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.