, I must agree with the court in both instances. This looked to me like it was a blatant attempt to establish, condone, and practice a particular religion over another by teachers employed by the school.
On the converse side of that, I took a Philosophy of Religion class in undergrad which used the Bible in relation to literature, as a reference to history, and a back drop for civilization. So I believe, in that context along with the education of other religions as they pertain to the existence of man is beneficial to the learning experience of children.
I would use Domain 1.3 based upon the application of legal guidelines used to protect the rights of students and staff and to improve learning opportunities.

APA1906

Doe v. Taylor ISD

In the case of Doe v. Taylor ISD I feel the primary issue was the claim of immunity by Eddy Lankford and Mike Caplinger. In this case Jane Doe was being sexually molested by a teacher in the High School. It seems Lankford, who was principal, had heard the complaints of misconduct by the teacher and for whatever reason did not follow up on the complaints. Caplinger, who at the time was Superintindent, had not been working at Taylor ISD for very long addressed the situation as soon as he heard of it.

The district court denied immunity to both defendants, however the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the immunity ruling for Caplinger because the action started before he was hired. Lankford was found to be negligent in his supervisory duties.

I think the case definitely has compelling interest because of the individual rights of a teacher involved in sexual misconduct. I think the rights of the student were violated by the teacher and the principal.

I agree with the decision of the court. Based on the fact the principal took no action when he knew the misconduct was happening. Since the Superintendent was new and did not know what was going on he should not have been punished.

I would say this will fall into Domain 1.3 based on conduct, ethical principals,and procedures of an educator in compliance to The Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators.

SHOOTER

Pierce v Society of Sisters

The Oregon ordered that all normal children between the age of eight and eighteen comply with compulsory attendance to attend public schools or be charged with a misdemeanor. This interfered with the business of private schools.

The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional. I agree with the courts decision. The question was does private school count as an equivalent instruction to public education. The court didn't agree or disagree with that question. Instead addressed that this law interferred with the business's customers which is denying corporations of liberty, the Fourteenth Amendment. The school at hand was private and for profit business, and lost customers.

This case happened in 1925. Today, this cae would still hold true because this case before the Supreme Court would still hender the Fourteenth Amendment of denying customers to a business.

Although the court didn't answer the question public v private, the court stayed neutral and not addressing the religious issues. It did however didn't deny parents the right to public v private.


Blogged by: guilo10

State of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

posted by ironman25


James Yoder and William Miller who were members of the Old Order Amish religion and respondent Adin Yutzy is member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church. They and their families line in Green County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law requires they send their children to school until the age of sixteen. The respondents refuse to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade. The school district filled on the families for not enrolling their children in school. The families were charged, tried, and convicted for violating compulsory school attendance and received a fine of five dollars each, the families refuted the charges saying their first and fourteenth
Amendment rights were violated.

The history of the Amish was given and how their lifestyle has been constant dating back to the sixteenth century. Stating that their lifestyle requires a life in a church community which is separate and apart from the world and worldly influence. The Amish also believe that a formal high school education beyond the eighth grade is contrary to their beliefs. However, they do believe in a basic elementary education through the eighth grade, but beyond that the Amish feel that an agrarian education in their religious community is the best education for their children. They believe that this type of education is most beneficial for their children, which is apart from the pressure of competition and pressures to conform to worldly attitudes which contradict Amish beliefs.

The decision of the court was in favor of Yoder due to they were able to prove their lifestyle has been a constant throughout history. Their religious beliefs and their mode of lifestyle are inseparable and interdependent. The state also shows the Amish community has been a successful social unit within our society even if apart from the conventional mainstream. The court further explains that a brief additional period of education is necessary for the Amish to participate in the democratic process, but their alternative form of education has enabled them to function effectively in our society.

The decision of the court I believe is just based on the fact that the decision was based on vast history of the Amish religion and their religious views about the education of their children, proving that they can be a functional unit of society with only attending public schools through the eighth grade and further educating their children in their religious based school for the secondary education of their children. The court parallels their lifestyle and religious beliefs for educating their children as a church based school.

Learner Outcomes

Respond to pertinent political, social, and economic issues in the internal and external environment (domain 1.2)

Apply knowledge of ethical issues affecting education (domain 1.3)