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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
posted by cdedad:
I agree with the court ruling that the compulsory education law violated the due process clause. The decision states that parents had the choice to send their children to a private school, rather than a public school. If parents were denied the option of sending their children to the school of their choosing, it would violate due process.
Guilo10 agrees with the court decision also, but I had a little trouble following the arguement. I thought that the question of the case revolved more around whether the compulsory attendance law violated parents' choice to send their children to whichever school they chose and the ability of businesses to run the private schools. I didn't see anything regarding the court or the plaintiff trying to justify that a private education was the equivalent of a public education.
School choice is still a big deal. There are many discussions about vouchers for students to use for private school if their parents cannot afford the tuition. Charter schools are growing in popularity among parents and students who are looking for other alternatives. By ruling the compulsory attendance law unconstitutional, the court allowed students to have more options for their schooling.
509 law
Tarleton cohort group 14
Fort worth
(Rumrunner)
The original amendment to the state constitution of Oregon did directly address the free compulsory education through public school concept by listing those schools who comply with "State Recognized school" status. In other words " Here is where you can attend school up to the 8th grade." This included State recognized Private schools, Home Schools and an exemption for those living too far from a public school to attend, they could go to private schools or home school as they choose. 4 years after the amendment was passed, a referendum removed the term "Private school"
That leaves public school or Home School.
The 14th amendment was passed to provide due process under the law and equal protection under the constitution to people of color following the civil war. How do we "Stretch that to cover school policy" ????? The private schools felt they did not get due process when the state of Oregon referendumed them right out of business!!!
They grabbed the 14th amendment because they had contracts with the parents which were violated and there-fore a legal peg to grab onto.
Competition in business improves all competitors. Having a choice of schools is in the best interest of the student. The more options the better we can cover the basic differences in students needs on multiple levels. Lets put the students in the best possible place to give them the best possible learning experience.... Naaaaa....That will never work.
by: kido5150
I agree with RUMRUNNER that a choice of school, public or private, is in the best interest of all children involved.
Alternatives schools: private, Christian-based, charter and home-schools, are becoming more and more popular for many different reasons. Some for classroom size, less testing requirements, different student body demographics, etc. People like to have options and choices.
Bottom Line: The Oregon Courts took away those choices and thereby violated the rights of parents and children by forcing the children to attend only public schools.
posted by doglover
I must be honest that this case was difficult for me to dissect and I have read several sources. Below is my interpretation.
I think that there are two questions to be answered here. Does the compulsory attendence law violate the right of parents and does this law violate the rights of private schools to own and operate a business?
Oregon attempted to monoplize public schools and this interfered with the business of private schools. Society of Sisters was afraid that if the statute passed it would interfere with thier profitabilty therefore filing suit against the governor of Oregon stating that this would deprive them of thier right to operate a business and that it violated the right of the parent to choose the path in which their child is educated.
I agree with guilo10 that the court did rule this a unconstitutional. However,I think they ruled it unconstitutional on the basis that it violated parents rights based on the 14th amendment, and it violated the rights of Society of Sisters right to own and operate a business.
I do believe that the findings of this court case would still be upheld today, although choice of schools are still a huge issue today. As cededad mentioned there are many alternatives to public education today and this still tend to be a hot button with public schools.
I agree with the blogger in the decision of the court in regards to the Society of Sisters. Denying them the opportunity to offer a private education as an alternative to a public education is in direct conflict of the 14th amendment's due process clause.
The state was keeping the school from acquiring new and existing students which deprived them of property (customers and commerce) and due process.
As an administrator I will honor the parent's right to chose how their child is educated.
posted by: jagem
In the court decision of "Pierce V Society of Sisters, I agree with the posting of Guilo 10. I believe this case outcome dealt with the fact that government did not want interfere with forcing students to attend public school over a private or religious school.
I aslo agree with the findings of the court. The courtdid not want to answer for or against private vs public schools. It instead used the 14th admendmant to overturn Organ's Compulsory Act. However strong my feelings are for or against private school vs. public school, I believe it is in the best interest of the parents to choose the correct educational venues for their children. It is part of the foundations of this country.
In becoming a school administrator I must always remember that my educational view, religious beliefs, and opions my not be the same as the parents of my school. All students have the right to a equal education.
posted by 1995frog
Of course The Court is correct in determining that the state of Oregon was violating the Due Process clause of the 14 Amendment. By insisting that parents/guardians send their children to public schools, Oregon was clearly depriving parents/guardians of their interests. Children are not owned by the state nor does the state have the right to dictate such matters. Part of a parent's job is to make decisions regarding their child's education. A parent has, in most cases, a much better idea of what their child needs. Taking away the right to make basic decisions such as where to send you child obtains an education is like the state saying, "we're sorry, but we have a better understanding of what's best for your children than you do."
On another note, the 14th Amendment does indeed cover education. Although it was ratified following the Civil War, it was not inteded to merely cover "people of color." The 14th Amendment applies to ALL CITIZENS. Eliminating a parent's choice regarding their child's education without "due process" is rightfully covered as well.
posted by: jagem
In the court decision of "Pierce V Society of Sisters, I agree with the posting of Guilo 10. I believe this case outcome dealt with the fact that government did not want interfere with forcing students to attend public school over a private or religious school.
I also agree with the findings of the court. The court did not want to answer for or against private vs public schools. It instead used the 14th amendment to overturn Organ's Compulsory Act. However strong my feelings are for or against private school vs. public school, I believe it is in the best interest of the parents to choose the correct educational venues for their children. It is part of the foundations of this country.
In becoming a school administrator I must always remember that my educational view, religious beliefs, and options my not be the same as the parents of my school. All students have the right to a equal education.
posted by kiska:
I agree that the court did the right thing in this case. I absolutely think that all parents have the right to decide where their children will be educated. By allowing this competition, it should ideally encourage all schools to improve. Unfortunately, many children today are virtually forced to attend sub-par neighborhood schools due to lack of transportation, tuition resources, etc. It shouldn't take the risk of losing students to private, home, or charter schools to nudge our public schools into becoming better. It does sometimes seem that the only reason public school proponents scream and yell about ideas such as the voucher system is that they are afraid of losing the funds that come with the students rather than the students themselves. Though I am privately educated, I clearly believe in public education. I think if the focus always remained on providing the best education possible to our students, perhaps we would have more parents actually choosing public over private or other options.
Post a Comment