home

=Landmark Education Law Cases, 1800 to Present=

=1800=

Education laws, 1827
Towns with more than 500 families are required to provide public English high schools, most of which in time come to replace their classical counterparts. http://www.mass.gov/portal/government-taxes/laws/interactive-state-house/key-events/education-in-the-1800s.html


 * Although the right to an education is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, it is generally accepted that all children have a right to a free public education. Districts are now required to provide busing for certain students as a way to make public school accessible to all students that live within its boundaries.

School Attendance Law, 1852
Massachusetts is the only state to require school attendance prior to the Civil War. It requires children between ages eight and fourteen to attend three months of school. Towns rarely enforced this rule, but it popularizes the norm of schooling. http://www.mass.gov/portal/government-taxes/laws/interactive-state-house/key-events/education-in-the-1800s.html


 * Now all states require school attendance. Teachers are required to take attendance. Attendance records are maintained and are readily available. These records are used if needed for truancy action or truancy court. It is rare to find a school district that doesn't have an attendance policy and procedures to follow when the requirements of the policy are not met.

Reynolds v. United States, 1878
In this case the question was raised about how a school should respond to a person's desire to practice polygamy. The courts ruled that there has to be a separation of church and state, and therefore the schools have to remain neutral in order to not breach a student's rights to freedom of religion. http://schoollawlandmarkcases.wikispaces.com/Landmark+Cases+in+Education+during+the+1800s


 * Schools must remain neutral in religious aspects in order to not breach freedoms to the students and their families.

Cumming v. Richmond Board of Education, 1899
In this case a group of African American students sued because a school district was charging taxes and only using those taxes to pay for school supplies for white students. They demanded relief stating that there were more black students in the area then white students and that it was not okay for the money to be used for white students only. In the end after several court hearings and decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that "public taxation to support school was a state's right, not a federal jurisdiction". http://schoollawlandmarkcases.wikispaces.com/Landmark+Cases+in+Education+during+the+1800s


 * This case was one of the first to show segregation and was forerunner to the Brown v. Board of Education that followed years after.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923
This case showed that parents preferences are more valid in schools than those of the school sometimes. A family wanted their child taught in German, and although there was a state law prohibiting instruction in a foreign language, the teacher was allowed to do it because of the parent request. http://www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame154-1000/pressrel64.asp


 * Parental preferences are more important than those of the schools.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925
This case ruled that the state cannot require all children to attend public schools if it is against their religion. The state of Oregon had initiated a law that stated that all youth between 8 and 16 were required to attend public schools, but this case ruled that that was unconstitutional and not a requirement in any state. http://www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame154-1000/pressrel64.asp


 * If public school attendance is against a person's religion, then it is unconstitutional to require a student to attend.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940 ((US Supreme Court)
This case clarified the meanings of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment. It helped the states understand what rights the government have to mandate what "constitutional guarantees the people have against state infringement of their religious beliefs". It prohibited the organization of religion in public schools. Nathan Essex (2012). School Law and the Public Schools.


 * Educators must take great care not to promote a specific religion or set of religious beliefs. There are debates and controversy over prayer at school events. Prayer can only be an impromptu (unplanned) part of a program that is executed by students.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 (US Supreme Court)
This case addressed the law stating that the Pledge of Allegiance must be recited daily by both teachers and students at public schools. Several groups of people felt that requiring everyone to do this was breaking the First Amendment constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held this to be so, and it was deemed that the requirement to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional and no longer a legal mandate. http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2010/08/15/10-important-court-cases-that-forever-changed-education/

**Laws mandating the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and break the rights we have under the First Amendment.

Everson v. Board of Education (US Supreme Court)
This case basically addressed the separation of church and state within schools. There were some schools who were seemingly "favoring" certain religions and even providing reimbursements to families who were using public transportation to get students to and from schools. The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the man stating that doing so was "blurring the line between church and state". http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2010/08/15/10-important-court-cases-that-forever-changed-education/


 * This case separated public schools from private schools in a lot of ways. It paved the way for schools to see the major differences and how necessary it was to keep these schools distinct in order to abide the rights that separation of church and state bring to Americans.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, 1954 (US Supreme Court)
“In the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” This unanimous decision marked the beginning of the end for the “Separate But Equal” era that started with Plessy, and the start of a new period of American race relations. With Brown, desegregation of public schools began—as did resistance to it. Ten contentious years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made racial equality a matter of federal law. http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/supremecourt/files/supremecourt_landmarkcases.pdf


 * This case is frequently used as a precedent for passing new laws dealing with civil rights. No student can be denied services based on not only race but religion, citizenship, socioeconomic status, health, or disability. All students deserve the same access to all educational opportunities offered.

Engel v. Vitale, 1962 (US Supreme Court)
Public institutions (i.e., a school system) cannot require prayer. Lawrence Roth, an avowed atheist, objected that the Long Island, New York School System was forcing his two children to recite a 22 word prayer at the beginning of the day. There were actually four other parents involved in the suit against school board president William Vitale, Jr. The Supreme Court ruled that although the prayer was nonsectarian and non-compulsory, “it is no part the business of government to compose official prayers.” Because New York provided the prayer, it indirectly approved religion and that was unconstitutional. http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/supremecourt/files/supremecourt_landmarkcases.pdf


 * This case shows the that even the appearance of promoting a religion can result in violating separation of church and state. It is crucial that educators evaluate how their actions or the promotion of certain activities may be interpreted. It may not matter if that wasn't the intent in allowing certain activities in school. With so many different perspectives and interpretations of both laws and actions it is very difficult to anticipate some issues that may arise. Being familiar with the history of law cases can help with this.

Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 (US Supreme Court)
School dress codes are not in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of expression. The Des Moines public school system made a rule stating that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it on the grounds that the wearing of such would cause a disturbance. If the student refused to comply,the consequence was suspension from school. Three public school students wore black armbands to express their opposition to the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. They refused to remove the armbands and were suspended. The parents of the students argued that the students’ actions were not interfering with the rights of the other students. The case was argued in 1968 and the ruling was “handed down” in 1969. The Court ruled that the wearing of armbands was “closely akin to ‘pure speech’”, and this was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The rule banning armbands lacked the proper justification for enforcement. This ruling eventually had an effect on school dress codes in that the style of clothing one wears indicates an expression of that individual. http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/supremecourt/files/supremecourt_landmarkcases.pdf


 * This case emphasizes the need for educators to be familiar with the dress code policy. They need to be sure they can prove the wearing of certain clothing of "accessories" do cause a disturbance or disrupt the learning of other students. If it doesn't cause enough distraction then the action might be interpreted as infringing on freedom of expression.

PARC vs. Commonwealth 1971,
The state was ordered to “provide all school-aged children with mental retardation…a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive placement,” and found that by denying students this right, they were denying students equal protection, which is promised in the constitution. This case law ensures all students, even those with behavioral problems, are entitled to receive an appropriate education. National Council on Disability website, http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2005/08092005


 * The "least restrictive placement" discussion is a big part of the IEP meeting for students that qualify for Special Education services. Many students that may have assigned to separate Special Ed classes are now mainstreamed into general education classes. I usually prefer that my Special Ed students stay with me. However there have been times that it was determined that a student should stay in my classroom when their level of performance is well below the rest of my class. I have asked for support from the Special Ed department and felt that the message I was being sent was, "It's your problem." I know that their are schools where the Special Education department and general education work well together for all students and find appropriate methods for meeting students' needs and that is the intent of the laws associated with this case.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973 (US Supreme Court)
The Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to education. In 1968, a group of low-income parents sued San Antonio, claiming the city’s wealthy precincts had better schools. The Court upheld the districting plan, saying that the Constitution did not guarantee an education, and upholding this tenet: The Constitution does not compel government to provide services like education or welfare to the people.Rather, it places boundaries on government action. http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/supremecourt/files/supremecourt_landmarkcases.pdf


 * This case is very interesting. Most educators believe that the constitution provides for the right to an education. We operate under this assumption because it is true that education is important, even essential to our form of government, and therefore an assumption that is generally accepted.

Lau v. Nichols 1974
This civil rights case was brought by limited-English proficient Chinese students living in San Francisco. The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English, help which they argued they were entitled to under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of its ban on educational discrimination on the basis of national origin. Finding that the lack of linguistically-appropriate accommodations (e.g., educational services in Chinese) effectively denied the Chinese students equal educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity, the Supreme Court in 1974 ruled in favor of the students, thus expanding the rights of limited English proficient students around the nation. Among other things, Lau reflects the now-widely accepted view that one's language is so closely intertwined with one's national origin (the country someone or her ancestors came from) that language-based discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination. Lau remains an important decision in the areas of civil rights and language rights, and is frequently relied upon as authority in many cases. (The San Francisco Unified School District remains covered by the consent decree that was ultimately entered into in the Lau case, and civil rights groups continue to monitor SFUSD's compliance with that decree.) http://itsacademictutoring.com/index.php/more-info/sdsu/22-sped-651/58-landmark-cases-in-special-education


 * There are several practices that are impacted by this case and several that have some since this one. A lot of time, effort and financial resources are spent training teachers in the effective instruction of English Language Learners. Whether a teacher has an ESL Endorsement or not may be the determining factor for some interview teams hiring new teachers. There are also requirements for who can instruction ELLs, how much additional time must be spent on specific types of instruction and what programs qualify to meet these mandates. Administrators must ensure that they are in compliance with the standards or may find themselves under the scrutiny of the OCR. Some successful programs have been shut down due to the scrutiny of the OCR because they determined that the program did not meet the criteria.

Goss v. Lopez, 1975 (US Supreme Court)
In this case, there was a group of students suspended from school for destruction of property. These students had in fact committed the deed, so this was not why the case was brought to court, however, the students who were suspended were not provided with the proper procedural safeguard rights, which included parental notification, swiftness, and execution of the punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of the students rights according tot he 14th amendment. http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2010/08/15/10-important-court-cases-that-forever-changed-education/


 * This case shows how vitally important it is to follow procedure and ensure that if and when a student requires due process, that their rights are followed through with.

Ingraham v. Wright, 1977 (US Supreme Court)
This case questioned the constitutionality of corporal punishment. The US Supreme court ruled that even severe corporal punishment may not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/landmark-supreme-court-cases.aspx


 * Most educators agree that even if corporal punishment is not prohibited by the Constitution there are more effective ways to teach students about responsible behavior in the school setting. Most states have passed rules against corporal punishment.

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 1982
This landmark decision established the standard for determining the proper interpretation of free, appropriate education. Parents argued that their daughter was not performing lower than where she should be performing because the school failed to provide the deaf child with a qualified sign language interpreter. The court ruled that the IEP was not intended to guarantee a certain level of education but merely to open the door of education to children with disabilities by means of special education services. This case illustrates, no child with disabilities may be excluded from receiving FAPE. Furthermore, no child with disabilities may be required to demonstrate that he of she will benefit from special education as a condition precedent to receiving appropriate services. http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm


 * FAPE continues to be at the heart of debates over what is required of schools in regards to students with disabilities. It has lead to very specific wording of IEPs so that all involved in the student's education understand the expectations and that complying with the IEP is mandated by law.

John Doe and Jane Doe v. Michael Withers, 1983
This case was about a family with a handicapped child whose public school teacher and school officials were refusing to accommodate the IEP with the Taylor County Board of Education. The results of this situation deprived the child of FAPE, denied him the educational testing he required, and humiliated him in front of peers. The decision was made to pay a large amount of compensatory money to make up for these losses. This is a huge case in the education field today. So many students have specific learning and testing needs and it is vital that teachers learn how to treat each child individually and comply with those needs in order to provide the most appropriate education possible for them. http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Doe_Withers_Complaint.html


 * Much more is being done to be sure that all educators involved with providing instruction for a student with an IEP have access to the IEP. There is more collaboration between Special Education and General Education than ever before. This happens to ensure that the goals, accommodations and pertinent information is understood by the IEP team and so that all members can align their work to provide the student with the most coherent path a service possible.

Irving Independent School District v. Amber Tatro, 1984 US Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found that found that a medical treatment, such as clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), is a related service under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and that the school is required to provide it. http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm


 * This is important in special education because the school will have to have the training and an appropriate place. This could require a school nurse to be present as well.

Burlington School Committee, et. al. v. Massachusetts Department of EducatIon, 1985
This case questioned the reimbursement of a family for IEP related services rendered during a pending trial case. The parents of this children paid for tutoring to occur while medical diagnosis were pending, as well as paying for transportation to the school the child was being told to attend as written in his IEP. This case resolved that: "special education and related services which (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge, (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency, (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and (D) are provided in conformity with [an] individualized education program." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18). http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.burlington.htm


 * In other words, if an IEP states that something has to be done, it must be done without charge. This has a huge impact on us today. There are no shortcuts or roundabouts when it comes to IEPs. You do as they say. That's a must.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985 (US Supreme Court)
Two students were caught smoking in the bathroom of a high school in Piscataway Township High School, where it was legal to smoke, but only in certain designated areas of the school. When a girl's purse was searched and evidence of drug use and sell was found, the girl stated that her 4th Amendment right had been violated and that the school did not have a right to have done the search. The Court ruled that this was wrong and that based on the circumstances and the evidence, the school had not violated her rights based on reasonable attempt.

http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2010/08/15/10-important-court-cases-that-forever-changed-education/


 * This case helped educators and those involved in education understand that if a school has a reasonable excuse based on viable evidence for doing a search, it is not a violation of the student's right at all.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 (US Supreme Court)
This case is said to have refined the Tinker test (see Tinker v. Des Moines above). A student gave a speech at school that was filled with sexual innuendos, and was thereafter suspended for his speech. The student stated that this was violation of his right to freedom of speech. Though lower courts sided with the student, the Supreme Court sided with the school stating that freedom of speech loses its freedom when sexually explicit material is being shared. The Supreme Court ruled the school's action constitutional. http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2010/08/15/10-important-court-cases-that-forever-changed-education/


 * Although a student has the right to freedom of speech, there is a limit to the amount of sexually explicit speech that can be shared. A school district has the right to suspend a student if it feels that the student has shared overly explicit speech with other people.

Honig v. Doe, 1988
Children with disabilities may not be excluded from school for misbehavior. Strong decision in school discipline case on behalf of emotionally disturbed children who had academic and social problems. Court clarified procedural issues designed to protect children from school officials, parent role, stay put, that schools shall not expel children for behaviors related to their handicaps. http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm


 * Schools should have a school wide behavior plan in place as well as positive behavior intervention support. Both of these will reduce the likelihood for misbehavior and will hale schools to manage behavior of students with disabilities. Students can be suspended for up to 10 days without consideration to whether the behavior is a manifestation of the disability. After 10 days students must be provided services outlined in their IEP, so a change of placement may be appropriate. In some cases of extreme misbehavior involving weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury, the school can remove the student for up to 45 days.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers. The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/landmark-supreme-court-cases-about-students.aspx


 * With this case come some interesting results. It increases the administration's responsibility to monitor what is published in the school newspaper. It also increases the possibility that students will challenge the censorship of their work. If an administrator chooses to edit the work done by students he better have a good case for the necessity to do so. He would also be wise to meet with the students and possibly the parents of the students prevent misunderstandings as to why he felt it was in the best interest of the school and student body to do so. There is a fine line to walk on the issue of free speech and schools enjoy a more lenient enforcement of this right than do other institutions.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000
In this case there was a lot of commotion about the use of prayer in schools. The ruling was that as long as such activities are student led and voluntary, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. But the stipulation on this case was that the prayer may not be said over the school intercom system. This equipment is owed by the school, therefore it would look like the school is supporting it. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/landmark-supreme-court-cases-about-students.aspx


 * And the debate on this just continues to be more complicated. My teachers have commented that they pray (silently) all day long. It is what gets them through a day filled with so many things that are not what they thought they signed up for -- just teaching and helping students love learning.

Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
In this case the student felt violated when asked to participate in random drug testing as a participant in school sports activities. The court upheld that such practices were okay and constitutional on the part of the school district. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/landmark-supreme-court-cases-about-students.aspx


 * It is important for school personnel instruct students in the procedures for drug testing. It is also important for them to inform students what inadvertent actions could cause them to test positively. This will help students avoid unneeded embarrassment over innocent actions that could lead to a positive drug test but not necessarily because the student is doping to improve performance.

Schaffer v. Weast, 2005, US Supreme Court
Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in a due process hearing that challenges an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief.

Nathan Essex (2012). School Law and the Public Schools.


 * Documentation! It is crucial that schools keep accurate records of services provided, interactions with home conducted, and student response to instruction. With thorough documentation that shows compliance with the mandates of the IEP it will be difficult to prove that the school was negligent. This is one reason that many districts have several non-teaching Sp. Ed. faculty. They need to be sure that someone is ensuring that the work that is being done is in compliance with all of the laws associated with IEPs and IDEA.