Search

Front 1

New Jersey v. TLO

Back 1

- Court came up with a test, “reasonableness”
o Determines if the search was reasonable in relation to the scope of the circumstances.
- Two Part test
o One: Search will be reasonable if at its exception based on the totality of the circumstances there is reasonable suspicion to believe the student has violated school rules or the law.
o Two: The area searched must be reasonable in terms of what you’re looking for.
- Reasonable suspicion has to be contrasted with probable cause.
- Factors
o Underlying facts
o Source of information
o Sex and gender of students involved (Strip Search)
-Probably around a dozen searches that involve strip searches in casebook.

Front 2

Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures

Back 2

- Searches of Students and their property
o Two prong test developed in T.L.O.
• Whether the action was justified at its inception
• Whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.
o Supreme Court reiterated…
• Search is justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.

Front 3

Safford Unified School District v. Redding

Back 3

- Strip search case, was held because there was no prior rulings. Established a test that…
o "rule of reasonableness" as defined in T. L. O.
o Went into the students underwear. This was unreasonable.
o Has to be within confines of what is suspected.
o 4th amendment issue

Front 4

Vernonia School District v. Acton

Back 4

- An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.
- Issue: Did random drug testing on HS athletes violate their 4th amendment reasonable search and seizure clause?
- Holding: No, reasonableness is judged by “Balancing the intrusion on the individuals fourth amendment interests against the promotion of a legitimate government interest.” Public restrooms and limited authorities.

Front 5

Pottawatomie v. Earls

Back 5

- Drug testing required all middle and high school students to consent to urine examined drug testing.
- Two parents brought suit.
- Issue: Does the student drug testing violate the 4th amendment.
- Holding: No. Since the drug testing serves the schools important interest in detecting and preventing drug use, it’s constitutional.
o If the testing furthers the interest.

Front 6

Teacher-Student Harassment

Back 6

- In student harassment cases, they sue under Title IX
- When teachers are filing, they file under Title VII

Front 7

Franklin v. Gwinnette County Pub. School (963)

Back 7

- Franklin filed suit alleging that she had been subject to continual sexual harassment.
o Filed under Title IX
o Hill then resigned pending that all suits be dropped against him
- Holding: Title IX is enforceable throughout an implied right of action.

Front 8

Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (968)

Back 8

- Alida had a sexual affair with one of her teachers.
o Lago, the school, had no official procedure for reporting sexual harassment.
- After they were discovered having sex, the teacher, Gebser, was fired.
o Alida then brought suit against the school for discrimination under Title IX.
- Issue: Can Title IX be used to sue a school for damages in a sexual harassment case by a student involved in a secret relationship with a member or staff.
- Holding: No. two part test must be met
o First: The party must show that a school district official, with the ability to institute corrective measures, knew about the forbidden conduct.
o Second: despite knowledge of wrong doing, must have deliberately failed to respond properly.

Front 9

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (975)

Back 9

- Parent sued for daughter alleging that school failed to prevent her from suffering from sexual harassment from another student.
- Alleged that schools complacency deprived her daughter of educational benefits promised under the Title IX benefits.
- Issue: Can a school be held liable under Title IX for “student-to-student” harassment?
- Holding: Yes, there was an implied private right to education under Title IX, rivate damage actions may lie against schools that act with deliberate indifference to harassment that is severe enough to prevent victim from enjoying educational opportunities.

Front 10

Tinker v. Des Moines

Back 10

- Tinker and his family wore black arm bands on their sleeves during school.
- School officials deemed that this would have disruptive.
- Of the 18,000 students in the school, only 5 were suspended.
o Involves direct first amendment speech on “pure speech”
- Must “ materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operations of the school”

Front 11

Guzick v. Drebus

Back 11

- School suspended a student for refusing to remove an anti-war button. The school had in place a rule prohibiting the wearing of any type of button, irrespective of what the button said/advocated. The court upheld the suspension.
- Very general rule, didn’t prohibit anti-war demonstrations, just prevented the wearing of buttons of any kind.
- He could have protested another way
- Suspension upheld.

Front 12

Bethel School District v. Fraser

Back 12

- In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.
- Use TINKER Conduct which interferes with school activities, “obscene and profane language”
o In Tinker, armband was quiet, passive display
o Here, there is a captive audience.
- S.C. agreed, said that the first amendment does not protect lewd and vulgar speech.

Front 13

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Back 13

- The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students.
- In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue.
- Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.
- In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech.
- The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'"
- Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were
o "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The actions of principal Reynolds, the Court held, met this test

Front 14

Morse v. Frederick

Back 14

- At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days.
- She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs.
- Because Frederick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance, the Circuit Court ruled, the punishment was unconstitutional.
o Question
• 1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?
• 2) Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event?
- HOLDING: 1. Yes and 2. not reached. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.
- Tinker not always applied.

Front 15

Kowalski v. Berkely County Schools

Back 15

- Facts:
o Kara Kowalski created a Myspace webpage called S.A.S.H., acronym for “Students Against Shay’s Herpes”. Kara then invited 100 people to join the page. Numerous students commented and posted pictures. Kara, realizing that she could not delete the page, eventually renamed the page “Students against angry people”.
o Shay’s parents went to the school the next day with print outs of the S.A.S.H. page and filed harassment complaints. Shay did not attend classes that day.
o School reasoned that she was “intimidating, bullying, and harassing” and she was suspended for 10 days from school, and 90 days from “Social events” of the school that she was not a direct participant.
- Issue:
o (1) Whether the First Amendment permits a public school to discipline a student for speech that occurs off-campus and not at a school-sponsored event, and that is not directed at the school; and
o (2) whether off-campus student speech not directed at the school satisfies the “material and substantial disruption” test articulated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District merely because a single student missed one day of school and because school officials speculated that the off-campus speech might lead to “copycat” behavior on school grounds.
- Holding:
o Upheld.

Front 16

Layshock v. Hermitage (1049)

Back 16

- In early 2006, the ACLU filed suit against Hermitage School District (Mercer Co.) for suspending Hickory High School senior Justin Layshock because he created an online parody of his principal.
- In addition to a 10-day, out-of-school suspension, the administration ordered him to finish high school in the Alternative Education Program and forbid him from attending his own graduation in the spring.
- The school eventually permitted Justin to attend his regular classes, and he graduated in Spring 2006.
- July 10, 2007 a Federal judge ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional.
- February 10, 2010, a three-panel judge ruled that the school had violated Justin’s 1st Amendment rights.
- Full Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument, ruled in favor of Justin.
- SCOTUS declined to hear.

Front 17

Gong Lum v. Rice

Back 17

- Nine year old Chinese American was prohibited from attending rosedale high school solely because she was Chinese.
- Gong brought suit under the 14th amendment.
- Issue: Is restricting race for attendance violating the 14th amendment.
- Holding: No, this did not violate the 14th amendment, the court held that since there were other schools available for the student. Lum could have attended a colored school.

Front 18

Sweatt v. Painter

Back 18

- Herman Sweatt applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School.
- State Law restricted access to only whites
- When Sweatt tried to go to court, the university attempted to give him separate but equal opportunity.
- Did this violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
- Unanimous Yes, grossly unequal. Mere separation from law students harmed students abilities to compete in legal arena.

Front 19

McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Reagents

Back 19

- George McLaurin, who already had a Masters Degree in Education, was first denied admission to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctor of Education degree.
- the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public institution of higher learning could not provide different treatment to a student solely because of his/her race as doing so deprived the student of his/her Fourteenth Amendment rights of Equal Protection.
- The University admitted McLaurin but provided him separate facilities, including a special table in the cafeteria, a designated desk in the library, and a desk just outside the classroom doorway.
- Disctrict Court then denied McLaurin’s petition.
- Appealed to SCOTUS.
o reversed the decision of the US District Court, requiring the University of Oklahoma to remove the restrictions under which McLaurin was attending the institution. This case together with Sweatt v. Painter, which was decided the same day, marked the end of the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in graduate and professional education.

Front 20

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Back 20

Covers anyone who has/had/or is believed to have had an impairment that significantly affects one or more of life’s major activities. (Working/Education). Anyone qualified cannot be denied the benefits of or participation in any program that receives federal funding as long as the person is otherwise qualified. Key criterion for qualifying for 504 is if they can participate or benefit with the means of reasonable accommodations.
- If cost is too great, a program need not make it
- If making an accommodation results in significant alteration of program, then you may not have to make it.
o EX: Blind Student in Ohio wanted to become medical doctor.
- If someone’s participation in a program can result in significant risk of harm or injury with himself or someone else than he can be barred from participating.
- 11/12/2012
o Any disability, say if you broke your wrist, you can come ask for an accommodation.

Front 21

Four basic qualifying IDEA

Back 21

- Covers children between 3-21
o Qualifies as early as age 3, younger can 3 can be served under state law, but no obligation that school board use federal funds. Through 21 a student can be server if they’re in the school year still.
o Michigan extends under state law to 26
- Student must have identifiable disability
- Be in need of special education
- A child must be in need of related services (R.S. are relatively simple and straight forward as transportation to and from school, and between school buildings throughout the day.)

Front 22

Differences between 504 and IDEA

Back 22

- Eight Differences between Section 504 and IDEA
1. While section 504 applies to school systems receiving federal money they do not receive additional resources that they do under IDEA.
2. 504 protect children under broader notion rather than IDEA’s statutory defined disabilities.
3. Section 504 has no age limit compared to IDEA’s
4. 504 covers students, parents employees and others in schools, IDEA covers only students.
5. IDEA places obligation on states to apply benefits, but for section 504 you must request.
6. IDEA includes much more extensive due process protections than 504.
7. Unlike IDEA, 504 doesn’t require parental consent when providing accommodations.
8. IDEA has a zero-reject approach. School officials can rely on section 504’s three defenses to avoid being charged with non-compliance.

Front 23

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Back 23

- In order to guarantee that an appropriate education is made available to all students, Section 504’s regulations include due process requirements for evaluation that are similar to, but are not as extensive as, those under the IDEA.
o Section 504 directs school officials to file assurances of compliance that their programs are nondiscriminatory, take voluntary remedial actions if they have violated the law so as to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limiting the participation of individuals with disabilities, complete self-evaluations to ensure that they comply with Section 504, designate a staff member as compliance coordinator, and adopt grievance procedures even though neither the law nor an accompanying regulation specify what steps such a process should follow.
o Section 504 also requires recipients of federal financial aid to provide notice to students, parents, employees, and others that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability.

Front 24

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Back 24

- Law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.
- Many school systems screen pre-school children to assist in the early identification of students with disabilities.
o IDEA requires public school officials not only to identify children who attend private schools in the districts where they attend classes, rather than within which they live, but also to provide child find activities for these students that are comparable to those used in public schools.
o Requires state officials to develop policies and procedures to prevent the over-identification or disproportionate representation of students by race and ethnicity.

Front 25

Pennsylvania Ass’n of Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania (1060)

Back 25

- An association advocating for children with disabilities sought assistance from the court to gain access to the public education system. Prior to this time, children with disabilities were deprived of education because of the expense to the school to educate them appropriately. The court determined that saving funds was not a legitimate goal because uneducated children would ultimately become a greater drain on public funds. In the case of PARC v. Commonwealth, the Equal Protection Clause was found to be violated.
- The court opinions set requirements for school systems that enforced admission of children with disabilities and provision of appropriate services.
- Guidelines for identification, placement decisions, and reclassification were set.
- The campaign these decisions were a part of also led to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and what would ultimately become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Front 26

Mills v. Board of Education of D.C.

Back 26

- Declared that students with disabilities must be given a public education, and that financial limits were a moot point in providing education to these students.
- It set a precedent that educational services must be made based on children's needs, not on the schools’ fiscal capabilities to provide such services.

Front 27

Board of Education Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley

Back 27

- Amy Rowley was a child who was deaf and had minimal hearing. Lived with parents who were also deaf.
- Meeting was held to determine what supplemental services she would receive.
o Offered… General education, hearing aid, teletype machine, sign language, sign language interpreter.
o Amy passed Kindergarten and the interpreter said he was not needed, and was removed from the sup. Services package. Parents wanted him added again.
o Meeting held, determined that he wasn’t needed.
• Parents requested due process hearing. Hearing officer agreed not needed.
• Then NY commissioner of education agreed. Parents sued in NYC federal court.
• District court found for Rowleys. Hudson School Dist. Appealed to second circuit.
• Second appeals ct. affirmed, Hudson requested petition of certiorari.
• SCOTUS revered, act was meant to open door for handicapped in public education, not guarantee any particular level once inside.

Front 28

Rowley Standard

Back 28

• Two prong test.
• Has the school complied with the procedures of the Act?
• Is the IEP developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to bring about education benefit?

Front 29

IEP TEST

Back 29

1. What are the educational needs of the special needs student?
2. What are the nonacademic needs of the special needs student? Social Issues?
3. What is the impact of the special needs child on the classroom?
4. What is the financial impact in the delivery of the program?
Courts rarely get to the last questions.

Front 30

Timothy W. v. Rochester N.H. School District

Back 30

- Whether a school board was required to provide special education services to any students with disabilities regardless of the severity of their disabilities.
- In deciding that a board had to provide services, the First Circuit found that officials may not refuse to offer special education services on the basis that children are so severely handicapped that they are incapable of benefiting from special education.
- This now well-established rule from Timothy W. is commonly referred to as the “zero reject” principle

Front 31

Honig v. Doe

Back 31

- Special education case that determined the rights of handicapped students with respect to school disciplinary action.
- Concern two disabled students in a San Francisco school who were suspended for prohibited actions related to their disabilities.
- When their suspensions were extended to allow time for expulsion proceedings to be held, as is permitted under California state law, an attorney filed a joint suit in U.S. district court against the school district, challenging the indefinite suspensions.
- The U.S. district court issued an injunction against the school district for the suspension of disabled students when their misconduct is related to a disability.
- The school district appealed, leading to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that reached several conclusions about circumstances in which disabled students may be suspended or expelled.
- The ruling affirmed the district court's holding. The school district petitioned the Supreme Court to review the ruling.
- In 1988 the court issued its finding, the major part of which deemed that a state or local school district may not unilaterally exclude handicapped children from school for dangerous or disruptive conduct related to their disabilities while an expulsion hearing is pending. The exception to the rule is when the misconduct involves guns, drugs or serious bodily injury.

Front 32

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist.

Back 32

- James Zobrest was deaf since birth. He attended public school through the eighth grade where the local school board provided a sign-language interpreter. Zobrest's parents elected to send their son to a Roman Catholic high school and requested that the local school board continue to provide their son with a sign-language interpreter. The school board denied the request on constitutional grounds.
- The Zobrests then filed suit, alleging that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the school district to provide the interpreter and that the Establishment Clause did not bar such relief.
- The District Court granted the school district summary judgment on the ground that the interpreter would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation, thereby promoting his religious development at government expense in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- ISSUE: May a school district decline to provide an interpreter to a deaf child based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
- HOLDING: In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the Establishment Clause did not bar the school district from providing the requested interpreter. Chief Justice Rehnquist reasoned that, because the IDEA creates no financial incentive for parents to choose a sectarian school, the presence of an interpreter is not linked to the state and is the result of the private decision of individual's parents.

Front 33

Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. V. Garrett

Back 33

- Garret F., a minor and student in Cedar Rapids Community School District, is wheelchair-bound and ventilator dependent.
- The school district declined to accept financial responsibility for Garret's services in order for him to be able to attend school.
- The school district believed it was not legally obligated to provide one-on-one care. An Administrative Law judge concluded that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required the school district to provide "school health services," which are provided by a "qualified school nurse or other qualified person," but not medical services, which are limited to services provided by a physician.
- Dist. Ct. and Appeals Ct. Affirmed.
- ISSUE: Do schools that receive federal funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act have to pay for one-on-one nursing assistance for certain of their disabled students?
- HOLDING: Court held that if the services in question are "related" to keeping the disabled child in school and able to access educational opportunities available to others IDEA funded school districts must provide such services.

Front 34

Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast

Back 34

- The parents of Brian Schaffer, a disabled child, sued their public school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Schaffer's parents claimed the Individualized Education Program that the school system devised for their son, and which IDEA required for each disabled student, was inadequate.
- The district court ruled for the Schaffers, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the lower court incorrectly assigned the burden of proof to the school system.
- Because IDEA was silent on whether the parents or the school system bear the burden of proof, the Fourth Circuit held, the general rule that the party initiating the suit bears that burden should be applied.
- ISSUE: Do the parents or school system bear the burden of proof in disputes over a child's individualized education program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?
- HOLDING: Supreme Court held that the party bringing the suit bears the burden of proof, whether that party is the parents or the school system.

Front 35

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

Back 35

- Under IDEA Parents brought legal action to require the Arlington Central School District to pay for their son's private school tuition.
- After they prevailed, they sought reimbursement from the school district for fees they had paid to an educational consultant during the proceedings.
- Relied on an IDEA provision that allows courts to "award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs" to prevailing parents.
- ISSUE: Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permit parents to recover fees they pay to experts during legal actions against school districts?
- HOLDING: No. In a 6-to-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that IDEA did not authorize reimbursement of expert fees.

Front 36

Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. District

Back 36

- Jeff and Sandee Winkelman claimed that Parma City School District failed to give their disabled son Jacob a "free appropriate public education" as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- Despite the Winkelmans' opposition, the school district planned to place Jacob in a public elementary school. After a preliminary school district hearing affirmed Jacob's placement, the Winkelmans placed Jacob in a private school at their own expense and petitioned a federal District Court for reimbursement.
- ISSUE: In a lawsuit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), may a non-lawyer parent of a disabled child argue in federal court either on his own behalf ("pro se") or on behalf of his child?
- HOLDING: Yes. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit by a 7-2 vote, ruling that "parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf."

Front 37

Guest v. Paul Smith College

Back 37

- FACTS: Rau was a student of Paul Smith College and Guest was his guest who attended another college. The two of them borrowed another students snow mobile and joined a party and were drinking on the local lake, outside of campus. Toni Marra, then Director of Residence Life, and Jamie Shova, a Campus Safety Officer, went down to the Lower St. Regis Lake, elected not to call the police, and encouraged the students to disperse or to be safe, they did not threaten them with disciplinary action.
- COLLEGE POLICY: students under the age of 21 were prohibited from consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages. More broadly, the Community Guide stated that the violation of federal, state, or local laws would constitute a violation of the College's Student Conduct Code. Additionally, although students were permitted to have snowmobiles, the use of snowmobiles on College-owned property was forbidden.
- HOLDING: Paul Smith's College had no legal duty, emanating from in loco parentis or any other special relationship, to supervise or control the conduct of Rau and Guest. Thus, the court is bound to apply the general rule that a defendant "has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others, even where as a practical matter defendant can exercise such control."
- REASONING: The analysis in this case must begin with the proposition that "colleges today in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students." Therefore, Rau's status as a student at Paul Smith's College, taken alone, did not create a special relationship between Rau and the College which would give rise to a duty to supervise or control the conduct of Rau and Guest

Front 38

Tenure

Back 38

Teachers can receive TENURE after so many years of working.

• Can only be dismissed with good cause.
• Can be realized with paid leave while investigation proceeds.

Front 39

Teachers can be dismissed for two reasons

Back 39

1. Not for cause
• Reduction in Force
• Does not matter if someone is tenured or not.
• Discontinuation in a subject area.
• Decline in student enrollment.
• Financial deficiency.
• Other good and just cause.
• Needs a collective bargaining agreement: reverse seniority.
2. For cause
• Insubordination
• Violates a lawful board order
• Teacher knows, or should know about the policy
• Conduct unbecoming an educator
• Incompetence or neglect of duty
• Most common form of dismissal.

Front 40

Teachers do not have the right to talk about:

Back 40

• Politics
• Religion

Front 41

Due Process constraints:

Back 41

• Teachers have a right to a hearing because of guaranteed property rights
• Notice
• Fair opportunity to respond

Front 42

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches

Back 42

- The Center Moriches School District, acting under the statute, prohibited the use of its property by any religious group.
- The District refused repeated requests by Lamb's Chapel to use the school's facilities for an after-hours religious-oriented film series on family values and child rearing.
- Issue: Did the district violate the first amendments freedom of speech when it denied them use of school premises?
- Holding: Yes, two parts.
• Since it denied Lamb the showing strictly because they were religious. And.
• A grant to use the premise wouldn’t have resulted in any establishment of religion.

Front 43

Good News Club v. Milford Center School

Back 43

- Prayer:
o Cohersion test
o Kids can initiate prayer, as long as adults do not initiate it.
• This led to a split in the circuits.
• Board may allow children to pray.
o Supreme Court ruled that students could offer prayers at graduation.
• Had two conditions
• Not sectarian
• Non prostelitizing. (cannot invite others to join)
o What about a sports game?
• School said student free speech, (Over PA system)
• Court said no, same church gave prayer every time.
• Not student free speech.
• Because of the impact and the way the policy was drawn, not neutral on its face.
o Court chose specifically to address the situation before sporting events, and not graduation.
• FN: Players in the locker room wanted to say a prayer, the coach knelt down on one knee, joining the prayer. Can’t do that.
- Student sponsored religious activity in school
o Prayer and Bible Study Clubs

Front 44

Palmer v. Merluzzi

Back 44

Palmer v. Merluzzi
Facts: Palmer and his friends go and smoke pot and drink beer in the video room. School finds out, suspends him for 10 days and makes it so he can’t play football for 60 days thereafter the suspension. On grounds that it was a correct punishment on advice from a drug rehab person.
- School rule was “no student may participate in sports if they don’t’ demonstrate good citizenship and character”
RULE: regarding student discipline, since there is no right to be on the football team, the discipline seems right.

Front 45

Goss v. Lopez

Back 45

- Facts: Students were suspended and were not given the right to be heard. Which was not required under state law. Students filed suit under Federal Law and SCOTUS ruled that the children were required to be afforded a hearing.
- Only after 10 days, kids are afforded the right to be heard. Unless it’s serious enough.
o Serious things
• SOLEY to short suspensions, not exceeding 10 days.
• Longer may require more formal procedures.
•
- Rule: Caught cheating, no exemptions. If student knows the rule, or ought to know the rule, then a student can be disciplined.
- Notice
o Long term, school officials must provide parents with written notice. Usually it must be sent home within 3 school days of suspension.
• Must have an explanation of what the kid is facing.
o Informing parents of what their child is accused of doing, with enough information to allow them to try and make some kind of defense.
o Provides them information on how to reach the appropriate person to set up hearing.
o Most schools now refer to a suspension hearing as a “Goss hearing”
- Including an opportunity to respond
o Both sides can present evidence at fair and impartial hearing
o Decided by third party decision making
- In presence of fair and impartial third party decision maker
- Entitlement to decision based solely on record.
o Can be made only on evidence admitted at hearing

Front 46

Student Rights and School Rules

Back 46

• Courts can only respond to real cases and controversies, rather than act in advisory capacities, a vast amount of litigation highlights the general proposition that even though the judiciary generally defers to educators, whether rules are enforceable depends on the fact-specific analysis of case law.
• If school rules involving discipline and safety infringe on the fundamental rights of students, the burden of proof shifts to educators to demonstrate that rules are justified by a compelling need.
• Educators cannot develop written rules for all possible student infractions, they typically defer to the authority of educators as long as they impose discipline that meets the requirements of due process.
• When students know or reasonable ought to know school rules and punishments are appropriate to their offenses, regardless of whether misbehavior occurs in schools or away from schools, courts are unlikely to intervene on their behalf as long as educators treat similarly situated individuals similarly and provide them with the requisite level of due process.
• Not entitled to receive Miranda warnings.

Front 47

Out-of-School Conduct

Back 47

• Educators can regulate student conduct that violates school rules even if it occurs at extracurricular activities.
• Imposition of discipline if the students behavior had “a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school and bring the master’s authority into contempt.”
• Courts typically uphold rules preventing drug use and/or alcohol consumption, regardless of whether infractions occur on campus on two grounds.
• Since taking part in extracurricular activities is a privilege rather than a right, educators can impose higher disciplinary standards on students who participate in these activities than on those who do not take part in such programs.
• Officials can base rules on health and safety concerns.

Front 48

Zero Tolerance Policies

Back 48

• Student substance abuse and violence in schools, boards have adopted zero tolerance policies in attempts to remedy, if not eliminate, these problems.
• These policies should not be applied blindly.

Front 49

Suspension and Expulsion

Back 49

• Suspension and Expulsion are the most serious penalties that school officials can impose on students.
• Whether students are entitled to educational services during expulsions varies from one jurisdiction to the next.
• Due Process and Punishments
• Cases often hinge on whether officials provided students with adequate procedural due process.
• Due process does not require educators to afford students all of the safeguards that are present in criminal or civil proceedings.
• Students who are subject to significant disciplinary penalties are entitled to notice and opportunities to respond in the presence of fair and impartial third-party decision makers.
• Courts do not expect students to receive full judicial proceedings.
• Students are not entitled to have their own attorneys present as trial counsel, or at public expense if they can obtain their own pro bono lawyers, to know identity of and/or to confront witnesses, especially where there may be clear and serious danger to student witnesses.
o Protecting student witnesses from reprisal and ostracism generally outweighs the value to the truth-seeking process allowing them to cross-examine their accusers.
• If infractions are minor and officials have not violated the rights of students, courts tend not to overturn the punishments.

Front 50

Baker v. Owens

Back 50

- Student struck twice with paddle for throwing a ball at a time other than designated play period.
- Parents had previously requested that the child NOT be corporally punished.
- Issue: Can school admins use corporal punishment against parental wishes?
- Holding: Yes, can administer punishment in place of parents.

Front 51

Ingraham v. Wright

Back 51

• Excessive paddling given to child as punishment. Caused Hematoma. Not excessive according to SCOTUS.
• As long as It’s not so much as to “shock the mind and conscious” of the punishment, it’s okay.

Front 52

Punishments

Back 52

• If disciplinary policies and procedures satisfy due process, courts usually uphold the actions of educators as long as they are not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
• Courts have long take the sex, age, and size as well as the mental, emotional, and physical conditions of students and the nature of their offenses into consideration when reviewing penalties.
• In reviewing disciplinary actions, courts consider whether punishments involve the denial of the right to attend school or privileges such as participation in extracurricular activities.
o Courts do not review student conduct rules with the same scrutiny as they use in criminal cases.

Front 53

Corporal Punishment

Back 53

• At common law, teachers have the right to administer reasonable corporal punishment.
o Educators may employ the practice even against parental wishes as long as local board policies authorize use.
• The use of unreasonable corporal punishment or behavior that violates board policy or state law can serve as cause for dismissing teachers.
• Students can proceed with substantive due process claims where punishments are “…so brutal, demeaning, and harmful as literally to shock the conscience of a court.”

Front 54

• San Antonio v. Rodriguez

Back 54

o San Antonio School board sued on grounds of school finance where the Texas Education system would use general funding, then take property tax to supplement the funding by district. San Antonio School Board sued on behalf of the poor individuals. Supreme Court ruled that there is no explicit or implicit right to education in the Constitution, nor is it protected.
o Education is not federally protected. HOWEVER, if you can tie a Federal right to a state right, then you can get to the Supremes. (Brown). States are under no obligation to create public school systems. IF a state does create a public school system, then it must provide equal right to access to all citizens.
o On the other hand, when Congress enacted the IDEA in 1972, it created two groups of people, special ed. and non-special ed., the IDEA confers on special ed kids additional substantive and procedural rights which regular children do not have.

Front 55

o State-Level Entities

Back 55

• Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, education is a function of the state, rather than the federal, government.
• Absents federal restrictions on their authority, legislatures have plenary, or full, power over education subject only to the limits present in state constitutions, typically through their departments of education.

Front 56

• Establishment and Alteration of School Districts

Back 56

• School districts and their governing bodies, usually called school boards, boards of education, or in a limited number of jurisdictions, school committees, are state agencies acting independently of local governments and municipalities.
• School boards have only the power and authority that they are granted by their state legislatures.
• State legislatures can set district boundaries, abolish local school units, and/or redistrict states regardless of pre-existing boundaries by means of detachment, annexation, dissolution, consolidation or a combination of methods.
o General rule in cautioning that such a petition should only be granted when there is an overall benefit to the annexing system and a detachment outweighs the detriment to the annexing system and its surrounding community.
o Unless required by state constitutions or statutes, state and local officials do not need consent from district residents before redistricting.
o If legislatures authorize local school boards to petition for boundary changes, they may do so despite the wishes of voters.
• Legislatures may not change boundaries in ways designed to violate the Federal Constitution.
• Where statutes provide for alterations of districts by means of elections, courts strictly enforce procedural matters before voters can go to the polls.

Front 57

Local School Boards: Powers and Procedures

Back 57

o Public schools receive aid on ADA (avg. daily attendance).
• Footnote 2: “Ye Olde Deludar” to avoid children from not knowing the scriptures. Keep from Satan.
• “Ye olde deluder” public school system created in fear that if you couldn’t learn to read and write the bible, Satan would take your soul to hell for all eternity.
• For white dominate males in towns.
• Principal of Subsidiary, choices to be made locally.
• All colonies had created school boards to help run schools.
• To get on board in Ohio.
• Live in district
• Petition to get elected
• Must be 18, citizen, graduate HS.
o Should these standards be changed.

Front 58

• 1789 Massachusetts

Back 58

the first jurisdiction to create a school committee (Board)

Front 59

• When school boards do their job, they operate along two lines of authority

Back 59

mandatory & discretionary

Front 60

mandatory

Back 60

• Absolutely positively must do this, reason for their existence. (mandatory/ministerial)
o Statutorily boards are assigned specified responsibilities.
o Must create budget
o Have election
o Set tax rates
o Hire teachers/superintendents.
o Responsible for purchasing building sites.
o Responsible for creating school curriculum.
• Once you’re in, you must follow state mandate. Whether to offer electives is board choices.

Front 61

discretionary

Back 61

o Electives and AP and IP programs are discretionary.
o Discretionary powers afford school boards the authority to act on non-mandatory duties that arguably account for the larger part of their actions.
o Boards ordinarily treat issues related to extracurricular activities as discretionary duties.
o To the extent that it is impossible to foresee, or legislate on, all emerging issues in schools, the courts agree that along with their express powers, local boards may exercise their authority “by necessary implication” in ways enabling them to perform their duties.
• While boards have implied powers related only to education, not general governmental concerns, they must be careful not to exceed their authority.
o When in doubt, the courts, applying common law, are inclined to reject the existence of implied powers since boards have no inherent authority.
o The judicial rule that local boards possess both express and implied powers is essentially one of expedience as a basis for sustaining apparently sound board actions.
• If courts apply statutes strictly, they can limit the implied powers of boards but may have the undesired effect of restricting educational experimentation.
• A key common law principle in this regard is that delegated powers may not be further delegated by the persons or bodies to whom they were originally delegated.

Front 62

• Nondelegable Authority

Back 62

• School boards must retain their nondelegable powers even where collective bargaining contracts are enforceable since boards can no more bargain away their powers then they can unilaterally impose their will.
• School boards can delegate ministerial functions to execute their decisions or to act on their behalf.
• Boards are generally empowered to adopt policies establishing procedures for exercising their nondelegable powers.
o These procedures may have the effect of curtailing the exercise of board powers for a while, but courts generally do not treat agreeing to procedural parameters as constituting illegal delegation.
o School boards may contractually limit selected powers for periods of time.

Front 63

How are SB's chosen?

Back 63

• School Boards are elected locally but are State Authority
• Delegated with the authority to create and interpret rules and policy.
• When the Board acts on Policy it becomes law making
• Create procedures to which the policies will be carried out
• If violation of policy, the School Board sits as a body and decides the ramifications
• School Boards are ongoing corporate entities = One who creates the policy may not be the same that enforces.
• No limits on years to continue term and no education level requirement.

Front 64

• Charter Schools

Back 64

• State legislatures can create and fund innovative forms of public schooling such as charter schools while providing them with facilities reasonably equivalent to those used by public schools.
• Big attraction because they’re funded with public money, most teachers and administrators must be state licensed.
• Public school that has failed for three years in a row under the No Child Left Behind act can be shut down and charter schools can be created from their ruins.
• In most states, and Ohio, Charter schools can develop a specialized focus.
o Makes decision based on qualified teachers, and established curriculum.
• The number is typically specified by state law, operate under contracts, or charters, usually granted by local and/or state boards of education.
o Charter Schools are good for 3 to 5 years.
o When contracts expire, depending on state law, charter granting entities can renew or terminate agreements.
o Free from many state rules with regard to staff and curricular issues, are still subject to general state laws.
• No state with charter a school for longer than 5 years.
o When they’re revoked or allowed to expire schools go out of business and close doors, teachers lose jobs and children have to transfer.
• Been around for 20 years, love or hate them. Not many disinterested third parties.
• Charter school athletics
o If the school is large enough they can have athletics
o If not, they can participate through the school boards of the boards that sponsored them.

Front 65

Compulsory Education

Back 65

• All states mandated that children go to school by the early twentieth century. (Georgia was last school at 1916). Sometimes may only require schools to go to school for 50-60 days a year. (hard winters, distance, etc.)
• Schools traditionally operate on a 180 day school calendar. Due to agrarian history of the United States.
• Courts generally uphold compulsory education statutes against charges that they unreasonably infringe on constitutional liberties.

Front 66

• Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary

Back 66

• Compulsory Education Act challenged
o Required all children from the ages of 8 and 16 to attend public school within their jurisdiction.
o Hill Military Academy and Society of Sisters challenged.
o Claimed that this act would harm their business, and it violated the parent’s right and liberty to choose where their children received their education.
• Russo Facts: Filed by two schools, Oregon enacted a law that said the only way parents could satisfy the compulsory attendance law was to send their 6-18 year old non-special ed children to public school. Claim was that if you closed the school down, it deprived school of due process right to life liberty and property.
• No religious schools require teachers to have states to have certification.
• State has power to regulate, all they regulate is health and safety concerns.
• Non-public schools are not obligated to take public exit exams.

Front 67

• In Loco Parentis

Back 67

o Old British common law presumption.
• When parents send their children to school, they’re doing so voluntarily.
• With the enactment of compulsory attendance laws, they and their children can be charged with truancy.
• Only one state has codified in loco parentis, which is West Virginia.
• Ohio “ Parent of said child of compulsory school age will be required to send their child to school in their district.”

Front 68

• Padrens Patniae

Back 68

o An alternative rationale for compulsory attendance rests on another common law principle, parens patriae, literally “father of the country,” under which legislatures can enact reasonable laws for the welfare of their residents.
• Whether parents meet their duty of sending their children to school, or whether students who are absent from school without justification should be classified as truant at hearings over their status, is a joint responsibility shared by school officials and the courts.
o Educators have a duty once a student is on school grounds.

Front 69

• Exemptions From Compulsory Attendance

Back 69

o Parents who choose not to send their children to public schools must provide them with equivalent instruction elsewhere either by having them educated in non-public schools or via home schooling.
• As with other areas involving compulsory attendance, the courts generally uphold statutes and regulations dealing with equivalent instruction.
o Where laws and regulations lacked sufficient clarity with regard to standards for non-public schools, they were unenforceable.
o Non-Public Schools
• The primary goal of compulsory attendance statutes is to ensure that students obtain a minimum level of education rather than focus on where they are educated.
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Amish only have to be educated till 8th grade.
• Justice Douglas questioned whether children had rights apart from their parents based on his fear that students could have been “harassed” to the lifestyles of their parents without opportunities to express their own wishes.

Front 70

o Home Schooling

Back 70

• After a flurry of activity starting in the 1980s, home schooling is legal throughout the nation as more than thirty states have enacted explicit statutes on point.
• It is important to note that home schooling, wherein parents educate their own children, is not the same as home-bound instruction for students with disabilities.
• An emerging issue with regard to home schooling is where children are to be educated if their parents, especially those who are divorced, disagree.
• Use the “best interest of the child” test in reasoning.
• Most jurisdictions do not require parents who home school their children to cover specified subject areas.
• Courts recognize the right of public officials to ensure that students are progressing in school whether by means of standardized tests or other measures such as portfolios and annual reports.

Front 71

• Home Schooling, Extracurricular Activities, And Part-Time Attendance

Back 71

• Home Schooling, Extracurricular Activities, And Part-Time Attendance
o Parents who practice home schooling have had limited success over whether their children can participate in extracurricular activities.
• The court pointed out that insofar as participation in extracurricular activities, including interscholastic athletics, did not rise to the level of a fundamental or constitutional right, the rule was rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.
• Court identified two key reasons:
o The court maintained that the rule prevented parents from withdrawing their children who may have been struggling academically simply to maintain athletic eligibility.
o The court thought that insofar as local boards received funding only for students who are actually enrolled in classes, and having to offer services to students who are home schooled would have strained their budgets, the rule protected the financial well-being of school systems.

Front 72

o Residence For School Purposes

Back 72

• State law grant school-aged children who are district residents the right to attend school on tuition-free basis.
• The common law rule is that the legal domicile of minors is that of their parent(s) and that children are legally incapable of establishing their own domiciles absent special circumstances such as the death or legal separation of their parents.
• Residence refers to the place where children actually live, neither physical presence alone nor residing in a district solely in order to attend public school is a sufficient basis to establish residence for purposes of attending school on a tuition-free basis.
• Students who live in one district can attend classes in another under open-enrollment statutes vary from one jurisdiction to another.
• School officials may accept students from other districts on tuition bases as long as state laws permit them to do so
• Absent state laws to the contrary, children living in orphanages, charitable homes, and/or who are adjudicated wards of the state are generally considered residents of the districts within which they reside.
• Institutionalized students are not entitled to free education.

Front 73

• Plyer v. Doe

Back 73

o Illegal alien children were being denied public education by the state of Texas.
o Supreme Court ruled that they should be allowed to have an education.
• Parents are paying taxes by living here
• Children should not be punished for “sins” of parents
• Children should have the right to education (equal protection)
• If the children are not educated, it will only deter them from any future possibilities. Not 100% on what will happen to the children later in their lives, but without an education, their chances remain minimal at best.
• Historically people couldn’t send their children to public schools unless they were property owners.
• Now it’s just a residence satisfaction

Front 74

o Child Benefit Test

Back 74

• Must be to aid children, not aid the religious organizations.
• Judicially constructed legal fiction that justifies government extension of benefits to religious schools via the rationale of supporting parent choice.
• Students and their religiously affiliated nonpublic schools can receive some forms of public aid without violating the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against the government enacting laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”
• The test was originally framed as a conduit to support services to religious schools where students were the direct beneficiaries. Later, it was expanded to rationalize providing services or funds where parents have made choices.
• In the process, the concept of the child as a beneficiary has become subordinated to a more expansive rationale supporting government assistance so long as a child’s presence in a religious school can be attributed to some factor other than a government’s decision to place the child there.

Front 75

- Secular Services and Salary Supplements

Back 75

o Lemon Test
o Public funding for teachers’ salaries was struck down on the third prong of the lemon test.
o Setting standards to ensure that teachers didn’t include ideologies in their curriculum was seen as excessive entanglement.

Front 76

- Tuition Reimbursements

Back 76

o Challenged in Penn law allowing parents whose children attended non-public schools to request tuition reimbursements.
• Struck down by SCOTUS because the law impermissibly singled out a class of citizens for a special economic benefit.
o Regardless of who the money goes to
• Money->Parents
• Parents->School
• Indirect benefit to schools from parents.

Front 77

- Income Tax Benefits

Back 77

o When only given to non-public schools (as Nyquist) it is upended due to the fact that it singles out citizens.
o Distinguished in the Mueller case when the tax benefit was given to ALL students who attended all schools. Didn’t single out individuals.
• Ruled that this was able because any religious benefit was due to private choices.

Front 78

- Shared Facilities and Shared Time

Back 78

o Key issue is these disputes are whether public funds are used for religious purposes and whether religious influences are present in public schools.
- Unlikely special ed will be provided in a religious school.
o Vouchers are invalidated, only upheld in two scenarios. Violate the lemon law.
• Federal aid given to people of poverty to be used to send kids to religious school or school outside city limits.
• Most schools would not admit these students.
• Supreme Court had no problem that this had a secular purpose → No entanglement → Free parental choice.

Front 79

Instructional Materials and Equipment

Back 79

o Meek case established that textbooks may be loaned, but not the loaning of equipment because the equipment benefited the school and not the students.
o Maps Library equipment and Lab equipment shut down. In 2000, this was invalidated.

Front 80

Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education

Back 80

o Facts: Involved a statute under which all students received free textbooks, regardless of where they attended school. A tax payer unsuccessfully challenged the law as a violation of the 14th Amendment by taking private property through taxation for a non-public purpose.
o Holding: Unanimously affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana since the students, rather than their schools, were the beneficiaries of the law, the Justices were satisfied that the statute served a valid secular purpose.
o Reasoning: As in Pierce, the Supreme Court resolved the dispute based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Front 81

Walz v. Tax Comm’n

Back 81

- Frederick Walz, the owner of real estate in Richmond County, New York, brought suit against the New York City Tax Commission, challenging property tax exemptions for churches.
- Walz alleged that the exemptions forced him, as a taxpayer, to indirectly contribute to those churches.
- Issue: Did the property tax exemptions violate the Establishment cause of the First Amendment?
- Holding: No. 7-1 decision held that the exemptions neither inhibited nor advanced religion
- No one particular church or religious group was singled out to receive tax exempt status.
- Not subsidies, Exemptions only create minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less involvement than the taxation of churches.

Front 82

Lemon v. Kurtzman (103-106)

Back 82

- The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
- In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools.
- The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools.
- Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."
- Issue: Violation of the establishment clause?
- Holding: Yes, enter Lemon test. See above.

Front 83

Lemon Test

Back 83

o 1. Must have secular legislative purpose
o 2. Primary effect must NOT to be to inhibit religion.
o 3. Must not result in “excessive government in entanglement with religion.”
• (1. “secular legislative” means income or religion is not focus, it’s whether or not they have a purpose.)
• Examine the character and purpose of the institutions which are benefited
• The nature of the aid that the State provides
• The resulting relationship between the government and the religious authority
• (step 3 is designed to fail, looking for entanglement is essentially entanglement.)

Front 84

o Religion Clause

Back 84

- The First Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
o Religion Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Front 85

Everson v. Board of Edu

Back 85

- First case where SCOTUS tackled religion head on.
- Enter lemon test.
- Facts: The Petitioner, Everson (Petitioner), in his status as a taxpayer, filed suit challenging the ability of the Respondent, Board of Education (Respondent), to reimburse funds to parents of parochial school students for the transportation of their children to and from school.
- Holding: In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court found the statute was not unconstitutional because it was designed to provide a benefit to the parents of all school children, distinct from any religious function in which the children engaged.
- Reasoning: This case stands for the proposition that, while no law respecting an establishment of religion will stand under the United States Constitution (Constitution), neutral laws, which afford benefits to children will be upheld.

Front 86

- Transportation

Back 86

o The courts here, an in Everson, have addressed the issue of public transportation being provided to the students of religious schools.
o Upheld on those grounds that this was a service given to all citizens, not just to specific ones.
• Grouped into the same department as fire, police, and health protection.
o Follow state constitutions.

Front 87

- Textbooks

Back 87

o Textbooks may be loaned to children and their parents, but not to schools.
o Child Benefit Test
• Must be to aid children, not aid the religious organizations.
• Judicially constructed legal fiction that justifies government extension of benefits to religious schools via the rationale of supporting parent choice.
• Students and their religiously affiliated nonpublic schools can receive some forms of public aid without violating the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against the government enacting laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”
• The test was originally framed as a conduit to support services to religious schools where students were the direct beneficiaries. Later, it was expanded to rationalize providing services or funds where parents have made choices.
• In the process, the concept of the child as a beneficiary has become subordinated to a more expansive rationale supporting government assistance so long as a child’s presence in a religious school can be attributed to some factor other than a government’s decision to place the child there.

Front 88

Abington v. Schempp ---- Murray v. Curlett (95)

Back 88

The Abington case concerns Bible-reading in Pennsylvania public schools.
- At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible.
- In a related case -- Murray v. Curlett -- a Baltimore statute required Bible-reading or the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at open exercises in public schools.
- Murray and his mother, professed atheists -- challenged the prayer requirement.
- HOLDING:
o The Court found such a violation. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so."
o No need for parent to excuse child by written note, since this did not prevent the school from violating the Establishment Clause.

Front 89

Board of Education v. Allen (98)

Back 89

- A 1965 amendment to New York's Education Law required public school boards to lend textbooks to elementary and secondary school students enrolled in private and parochial schools.
- Board of NY Edu. Filed suit contending the law violated the Establishment and Free Excerise Clauses of the First amendment.
- NY Ct. App. HOLDING was that since the book lending was to help promote all students across the board, it did not violate the establishment clause. Applies the Construction Test from Abington, where this did not advance any religion, since the books were given to the students and not the schools.

Front 90

Mitchell v. Helms

Back 90

- Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 provides for the allocation of funds for educational materials and equipment, including library materials and computer software and hardware, to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and nonideological" programs.
- Issue: Does Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
- Holding: No, in a 6-3 decision, the court upheld Chapter 2 because ALL private schools were able to obtain the funding. Did not distinguish between religious, non-religious, or areligous.

Front 91

Tax Status, Tuiton, and the Use of Public Funds

Back 91

Use of Public Funds

Front 92

Walz v. Tax Comm’n

Back 92

- Frederick Walz, the owner of real estate in Richmond County, New York, brought suit against the New York City Tax Commission, challenging property tax exemptions for churches.
- Walz alleged that the exemptions forced him, as a taxpayer, to indirectly contribute to those churches.
- Issue: Did the property tax exemptions violate the Establishment cause of the First Amendment?
- Holding: No. 7-1 decision held that the exemptions neither inhibited nor advanced religion
- No one particular church or religious group was singled out to receive tax exempt status.
- Not subsidies, Exemptions only create minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less involvement than the taxation of churches.

Front 93

Lemon v. Kurtzman (103-106)

Back 93

- The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
- In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools.
- The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools.
- Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."
- Issue: Violation of the establishment clause?
- Holding: Yes, enter Lemon test. See above.

Front 94

Zelman v.Simmons-Harris (154)

Back 94

- Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing.
- Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate.
- Tuition aid is distributed to parents based on financial need.
- In 1999-2000, 96% of the students enrolled were enrolled in religious affiliated schools.
- 60% of the students enrolled came from below the poverty line families.
o Ohio tax group sought to enjoin the program on grounds it was unconstitutional and violated the establishment Clause
- Issue: Violation of Establishment Clause?
- Holding: No. 5-4 program is part of general undertaking in Ohio to provide education opportunities to children. Government aid only reaches schools by way of the deliberate choices on individual recipients. The Ohio program is entirely neutral in regards to religion. Program is a true, private choice.
- Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria:
o the program must have a valid secular purpose,
o aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
o a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
o the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
o there must be adequate nonreligious options.

Front 95

Student Testing

Back 95

Student Testing

Front 96

Meek v. Pittenger

Back 96

- Pennsylvania case were non-public schools were loaned textbooks along with lab equipment and non-auxiliary services.
- Violation of Establishment Clause? Use Lemon Test
- Court invalidated everything except the textbooks under the LEMON TEST for fear it might lead to “excessive entanglement”

Front 97

Wolman v. Walter

Back 97

- A suit was brought by Ohio taxpayers who challenged the constitutionality of a variety of benefits offered by the state of Ohio to non-public schools and their students in accordance with the Ohio Revenue Code:
o purchasing approved secular textbooks
o purchasing or loaning instructional materials
o supplying standardized tests and scoring services
o providing speech and hearing diagnostic services
o supplying remedial services for non-public school students needing special attention
o field trip transportation
- Services were provided in public schools or mobile classrooms purchased by the state, not in the private schools.
- With Justice Blackmun writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that Ohio could provide standardized tests, therapeutic and diagnostic services to non-public school children. However, the state was not permitted to offer educational materials or subsidize class field trips by providing transportation.

Front 98

Grand Rapids v. Ball : Aguillar v. Felton

Back 98

- Shared classroom lease program was in place were public paid teachers would teach two classes that promoted religion.
- Taxpayer’s sued under the Establishment Clause
- Held that the teachers might influence sectarian nature and subtly indoctrinate students into religious situations.
- Using the public classrooms threatened to convey the government as supporting religion
- First use of the ENDORSMENT TEST and REASONABLE OBSERVER TEST

Front 99

Zobrest v. Catalina Footgills School District

Back 99

- James Zobrest was deaf since birth. He attended public school through the eighth grade where the local school board provided a sign-language interpreter.
- Zobrest's parents elected to send their son to a Roman Catholic high school and requested that the local school board continue to provide their son with a sign-language interpreter.
- The school board denied the request on constitutional grounds.
- Zobrest’s parents sued under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Free Exercise clause.
- Issue: Can a school district decline to provide an interpreter to a deaf child based on the Establishment Clause?
- Holding: No. 5-4 held that the establishment clause did not bar this providing. Because IDEA creates no financial incentive for the parents to choose a sectarian school, interpreter not linked to the state.
- This benefits neutrally to any child qualifying to IDEA.

Front 100

Board of Education of Kyrias Joel v. Grumet

Back 100

- In 1989, the New York legislature passed a school districting law that intentionally drew its boundaries in accordance with the boundaries of the Village of Kiryas Joel, a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim who practice a strict form of Judaism.
- Shortly before the new district commenced operations, the taxpayers and the association of state school boards embarked on a lawsuit claiming that the statute created a school district that limited access only to residents of Kiryas Joel.
- Issue: did the statute violate the First Amendment’s Establishment
- Holding: Yes, 6-3 decision the Court held that the statute’s purpose was to exclude all of those living in practiced the village enclave’s extreme for Judaism.
o Establishment clause cannot choose one religion over the other.

Front 101

Agostini v. Felton

Back 101

- This suit was brought by a New York parochial school board, and some of its student's parents, as a challenge to a District Court ruling upholding the twelve-year-old decision set out in Aguilar v. Felton.
- The decision in Aguilar prohibited public school teachers from teaching in parochial schools as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
- On appeal from the Second Circuit's affirmance of a District Court's denial of the parent's challenge, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Issue: Establishment Clause violation?
- Holding: No, overruled decision. One should no longer find all entanglements to have a distinctively positive or negative effect on religion.

Front 102

Reasons to Prevent Prayer

Back 102

- 1. Cannot have prayer because you cannot have an agent of the state (school principal) requesting prayer
- 2. Captive audience and can be coerced from what they hear.
- Supreme Court held that if students choose to pray, they are allowed.
o Back door permission: Struck down 3rd Circuit.
- Prayer Allowed
o None Sectarian: Cannot name who praying to
o None Proselytizing: Cannot invite people to pray with you.
- Against Prayer at Sports
o Students Free Speech
o The way the policy is drawn is unlikely
o We don’t know if it is unconstitutional
o Court said no to prayer at games.
- School Prayer Groups
o Cannot Interfere with other school activities
o Must be student led
o Teacher can only be present to assure safety.
o Must be treated like every other club

Front 103

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education (91)

Back 103

- The case tested the principle of "released time", where public schools set aside class time for religious instruction. The Court struck down a Champaign, Illinois program as unconstitutional because of the public school system's involvement in the administration, organization and support of religious instruction classes.
- The Court ruled 8-1 in favor of McCollum, ruling that the classes were unconstitutional.
- In the majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that
- The facts show the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education.

Front 104

Zorach v. Clauson (93)

Back 104

- In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in McCollum v. Board of Education, New York City began a program in which students in public schools could be dismissed from classroom activities for certain periods to participate in religious instruction elsewhere.
- In McCollum, the Court disallowed an Illinois program in which representatives of religious groups came to public schools and taught classes during the school day.
- New York's "released time" program was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals.
- Issue: Violation of the Establishment Clause
- Holding: 6-3 that the “Released Time” neither constituted the establishment of religion nor interfered with the free exercise of religion.
o Did not force students to attend religious classroom.

Front 105

Religious Activities and Public Schools

Back 105

• Released Time
• Students were being released during the school day to receive religious instruction
- Students that were removed from class for religious instruction on the school premises
o Court found that not only was it a tax supported that was being used, but also that public officials gave religious invaluable, impermissible aid in helping them by providing students for their classes via the state’s compulsory education.
- Students allowed to be released to attend religious classes at other locations.
o This has been decided both ways in the Supreme Court
o 1. The Court was satisfied that the practice was permissible since public schools were not used for religious instruction.
o 2. Found that the weight and influence of public schools was used to support a program of religious instruction because records were kept of participating students and other students had to remain in class after having being disrupted at the released times.
• Apply the Lemon Test to decide ability

Front 106

Prayer and Moments of Silence at School Functions

Back 106

Prayer and Moments of Silence at School Functions

Front 107

Engel v. Vitale

Back 107

- The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day.
- The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."
- Issue: Violation of the establishment clause?
- Holding: Yes, the prayer being nondenominational or voluntary doesn’t save it from the State approval of religion.

Front 108

Wallace v. Jaffree

Back 108

- Facts: An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree's children attended public schools in Mobile
- Issue: Establishment Clause violation?
- Holding: Yes, applies the secular purposes test. Deviated from absolute neutrality, and was an affirmative endorsement of religion. Clearly lacked any secular purpose as it sought to establish religion in public schools.

Front 109

Marsh v. Chambers

Back 109

- Facts: Ernest Chambers, a member of the Nebraska legislature, challenged the legislature's chaplaincy practice in federal court.
- This practice involves the offering of a prayer at the beginning of each legislative session by a chaplain chosen by the state and paid out of public funds.
- Issue: Practice of Nebraska Legislature violates the Establishment Clause?
- Holding: No, upheld the chaplaincy practice. ABANDONED LEMON, burger then used the historical custom test. These types of prayers could be established as early as the first continental congress, not establishment, just a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

Front 110

Lee v. Weisman (120)

Back 110

- a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school's graduation ceremony.
- Daniel Weisman's daughter, Deborah, was among the graduates. Hoping to stop the rabbi from speaking at his daughter's graduation, Weisman sought a temporary restaining order in District Court - but was denied. App. Ct. upheld the allowing of clergy at graduation.
- Issue: Does allowing clergy at graduation violate the Establishment Clause.
- Holding: Yes, government involvement in this case creates a “state sponsored, state-directed religious exercise in a public school.” Force students to act in ways establishing state religion.

Front 111

Sante Fe Indep. School District v. Doe

Back 111

- Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer, described as overtly Christian, over the public address system before each home varsity football game.
- One Mormon and one Catholic family filed suit.
o While case was pending, school district implemented new policy of allowing students to lead student lead prayer.
o Dist. Ct. injunction permitted ONLY non-secular prayer.
o App. Ct. Held whole practice invalid
o District filed for writ claiming that the student prayers were private speech, and not public speech.
- Issue: Violation of Establishment clause for student led prayer at home games?
- Holding: Yes, held they were in violation of clause. Government allowed and on government property. Government sponsored events.

Front 112

Prayer in School

Back 112

• Supreme Court ruled that the daily recitation of prayer was a religious activity inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.
• This was later upheld and also reversed in different states.
• The Founders considered religion to be “too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate,” state-sponsored prayer was contrary to their original intent in draft the 1st Amendment.

Front 113

Prayer at Graduation and Other Activities

Back 113

• A divided Supreme Court affirmed the unconstitutionality of the school-sponsored graduation prayer
• Justices based their judgment on two major points (Not Lemon):
o The Court thought that prayer was unacceptable because the state, through school officials, played a pervasive role in the process both by selecting who would pray and by directing consent.
o The Court feared that such governmental activity could result in psychological coercion of students.
• After this case; however, the courts remained divided.
• Student-led prayers prior to the start of high school football games
• A closely divided Supreme Court affirmed that the policy permitting student-led prayers prior to the start of games violated the Establishment Clause
• The Justices relied on the endorsement test rather than the psychological coercion test
o The Court reviewed the statues of prayer from the perspective of whether its being permitted before the game was an impermissible governmental approval or endorsement of religion rather than as a form of psychological coercion subjecting fans to values and/or beliefs other than their own.

Front 114

Periods of Silence

Back 114

• Lower federal courts disagreed on whether brief periods of silence before the start of school involves religion.

Front 115

Student Sponsored Religious Activity in the Schools

Back 115

Student Sponsored Religious Activity in the Schools

Front 116

Windmar v. Vincent

Back 116

- University of Missouri at Kansas City ruled it’s facilities could not be used by student groups for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching. Believed that it was not allowable under establishment clause.
- Issue: Does the access to facilities from state universities violate the establishment clause
- Holding: No, because the university generally permits student organizations. Passed Lemon test, stating that primary effect to advance religion, religious enjoyment here is “incidental” and benefits do not violate primary advancement.

Front 117

Equal Access Act: 20 U.S.C.A. (1239)

Back 117

- The Act provides that if a school receives federal aid and has a "limited open forum," or at least one student-led non-curriculum club that meets outside of class time, it must allow additional such clubs to be organized, and must give them equal access to meeting spaces and school publications.

Front 118

Westside Community School v. Mergens (114)

Back 118

- The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of students to form a Christian club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other Westside after-school student clubs.
- Westside refused the club's formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor.
- The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requirements that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages.
- Issue: Westside’s prohibition against the formation of a Christian club consistent with the Establishment Clause? And did this consistency render the Equal Access Act Unconstitutional?
- Holding: No, since Westside allowed other “non-curriculum” groups, it was prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any after school club.

Front 119

• Student-initiated prayer in school settings

Back 119

• The Court found the board’s allowing genuinely student-initiated religious speech in school and at school-related events did not violate the Establishment Clause and had to be permitted as a form of free speech.
• The Court acknowledged that while the students’ religious speech could not be state supervised, it was subject to time, manner, and place restrictions.
• Circuit courts have extended the scope of the Equal Access Act to allow students to select leaders who comply with a club’s religious standards.
o Compel federally funded secondary schools to provide equal access to extracurricular clubs.

Front 120

Religion and Public School Curriculum

Back 120

Religion and Public School Curriculum

Front 121

Epperson v. Arkansas (101)

Back 121

- The Arkansas legislature passed a law prohibiting teachers in public or state- supported schools from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution.
- Epperson, a public school teacher, sued, claiming the law violated her First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Establishment Clause.
- The State Chancery Court ruled that it violated his free speech rights; the State Supreme Court reversed.
- Issue: Does a law forbidding the teaching of evolution violate either the free speech rights of the teachers or the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Holding: Yes, it was held that the statute violated the Establishment Clause.

Front 122

McClean v. Arkansas

Back 122

- Arkansas state law known as the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590), which mandated the teaching of "creation science" in Arkansas public schools, was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- Does the forbidding of creation science violate the establishment clause
- Court handed down a decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that creation science is religion and is simply not science.

Front 123

Edwards v. Aguillard

Back 123

- A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth.
- Schools were not forced to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.
- Issue: Did the Louisiana Law violate the Establishment Clause
- Holding: Yes, the court held that it violated the Establishment Clause. Uses the three prong test in LEMON. Brennan said it failed on all three prongs.
o Not enacted for a secular purpose.
o Primary effect was to advance creationism
o Significantly entangled interests of church and state b seeking the government for religious purposes.

Front 124

Use of the Bible

Back 124

• To withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
• “Bible as Literature” course was disapproved in some courts, but allowed in others as long as guidelines were made and certified teachers were used.
• Court struck down a Bible-study class offered in rotation of other noncore classes.

Front 125

Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish

Back 125

- Challenged a law requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer when they taught about evolution.
- Did this violate the Establishment Clause
- Holding: Yes, court of appeals held that it violated the lemon test.
• SCOTUS voted not to hear case.

Front 126

C.H. Ex. Rel. Z.H. v. Olivia

Back 126

- Whether displaying kindergarten child's Thanksgiving poster expressing thanks for Jesus was constitutionally permissible when other classmates' Thanksgiving posters expressing thanks for "secular things" were allowed to be displayed on a school wall.
- Violation of the Establishment Clause.

Front 127

Stone v. Graham

Back 127

- Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom.
- Issue: Did the Kentucky statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
- Holding: Kentucky law violated the first part of the test established in Lemon.
• Thus violates the establishment clause, plainly religious in nature.

Front 128

Lynch v. Donnelly

Back 128

- Pawtucket Rhode Island created a holiday scene at the city’s shopping district which displayed a Christmas tree, banner reading “Season’s Greeting” and a nativity scene.
- Issue: Did the city’s display of a nativity scene violate the establishment clause.
- Holding: NO, notwithstanding the religious significance of the crèche, the city had not violated the Establishment clause.

Front 129

Allegheny County v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh

Back 129

- Two public-sponsored holiday displays were challenged by the ACLU in Pittsburgh. One was a nativity scene and the courthouse, and one was a menorah at the city council building.
- Issue: Did the public displays violate the Establishment Clause.
- Holding: The nativity scene within the courthouse was unconstitutional, but the Menorah was not. As its physical location was not an issue.

Front 130

Sechler v. State College Area

Back 130

- Case involved a winter holiday program at a public school in which symbols, rituals, and songs of cultural and religious holidays (non-Christmas holidays) were displayed or sung, while a traditional Christmas carol was parodied and secular Christmas songs were sung.
- Plaintiff complained that non-Christian religions were emphasized while Christianity was under emphasized or ignored.
- Held constitutional.

Front 131

Elks Grove School District v. Newdow

Back 131

- Elk Grove teachers began school days by leading students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God" added by a 1954 Congressional act.
- Newdow sued in federal district court in California, arguing that making students listen - even if they choose not to participate - to the words "under God" violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment
- Issue: did the words, “under god” violate the Establishment Clause. Did Newdow have standing?
- Holding: Newdow did not have standing, therefore, the constitutional question was not answered.

Front 132

Public Religious Displays on School Grounds

Back 132

• Posting religious symbols, even if purchased with private funds, violated the Establishment Clause.