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
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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
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
Monday, June 16, 2008
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
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
Friday, June 13, 2008
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
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
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)