Chapter+Two+Schools+and+the+State

 Chapter 2 - Schools and the State I.  Compulsory Attendance A.  Satisfied by Parochial, Private, or Home School Attendance Every state has some form of compulsory education law. These laws generally provide that children between certain ages must attend public, private, or home school, and failure to comply may be a criminal violation. ·  Society of Sisters and Hill Military academy claims their 14th amendment right has been violated. The court ruled the 14th amendment guaranteed the appellees against the deprivation of their property without due process ·  The schools were not unfit or harmful to the public and that the enforcement of the challenged statute would unlawfully deprive them of patronage and thereby destroy the owners business and property. Notes and Questions B.  Regulation of Private Schools – Once Pierce established the doctrine that private schools could satisfy the state’s compulsory attendance requirement, the questions arose to what extent the state could regulate private schools within jurisdiction. C.  Home Instruction - Courts have overwhelmingly upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on home instruction including the requirements of teacher education. D.  Admission Issues – disputes may arise when a child’s birthday is within a few days of the designated when parents believed children ate emotionally ad intellectually ready for school. Students must be 5 by September 1st. ·  **// Personally Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) //** – restricted alien access to substantially all public benefits and severely restricted state legislation in the area of public benefits for aliens. II. Religion in the Schools – The Supreme Court ad lower courts have been consistent in rulings dealing with bible reading and school sponsored prayer during school hours A.  School Sponsored prayer and bible reading 1.  Recitation of state prayer Composed by the NY State of Regents, which was said to be in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of every school day, was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause. ·  Parents said the official prayer in public schools was contra to the beliefs, religion, and religions of both themselves and their children. They argued that prayer in public school system breaches the walls of the constitutional wall separating church and state. ·  **// Establishment Clause //** – purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion. 2.  Prayer and bible reading ·  Commonwealth of PA required that at least 10 versus of the Holy Bible be read without comment at the beginning of each public school on each school day ·  Student could be excluded upon request of parent ·  Schempp and family are of Unitarian faith and say that the readings are contrary to their religious beliefs ·  Murray and son are atheists and they brought suit because each morning there was a reading from the King James bible claimed that this violated their rights ·  Neutrality was also found in the Free Exercise Clause – recognized the value of religious training teaching and observance and the right of every person to choose his own course with reference, free from any compulsion of the state. Notes and Questions 3.  Prayer at graduation exercise and other public school-sponsored activities ·  School principal in Providence invited a rabbi to deliver prayers at graduation. School officials gave the Rabbi a pamphlet entitled a “guideline for Civic Occasions” prepared by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. ·  Deborah Wiseman father objected to any prayers at Deborah’s middle school graduation ·  The Court applied the 3 part Establishment Clause Test 1.  Reflect a clearly secular purpose 2.  Have a primary effect that neither advances not inhibits religion 3.  Avoid excessive government entanglement with religion ·  The Court found that the practice of including invocations and benediction even so-called nonsectarian ones, in a public school graduation creates an identification of governmental power with religious practice, endorses religion, and violates the Establishment Clause. ·  No holding by this Court suggest that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise.
 * // Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) //** – A landmark US Supreme Court decision, affirmed the doctrine of compulsory school attendance. It also established the role of parochial and private schools in satisfying the state’s demand those children receive schooling.
 * // Wisconsin v Yoder (1972) //** – Amish group contests the Wisconsin compulsory attendance which required attendance at a public or private school until 16. Amish didn’t want kids o attend after 8th grade because of it being worldly. Court contended that enforcing the state law would gravely endanger if not destroy the Amish religious beliefs.
 * // Farrington v. Tokushige (1926) //** – teachers in Hawaii were required to possess ideals of democracy, knowledge of American history, and fluency in English. The court ruled the requirements served no demonstrable public interest but amounted to deliberate plan of govt control and infringed on rights of parents and students.
 * // New Life Baptists Church Academy Town of East Long Meadow (1989) //** - the court contended that the state’s interest in making certain that the children receive an adequate secular education was compelling and did not violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
 * // Grigg v Virginia (1982) //** – the court required home school instructors to be tutors of teachers
 * // People v Bennett (1993) and Clonlara v State Board of Education (1993 //** ) – Home schools must comply with teacher certification
 * // People v Dejonge (1993) //** – Court did not uphold teacher certification for home school parents who objected based on religious beliefs.
 * // Null v Board of Education (1993) //** Court upheld statute that made children ineligible for home schooling if standardized tests fell below the 40th percentile.
 * // Brunelle v Lynn Public Schools (1998 //** ) Court found that approval of home based education conditioned on a requirement of a home visit by the superintendent was invalid.
 * // Mazanec v North Judson San Pierre School Corporation (1986 //** ) – objections on religious grounds to verify compliance with attendance laws was not upheld.
 * // Swanson v Gutherie Independent School District (1998) //** – upheld a school district fulltime attendance policy which did not allow home-schooled student to attend public school on a part time basis
 * // Blessing v Mason County Board of Education (1985) //** – court found that an intellectually mature child whose birthday was September 3rd should have been admitted to school. Intent that schools boards should adopt a flexible policy.
 * // Plyer v Doe (1982) //** the Supreme Court addressed the issue of public school admission of illegal aliens. The court held that funding for these children could not be withheld from local school districts nor could local school districts deny enrollment to children illegally admitted to the country
 * // Engel v Vitale (1962) //** – The Court held that recitation to prayer
 * // School District of Abington Township v Schempp, Murray v Curlett (1963) //** – In light of history of the 1st Amendment and of our cases interpreting and applying its requirements, we hold that the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, as applied to states under the 14th Amendment.
 * // Wallace v Jaffree (1985) //** – This six to three decision held that the setting aside of classroom time for school sponsored silent prayer, which was authorized in 26 states was unconstitutional. Issue was that the time was designated for prayer.
 * // Browne v Gilmore (2001) //** – Court upheld a Virginia law that local school boards could establish a minute of silence
 * // Washegesic v Bloomingdale Public Schools (1993) //** – A picture of Jesus that hung in the school hallway violated the 1st Amendment because it endorsed religion.
 * // McCreary //****// County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (2005) //** – Court did not uphold the hanging of the 10 Commandments in courthouse. The court used the Lemon test and found the posting did not serve any secular purpose and therefore ran afoul of the Establishment Clause.
 * // Van Orden v Perry (2005) //** - The Court upheld the constitutionality of displaying a 6 foot high monolith inscribed with the 10 Commandments as a part of the 38 nonreligious educational and historical symbols outside the Texas State Capitol.
 * // Guyer v School Board of Alachua County (1994) //** – The Court denied that Halloween was a pagan festival and had no place in public schools
 * // Florey v Sioux Falls School District (1980) //** – The Court upheld the presentation of holiday assemblies that contained religious art, literature, and music, as long as such materials were not presented in an attempted to advance or inhibit religion.
 * // Marsh v Chambers (1983 //** – The Court upheld the Nebraska legislative practice of opening the day with prayer.
 * // Allegheny v American Civil Liberties Union (1989) //** – The Court ruled the crèche depicted the Christian nativity scene placed in the county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause.
 * // Lynch v Donnelly (1984) //** – The Court upheld the 40 year practice of having a city erected Christmas display in a park owned by a nonprofit organization. The display included a Santa Claus house, Christmas tree, a banner that read "Seasons Greetings” and the nativity scene.
 * // Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v Pinette (1995) //** The Court upheld the right of the Klu Klux Klan to place an unattended cross in a government plaza during the Christmas season. The court found that this was private expression and reiterated that private religious speech is a fully protected expression as secular private expression.
 * // Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith (1990) – //** The Court stated that a state did not violate a Native American’s free exercise right by refusing him employment for smoking peyote as part of his religious observances; Congress passed the **//Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)//** in 1993.
 * // City of Bourne v Flores (1997) – //** RFRA was found to be unconstitutional as applied to state governments. The Court held that Congress overstepped its authority by improperly expanding the scope of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.
 * // Cheema v Thompson (1995) – //** done before RFRA was unconstitutional. The Court allowed a male Sikh student to wear a kirpan and 61/2 curved dull-edged ceremonial dagger worn in a sheath even though the school had a no weapons policy.
 * // Lee v Wiseman (1992) //** – The US Supreme Court ruled that prayers mandated or organized by school officials and delivered by local clergy at graduation exercises were unconstitutional.

Many public schools have Bible or other religious study groups that meet on school rounds before, during or after school. Fearful that official recognition of religious groups would raise separation of church and state issues, some school admin were reluctant to grant them student-body status. Refusal to grant official recognition often resulted in litigation, and in attempt to address the issue, Congress in 1994 passed the Equal Access Act. Under this Act it is unlawful for a public secondary school that receives federal financial assistance and has created a limited open forum to deny recognition of student-initiated groups on the basis on the religious, political content at the meetings. Not recognized at the time of its passage, the language of the act also protected religious and political groups that may have little local community support. Under provisions of the Equal Access Act, the only way these groups may be denied official recognition is by sanctioning only curriculum-related groups or by declining federal funds. A set of religious liberty guidelines addressing the Equal Access Act was issued by the Dept. of Education in 1998 and included the following: The Equal Access Act is designed to ensure that student religious activities are accorded the same access to public school facilities as are student secular services. The Act should be interpreted as providing general provisions, prayer services and worship exercises covered, equal access to means of publicizing meetings, lunchtime and recess covered. Parents may object to the use of certain textbooks on the grounds that the books advance secular humanism and inhibit theistic religion. Two early Supreme Court decisions have addressed the questions of releasing public school students during normal school hours and thereby enabling them to receive religious instruction. Given the many court decisions requiring school systems not to favor one religion, closing schools on Christian holidays has received much attention. NCLB requires the Secretary of Education to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools every two years. The purpose of the guidance is to provide state agencies with information on the current state of the law concerning constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools. // Overview // The First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals. // Applying Governing Principles // // Prayer during noninstructional time // Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction. // Organized Prayer Groups and Activities // Students may organize religious clubs, etc before school to the same extent that students are permitted to form other non-curriculum groups. // Teachers, Admin and Other Employees // When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, school admin and other employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause form encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activities with students. // Moments of Silence // During a moment of silence or other quiet periods of the day, students are free to pray silently. // Accumulation of Prayer During Instructional Time // Where school officials have a practice of excusing students form class on the basis of parents’ requests for accommodation of nonreligious needs, religiously motivated requests for excusal may not be accorded less favorable treatment. // Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments // Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free form discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. // Student Assemblies and Extracurricular Events // Student speakers must not be selected on the basis that favors or disfavors religious speech. // Prayer at Graduation // School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech. // Baccalaureate Ceremonies // School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. In most instances, the local school board has either implied or specific authority to promulgate reasonable rules for the use of school buildings when they are not being used for school purposes. A general rule that has evolved concerning the use of school facilities suggests that if facilities are to be leased to one type of group, they must be available to all within the group. Such may be denied if the user does not follow district rules, there is demonstrated violence or danger, or the meeting violated local, state or federal laws. Legislatures in states began passing measures that attempted to financially assist the nonpublic school sector. Disputes often arise in regard to the charging of fees by the public school system. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment because the fee is used to pay what amounts to tuition. Over the years, school systems have attempted to impose health services, with which some parents disapproved, on students. State statutes authorizing or requiring vaccination or immunization as a condition of school attendance have been upheld in every instance where they have been challenged. Some school authorities have attempted to deal with problems associated with high levels of student pregnancy and student wide AIDS epidemic by making condoms available. When litigated, condom distribution program have been upheld by the courts.
 * B. Equal Access **
 * // Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990): //** The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act. In defining a “limited open forum”, the Court stated that such a forum exists when the school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more non-curriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.
 * // Colin ex.rel. Colin v. Orange Unified SD (2000): //** The court ruled that the Gay-Straight Alliance could meet on campus. The Court reasoned that by recognizing such non-curriculum groups as the Asian Club and the Christian Club, the board had established a limited open forum.
 * // Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent SD (2004): //** In upholding the refusal of the sd to recognize the gay-straight student group, the court agreed that material on the group’s website regarding sexual content were inappropriate in light of the district’s abstinence only policy.
 * // Ceniceros v. Board of Trustees of the San Diego Unified SD (1997): //** A religious club was not allowed to meet during lunch period while other clubs could. The court reasoned that because no classes were held during lunch period it was noninstructional time.
 * // Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free SD (1996): //** The court ruled that a school system should allow the formation of the Bible club
 * // Garnett v. Renton SD (1993): //** States cannot abridge rights granted by federal law such as the Equal Access Act.
 * C. The Teaching of Evolution **
 * // Edwards v. Aguillard (1987): //** The question for decision is whether Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction” Act is invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court declared the practice as violative of the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishment of religion because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.
 * // Frelier v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1999): //** A disclaimer that was to be read immediately before the teaching of evolution was challenged. The court declared the disclaimer unconstitutional.
 * // Kitzmiller v. Dover Area SD (2005): //** The decision held local board policy unconstitutional which stated that “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” The Court concluded that it is unconstitutional to teacher ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
 * D. Textbooks **
 * // Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (1987): //** Parents charged that history, social studies, and home economics books promoted secular humanism by excluding facts about religion and by failing to present a biblically based divine framework for decision making. The US Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit do did uphold the parents’ contentions.
 * // Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1988): //** Parents wanted an alternative reading program because the current series included a story on mental telepathy. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected this petition stating that this case would set precedent and it would result in a public school system that would be impossible to administer.
 * // Roberts v. Madigan (1990): //** A federal court of appeals held that school officials could not require removal of the Bible from the school’s library but could require the removal of religiously oriented book from the classroom library and require the teacher to keep his Bible out of sight and refrain from reading it in the classroom during school hours.
 * E. Distribution of Religious Literature **
 * // Tudor v. Board of Education of Borough of Rutherford (1953): //** Distributing Bibles to public school students was held to violate the Establishment Clause.
 * // Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse School (1997): //** The court held that such distribution may take place, but because a public elementary school is a “nonpublic forum” certain restrictions may be imposed such as screening for offensive material, time and place requirements, and disclaimer that the materials were not endorsed by the sd. Allowing one religious group to distribute literature opens a forum.
 * // Peck v. UpshurCounty Board of Education (1998): //** Limited and passive distribution of Bibles and other religious materials during school hours was upheld.
 * // Bacon v. Bradley-Bourbonnais High School District (1989): //** A school district’s policy of barring distribution of any materials on the sidewalk in front of the school violated the First Amendment Rights of individuals wishing to distribute Bibles. The sidewalk was a public forum and the school’s policy could not be justified to ensure student safety.
 * // Rusk v. Crestview Local Schools (2004): //** A policy permitting community nonprofit groups that serve children, including religious groups, to have flyers distributed to elementary school students was held not to violate the Establishment Clause.
 * F. Released and Shared Time and Religious Instruction **
 * // McCollum v. Board of Education SD (1948): //** The Court invalidated a plan under which separate Protestant, catholic, and Jewish religious classes were taught in the public school buildings. The Court concluded that it violated the First Amendment.
 * // Zorach v. Clauson (1952): //** The Court upheld a plan whereby students were released during public school hours to attend religious instruction classes off the school premises.
 * // Pierce v. Sullivan West Central SD (2004): //** It was alleged that they way the “release time” program was implemented violated the Establishment Clause because it left nonparticipants in the program with nothing to do during compulsory time that had to be spent in the classroom and gave teachers no guidance on how to use that time. The court concluded that the program used no public funds, involved no onsite religious instruction, was purely voluntary and brought no specific coercion or pressure to bear on nonparticipants by school officials.
 * // Lanner v. Wimmer (1981): //** The federal appellate court held that academic credit could not be given in a released time seminary program.
 * // Snyder v. Charlotte Public School District (1984): //** The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that public schools must open “nonessential elective courses” such as band, art and advanced math to private school students.
 * // Wiley v. Franklin (1979): //** Held that such courses could not be offered unless they were (1) secular in nature, intent and purpose, (2) neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, and (3) offered in a manner that avoided excessive entanglement between government and religion.
 * // Doe v. Porter (2002): //** The court maintained that the content of the Bible program and its complete delegation to such a decidedly religious institution, by itself, resulted in an impermissible entanglement of government and religion.
 * G. Religious Holidays **
 * // Metzl v. Leininger (1995): //** An Illinois statute designating Good Friday as one of twelve state mandated school holidays was held to be in violation of the Establishment Clause.
 * // Koenick v. Felton (1999): //** A Maryland statute held that creating a public school holiday from Friday before Easter through Monday after did not violate the Establishment Clause.
 * H. Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools **
 * III. USE OF FACILITIES **
 * // Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001): //** The local Good News Club, a private Christian organization, requested the use of school facilities and was denied by the superintendent. This discriminated against the club from the after school forum. It constitutes impermissible discrimination.
 * // Boy Scouts of America v. Till (2001): //** The court contended it could not punish the Boy Scouts by withholding their use of school facilities for operating under a policy which the US Supreme Court has condoned.
 * IV. AID TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS **
 * // Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): //** The Court struck down both an attempt by Rhode Island legislature to provide a 15% salary supplement to be paid to those teachers dealing with secular subjects in nonpublic schools and a PA statute that provided financial support to nonpublic schools by way of reimbursement. The Court contended that this was a principal evil that the First Amendment was intended to protect against.
 * // Levitt v. Committee for Public Education and Religion Liberty (1973): //** Under this statute, nonpublic schools would have been reimbursed for expenses incurred in administering, grading, compiling and reporting test results, maintaining attendance and health records, recording qualifications and characteristics of personnel, and preparing reports to the state. The Court ruled that such aid would have the primary purpose or effort of advancing religion and would lead to the entanglement of church and state.
 * // Meek v. Pittenger (1975): //** The Court asked to rule on a PA statute that provided auxiliary services for exceptional, remedial or educationally disadvantaged nonpublic students for lending instructional materials to nonpublic school. The Court invalidated all but he textbook loan.
 * // Agostini v. Felton (1997): //** Under federal education funds under Chapter 1 (formerly Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) to pay public school teachers who taught in programs aimed at helping low-income, educationally deprived students within parochial schools was allowed.
 * // Mitchell v. Helms (2000): //** A federal program involving Chapter 2 that loaned computers, software and library books to religious school was upheld.
 * // Mueller v. Allen (1983): //** The Court upheld a Minnesota law permitting taxpayers to claim a deduction from gross income on their state income tax returns for “tuition textbooks, and transportation” not exceeding $500 for dependents in grades K-6 and $700 for dependents in grades 7-12.
 * // Everson v. Board of Education of Township of Ewing (1947): //** The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of providing transportation to parochial school students.
 * // Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002): //** The Court upheld an Ohio program that provided vouchers to low-income and minority families in Cleveland.
 * V. SCHOOL FEES **
 * // Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation (2006): //** The Indiana Supreme Court considered the question whether the mandatory $20 student services fee imposed on students violates Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution. They conclude it does.
 * VI. HEALTH SERVICES **
 * A. Immunization **
 * // Berg v. Glen Cove City SD (1994): //** The Berg sought to enroll their children in Glen Cove and requested exemption from the immunization requirement. The couple responded to the Superintendent request and gave reasons as to why the requested such exemptions. The Court found that the Bergs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that their opposition to the required immunizations is based on beliefs which qualify as “religious” and that they hold these beliefs “genuinely and sincerely”.
 * // Boone v. Boozman (2002): //** The court upheld the Arkansas compulsory law as a reasonable measure but severed the religious exemption as bring unconstitutional.
 * // Calendra v. State College Area SD (1986): //** A school rule requiring a tetanus shot as a condition of playing on a baseball team was upheld.
 * B. Distribution of Condoms **
 * // Curtis v. School Committee of Falmouth (1995): //** A condom-availability program from grades 7-12 was upheld.
 * // Parents United for Better Schools, Inc. v. School District of Philadelphia (1998): //** The court upheld the consensual program and argued that because the program did not demand student participation and gave parents the option to exclude their children from receiving condoms, it did not violate the parents’ rights.