ch 15 legalities affecting schooling - dr. william allan kritsonis

CHAPTER 15–IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 334This book is protected under the Copyright Act of 1976. Uncited Sources, Violators will be prosecuted. Courtesy, National FORUM Journals

CHAPTER 15

IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTINGSCHOOLING IN AMERICA

KEY POINTS

THE THIRTEEN FEDERAL JUDICIAL CIRCUITS

Copyright 2005William Kritsonis

All Rights Reserved / Forever

NY

VT ME

NH

CT RI

MA

PA NJ

DE

WV VA

MD

NC

SC

Washington, D.C.Federal Courtof Appeals

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

Guam andN. Marina Islands

FL

GAAL

TN

KY

OH

MIWI

IL INIA

MO

AR

NE

SD

ND MNMT

AK

WA

ORID

WY

KS

OK

COUT

NV

CA

AZ

NM

TX

MSLA

HI

SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 335

CHAPTER 15–IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOL-ING IN AMERICA

A. OVERVIEW

Chapter 15 presents information regarding important legalities affecting schooling in America. Specific content focuses on federal legislation, impor-tant court cases and decisions, and parts of the Constitution that affect educa-tion in America.

B. KEY TERMS–DEFINITIONS – NONE

C. SOME PRECEDING THOUGHTS

1. Federal legislation affecting education.

Land Ordinance of 1785

first legislation passed at the national level that had an impact on edu-cation;

required one section of each township established in the Northwest Territory be reserved for the establishment of public schools.

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

expressed general commitment for education by the federal govern-ment;

stated that “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged”;

considered by many as the foundation for public education.

Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862

gave 30,000 acres of federal land to each state for each elected repre-sentative to Congress;

purpose of the land was to establish a college for agriculture and me-chanical arts;

eventual donation of 17 million acres of land.

CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 336

The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917

provided funds to states to train teachers in the area of vocational edu-cation;

primarily assisted high schools; however, some funds used in junior colleges;

helped establish an extensive network of vocational education in the country;

National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-865)

passed after the launching of Sputnik;

primarily enacted as a defense action;

provided unprecedented amounts of federal money for public educa-tion;

emphasized educational improvement in the areas of science and for-eign languages.

Vocational Education Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-210)

expanded federal support for vocational education;

main purpose was to assist states in maintaining, extending, and im-proving existing vocational education programs and to provide part-time employment for youths;

provided for $60 million during fiscal year 1964 and $225 million per year thereafter.

Bilingual Education Act of 1964

provided funds for school districts to develop and operate special pro-grams for students with limited English-speaking skills;

1974 amendment removed requirements that students in the program be from low income homes.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10)

most extensive federal legislation passed dealing with public education;

focused public education efforts on children from poverty homes;

provided funds for library support;

established services for academic support and remedial instruction;

provided funding for research activities by universities;

funded programs at state education agencies to support personnel train-ing and planning.


Economic Opportunity Act of 1965

continued efforts at providing services to poor children;

funded Head Start programs.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-102)

basically civil rights legislation for the handicapped;

prevented discrimination against children and adults due to disabilities;

applied safeguards for school-age disabled children.

Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142)

required the provision of a free, appropriate public education for all handicapped children;

mandated that all handicapped children have an Individualized Educa-tional Program (IEP);

required that handicapped children be educated with non-handicapped children as much as possible;

provided parents, students, and schools with due process safeguards;

required that parents be involved in the education of their handicapped children. Mandated that nondiscriminatory assessment practices be used with children.

Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-88)

established the Department of Education.;

functions came from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35)

consolidated 42 programs into seven programs;

funding came from elementary and secondary block grant authority.

Rehabilitation Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221)

revised and expanded Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504);

provided for the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf/Blind.


Reauthorization of the Education of the Handicapped Act Amend-ments (Public Law 99-457)

reauthorized three-year programs under Public Law 94-142;

mandated services for children with disabilities, ages 3-5, by 1990-1991;

provided financial incentives to serve children 0-2 years with disabili-ties.

The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570)

authorized funding for FY 87-89;

part of Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986;

established programs for drug abuse education and prevention.

2. Important court cases affecting education.

Commonwealth vs. Hartment (1851) – the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution and school laws only establish minimum requirements and that schools could establish more stringent requirements, in this case, mandatory education.

Springfield vs. Quick (1859) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that states could collect taxes and tax funds for public educational programs.

Kalamazoo Case (1874) – the Michigan Supreme court ruled that the Kala-mazoo school district could levy taxes to support high schools.

Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) – the United States Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana law that required railways to provide separate-but-equal facili-ties for white and black individuals.

Attorney General of Michigan vs. Lowrey (1905) – the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of state legislature to make and change boundaries of school districts.

Pierce vs. Society of Sisters (1925) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that state laws may require the attendance of children in school, but could not regulate whether the school is private or public.

Cochran vs. Louisiana State Board of Education (1930) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that state funds could be used to purchase text-books for all school-age children, including those attending private, sectar-ian schools.


Illinois ex. rel. vs. Board of Education (1948) – the United States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional a school program that permitted students to attend religious instruction in school during school hours.

Illinois ex rel. Mccollum vs. Board of Education (1948) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that school programs permitting religious instruction during school hours, and allowing students to leave their regular classes for the religious classes, was unconstitutional.

Sweatt vs. Painter (1950) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that a black student could not be denied admission to the University of Texas Law School for the sole reason of race.

Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that children could not be denied admission to public schools on the basic of race; ruling declared segregated public schools to be unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-tion.

Engel vs. Vitale (1962) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that a New York State law that required the reading of a 22-word, nondenomina-tional prayer unconstitutional.

Abington School District vs. Schempp, Murray vs. Curlett (1963) – the United States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional a law that required the reading of 10 Bible verses and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer during school hours, on school grounds, conducted by school personnel.

Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968) – a law forbidding the teaching of evolution was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

Green vs. County School Board (1968) – the United States Supreme Court declared that a “freedom of choice” plan in a previously segregated school district offers little likelihood for desegregation. The ruling required that an effective plan for desegregation be implemented.

Pickering vs. Board of Education (1968) – teachers may express their opinions as long as the school’s regular operation is not disrupted.

Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) – the United States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the suspension of students wearing armbands or other symbolic expressions unless the wearing of such interferes with school.

Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) – federal court ruling upheld busing as a legitimate means for desegregating schools. It gave district courts wide discretion in remedying longstanding segregated school systems.


Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. Pennsyl vania (1971) – federal court required local schools to provide a free, appropriate public education for all school-aged, mentally retarded children.

Board of Regents of State Colleges vs. Roth (1972) – after a specified pro-bationary period, teachers have a property interest in continued employ-ment.

San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriquez (1973) – federal court upheld a state funding model where local property taxes are used to provide a minimum educational program for all students.

Sloan vs. Lemon (1973) – the United States Supreme Court ruled as un-constitutional a law allowing for partial reimbursement by the state for tu-ition paid by parents sending their children to private schools.

Cleveland Board of Education vs. Lefleur (1974) – board of education may establish leave policies for pregnant teachers, but these policies may not contain arbitrary leave and return dates.

Milliken vs. Bradley (1974) – the United States Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, overturned lower court rulings that required the busing of children between Detroit and suburban school districts to desegregate the Detroit system.

Baker vs. Owen (1975) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that a statute allowing for reasonable corporal punishment was constitutional as long as certain procedural rights were afforded.

Hortonville District vs. Hortonville Education Association (1976) – in a due process hearing, a school board may be the impartial body conducting the hearing.

Washington vs. Davis (1976) – under-representation of a group in the work force does not, in itself, prove unconstitutional employment discrimina-tion, but the employer in this situation must prove that hiring has not been discriminatory.

Wolman vs. Walter (1977) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that states may supply secular texts, standardized tests, diagnostic speech, hear-ing and psychological services, and guidance and remedial services pro-vided on religiously neutral territory to religious, private schools.

Steelworkers vs. Weber (1979) – employers (including school districts) may use affirmative action plans to increase the number of minority em-ployees.


Battle vs. Commonwealth (1980) – Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that some handicapped children should be afforded extended school year services in cases where significant regression would occur during the sum-mer.

Board of Education vs. Rowley (1982) – the United States Supreme court ruled that Public Law 94-142 guaranteed the right of disabled children to a minimally appropriate educational program, not a program designed to maximize the educational performance of students.

Firefighters vs. Stotts (1984) – in affirmative action programs, government units may not ignore seniority unless the minority candidates who benefit have personally experienced discrimination.

New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that while students had Fourth Amendment Rights relative to search and seizure, schools could use “reasonable suspicion” as a reason for searches rather than “probable cause.”

Spring Branch Independent School District vs. Stamos (1985) – the Texas Supreme Court upheld the “no-pass no-play” rule in Texas requiring stu-dents to meet certain academic standards before being eligible for ex-tracurricular activities.

Day vs. South Park Independent School District (1985) – this case, which will likely disturb educators, upheld the right of a school district to termi-nate an employee simply because the employee had used the employee grievance procedure.

District 27 Community School Board vs. The Board of Edu ca tion of the City of New York (1986) – the court ruled that a child with Acquired Im-mune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) could be considered handicapped un-der Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and therefore eligible for certain protections under the law.

Jager and Jager vs. Douglas County School District and Douglas County Board of Education (1987) – this case resulted in an ambiguous opinion that made it unconstitutional for clergy to give a pregame invocation at a high school athletic event. The decision left the door open for other than clergy to give the invocation.

Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987) – the United States Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision that the Louisiana law, the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, was unconstitutional.

School Board of Nassau County vs. Arline (1987) – dismissing a teacher because of physical impairment or contagious disease is unconstitutional.


Hoenig vs. Doe (1988) – in this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that schools had to keep a child with emotional problems in the placement pursuant to the individualized educational program (IEP) unless the parents and school agreed to a change, or until the due process proce-dures for changing placement were carried out.

Lehnert vs. Ferris Faculty Association (1991) – employees who are not union members cannot be required to pay dues used for political purposes unrelated to collective bargaining agreements.

3. Important United States Supreme Court desegregation cases related to the public schools.

Case Decision

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

The doctrine of separate but equal in education is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Green vs. County School Board of New Kent County (1968)

Local school boards should imme-diately take whatever steps are necessary to achieve a unitary system.

Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

Transportation of students to op-posite-race school is permissible to achieve desegregation.

Keyes vs. School District No. 1 (Denver) (1973)

Proof of intent to segregate in one part of a district is sufficient to find the district to be segregated and to warrant a district-wide remedy. For purposes of defin-ing a segregated school, blacks and Hispanics may be consid-ered together.

Milliken vs. Bradley (1974) In devising judicial remedies for desegregation, the scope of the desegregation remedy cannot exceed the scope of the viola-tion.

Dayton Board of Education vs. Brinkman (1977)

Judicially mandated desegregation plans cannot exceed the impact of the segregatory practices.

Table continues


Case Decision

Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools vs. Dowell (1991)

Desegregation decrees are not in-tended to operate in perpetuity, and can be dissolved when a district has made good faith ef-fort to comply and to the extent practical has eliminated the ves-tiges of past discrimination.

Freeman vs. Pitts (1992) Lower courts can relinquish super-vision of a school district under desegregation decree in incre-mental stages before full com-pliance has been achieved in ev-ery area of school operations.

Missouri vs. Jenkins (1995) Once the effects of legally im-posed segregation have been eliminated, the goal of desegre-gation plans need not be to maintain racial balance but to return control to state and local authorities. Any resegregation of neighborhood schools that may result is not unconstitu-tional.

4. Summary of important major civil rights statues affecting education.

Statute Major Provision

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 187042 U.S.C. § 1981

Provides all citizens equal rights under the law regardless of race.

Civil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. § 1983

Any person who deprives another of his/her rights may be held li-able to the injured party.

Civil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. § 1985 and 1986

Persons conspiring to deprive an-other of his/her rights, or any person having knowledge of any such conspiracy, are subject to any action to recover damages.

Table continued

Table continues



Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1870(as amended)42 U.S.C. § 1988

Courts may award reasonableattorney fees to the prevailing party in any action arising out of the above acts and Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VI42 U.S.C. § 2000(d)

Prohibits discrimination on thebasis of race, color, or national origin.

Equal Pay Act of 196329 U.S.C. § 206(D)

Prohibits sex discrimination in pay.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)

Prohibits discrimination in em-ployment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 196729 U.S.C. § 621

Prohibits discrimination against any individual with respect to employment unless age is a bona fide occupational qualification.

Education Amendments of 1972, Ti-tle IX20 U.S.C. § 1681

Prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity re-ceiving federal financial assis-tance.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973(as amended) 29 U.S.C. § 791

Prohibits sex discrimination against any “otherwise qualified handicapped individual.”

Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 197420 U.S.C. § 1703

Prohibits any state from denying equal educational opportunities to any individual based on his/her race, color, sex, ornational origin.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 199042 U.S.C. §12112

Prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Table continued

Table continues



Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act of 199020 U.S.C. § 1400-1485

Individuals with disabilities must be guaranteed a free appropriate education by programs receiv-ing federal financial assistance.

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 199142 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.

Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with regard to em-ployment discrimination.

5. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting teachers’ rights.

Case Decision

Indiana ex rel. Anderson vs. Branch (1938)

Tenure statutes provide qualifying teachers with contractual rights that cannot be altered by the state without good cause.

Keyishian vs. Board of Regents (1967)

Loyalty oaths that make mere mem-bership in a subversive organization grounds for dismissal are unconsti-tutionally overboard.

Pickering vs. Board of Educa-tion (1968)

Absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made, teachers may not be dismissed for exercising the freedom to speak on matters of public interest.

Board of Regents vs. Roth (1972)

A nontenured teacher does not have a property right to continued employ-ment and can be dismissed without a statement of cause or a hearing as long as the employee’s reputation or future employment have not been impaired.

Table continued

Table continues


Case Decision

Perry vs. Sindermann (1972) Teacher may not be dismissed for public criticism of superiors on matters of public concern.

Cleveland Board of Education vs. Le Fleur (1974)

School board policy requiring that all pregnant teachers take mandatory leave is unconstitutional.

Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 vs. Hortonville Educa-tion Association (1976)

A school board may serve as theimpartial hearing body in a due process hearing.

Washington vs. Davis (1976) To sustain a claim of discrimination, an employee must show that the employer’s action was a deliberate attempt to discriminate, not just that the action resulted in a dispropor-tionate impact.

Mount Healthy City SchoolDistrict vs. Doyle (1977)

To prevail in a First Amendment dis-missal case, school district employ-ees must show that the conduct was protected and was a substantial and motivating decision not to renew the contract, and the school board must prove that it would have reached the same decision in the ab-sence of the protected conduct.

United States vs. South Carolina (1978)

Use of the National Teachers Exami-nations both as a requirement for certification and as a factor in salary determination serves a legiti-mate state purpose and is not un-constitutional despite its disparate racial impact.

Connick vs. Myers (1983) The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression does not ex-tend to teachers’ public comments on matters of personal interest (as opposed to matters of publicconcern).

Table continued

Table continues


Case Decision

Cleveland Board of Education vs. Laudermill (1985)

A teacher who can be dismissed only for cause is entitled to an oral or written notice of charges, a state-ment of the evidence against him or her, and the opportunity to present his or her side prior to termination.

Garland Independent School District vs. Texas State Teachers Association (1986)

Teachers can use the interschool mail system and school mailboxes to dis-tribute union material.

Wygant vs. Jackson Board of Education (1986)

Absent evidence that the school board has engaged in discrimination or that the preferred employees have been victims of discrimination, school board policies may not give preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity in layoff decisions.

School Board of Nassau County vs. Arline (1987)

Persons suffering from contagious diseases are considered handi-capped persons, and discrimination against them based solely on fear of contamination is considered uncon-stitutional discrimination against the handicapped.

6. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting students’ rights.

Case Decision

Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) School officials cannot limit students’ rights to free expression unless there is evidence of a material dis-ruption or substantial disorder.

Goss vs. Lopez (1975) For suspensions of less than 10 days, the student must be given an oral or written notice of charges, an expla-nation of the evidence against him or her, and the opportunity to rebut the charges before an objective de-cision maker.

Table continued

Table continues


Case Decision

Wood vs. Strickland (1975) Students may sue school board mem-bers for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Ingraham vs. Wright (1977) Corporal punishment does not consti-tute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and does not require due process prior to administration.

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free SchoolDistrict vs. Pico (1982)

Censorship by the school board acting in a narrowly partisan or political manner violates the First Amend-ment rights of students.

Pyler vs. Doe (1982) The denial of a free public education to undocumented alien children vio-lates the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bethel School District vs. Fraser (1985)

School boards have the authority to determine what speech is inappro-priate and need not tolerate speech that is lewd or offensive.

New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1986) School officials are not required to obtain a search warrant or show probable cause to search a student, only reasonable suspicion that the search will turn up evidence of a vi-olation of law or school rules.

Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmier (1988)

School officials may limit school-sponsored student speech as long as their actions are related to a legiti-mate pedagogical concern.

Honig vs. Doe (1988) Disruptive handicapped children may be expelled but materials must be kept in their current placement until an official hearing is held.

Table continued

Table continues


Case Decision

Franklin vs. Gwinnett (1992) The sexual harassment of a student may be a violation of Title IX for which monetary damages can be sought.

Vernonia School District vs.Acton (1995)

Special needs can justify “suspicion-less” random searching of students.

7. Important parts of the United States Constitution.

Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free-dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to as-semble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V – No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other-wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be de-prived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall pri-vate property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV –

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro-tection of the laws.

Table continued


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective number, counting the whole number of per-sons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representative in Congress, the Executive and Judi-cial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied any of the male inhabitants of such state, being 21 years of age, and citi-zens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or the crime, the basis of representation therein shall be re-duced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the number of male citizens 21 years of age in such state.

D. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES – NONE

E. REVIEW ITEMS – NONE