DesegregationDesegregation

► Brown vs. Board of Brown vs. Board of Ed (1954)Ed (1954)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line Overturned Plessy Overturned Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) vs Ferguson (1896) that said separate that said separate but equal. Said but equal. Said segregation was segregation was unconstitutional. unconstitutional.

Per Pupil ExpenditurePer Pupil Expenditure

► San Antonio vs. San Antonio vs. RodriguezRodriguez

► Bottom Line Bottom Line Permitted ANY kind Permitted ANY kind of school finance of school finance system as long it system as long it provides a minimum provides a minimum education for every education for every student. student.

Students With Limited English Students With Limited English ProficiencyProficiency

► Lau vs. Nichols Lau vs. Nichols (1974)(1974)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line The The court held that Title court held that Title VI required school VI required school districts to take districts to take steps to rectify the steps to rectify the language deficiency language deficiency of students with of students with limited English. limited English.

Special EducationSpecial Education

► Board of Education Board of Education vs. Rowley (1982)vs. Rowley (1982)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line The The IEP must be followed IEP must be followed giving the student a giving the student a free and appropriate free and appropriate education. This did education. This did NOT include an NOT include an interpreter for every interpreter for every class. class.

Accommodating DisabilitiesAccommodating Disabilities

► School Board v. School Board v. Arline (1987)Arline (1987)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line Accommodation of students Accommodation of students and employees with and employees with disabilities is an important disabilities is an important feature. Section 504 of the feature. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act says you Rehabilitation Act says you CANNOT discriminated on CANNOT discriminated on the basis of a disability. the basis of a disability. Most of the time Most of the time segregation is NOT a segregation is NOT a reasonable approach.reasonable approach.

Saluting the FlagSaluting the Flag

►West Virginia BOE v. West Virginia BOE v. Barnette (1943)Barnette (1943)

► Bottom LineBottom Line You You can’t make a student can’t make a student say the pledge. Famous say the pledge. Famous court quote - “No court quote - “No official , high or petty, official , high or petty, can prescribe what can prescribe what shall be orthodox in shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, politics, nationalism, religion, or other religion, or other matters of opinion.”matters of opinion.”

Student SpeechStudent Speech

► Tinker v. Des Moines Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Independent Community (1969)Community (1969)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line Students Students don’t have to shed their don’t have to shed their constitutional rights at constitutional rights at the school house the school house gate….based on the 1gate….based on the 1stst Amendment – Freedom Amendment – Freedom of Speech. Issue is, does of Speech. Issue is, does it impede the educational it impede the educational process?process?

Censorship Censorship

►Hazelwood School Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir District v. Kuhlmeir (1988)(1988)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line Schools officials Schools officials may exercise may exercise content-basedcontent-based control as long as it control as long as it is for educational is for educational purposes.purposes.

Teachers’ SpeechTeachers’ Speech

► Mt. Healthy City Mt. Healthy City School District v. School District v. Doyle (1977)Doyle (1977)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line 3 step freedom of 3 step freedom of expression clause to public expression clause to public employees including public school employees including public school teachers. teachers.

1.1. Expression is public and the right to Expression is public and the right to speak outweighs the responsibility to speak outweighs the responsibility to teachteach

2.2. The expression was a substantial The expression was a substantial factor in the adverse action being factor in the adverse action being challengedchallenged

3.3. Employer must prove that it would Employer must prove that it would have taken the adverse action have taken the adverse action regardless of the expression of the regardless of the expression of the employeeemployee

School LibrariesSchool Libraries

► Board of Education Board of Education Island Trees Union Island Trees Union Free School District Free School District #26 v. Pico (1982)#26 v. Pico (1982)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line May not May not remove books from the remove books from the library simply because library simply because they dislike the books they dislike the books ideas. MUST be ideas. MUST be educationally educationally UNSUITABLE in order to UNSUITABLE in order to be removed.be removed.

Student Suspensions and Student Suspensions and ExpulsionsExpulsions

►Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez (1975)(1975)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line on on suspensions of up to 10 suspensions of up to 10 school days must have school days must have at least oral notice of at least oral notice of the charges. If student the charges. If student protests, must have protests, must have explanation of explanation of evidence and a chance evidence and a chance for the student to tell for the student to tell their side of the story. their side of the story.

Corporal PunishmentCorporal Punishment

► Ingraham v. Wright Ingraham v. Wright (1977)(1977)

► Bottom Line Bottom Line 8 8thth Amendment's guarantee Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual against cruel and unusual punishment applies to punishment applies to prison not school context. prison not school context. BUT if the student can BUT if the student can prove that the punishment prove that the punishment was excessive then it was excessive then it breaks the 14breaks the 14thth Amendment Amendment of “due process”. Student of “due process”. Student can bring suit against can bring suit against school.school.

Searches of StudentsSearches of Students

►New Jersey v. TLO New Jersey v. TLO (1985)(1985)

► Student searches Student searches are allowed give are allowed give there is “reasonable there is “reasonable suspicion”. Even suspicion”. Even noninvasive noninvasive strip strip searches have held searches have held up in court. up in court.

Random Drug TestRandom Drug Test

► Vernonia School Vernonia School District v. Acton District v. Acton (1995)(1995)

► Random Drug testing Random Drug testing for students that for students that participated in participated in athletics was athletics was CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL and does NOT violate and does NOT violate the 14the 14thth Amendment. Amendment.

Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment

► Franklin v. Gwinnett Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools County Public Schools 19921992

► Bottom Line Bottom Line Title IX Title IX authorizes a suit for authorizes a suit for money damages.money damages.

Gebser vs. Lago VistaGebser vs. Lago Vista, , stated that the institution stated that the institution can be held liable when can be held liable when they knew of the they knew of the situation but did not take situation but did not take corrective measures. corrective measures.

Disruptive Students in Special Disruptive Students in Special EducationEducation

► Honing v. Doe (1988)Honing v. Doe (1988)► Bottom Line Bottom Line Special Special

Education students Education students can only be removed can only be removed with an agreement with an agreement between the school between the school and the parents…OR and the parents…OR by an injunction by by an injunction by the courts if the the courts if the student could cause student could cause harm. harm.

Government Aid to Religious Government Aid to Religious SchoolsSchools

► Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon v. Kurtzman 19711971

► Government salary Government salary supplements for teachers of supplements for teachers of secular subjects in parochial secular subjects in parochial schools violate 1schools violate 1stst amendments amendments establishments clause. establishments clause. 3 part 3 part Lemon Test:Lemon Test:

a.a. Is activity secular in Is activity secular in purpose?purpose?

b.b. Does it neither advance or Does it neither advance or inhibit religious activity?inhibit religious activity?

c.c. Does its implementation Does its implementation excessively entangle excessively entangle government and religion?government and religion?

Prayer at School EventsPrayer at School Events

► Lee v. Weisman Lee v. Weisman (1992)(1992)

► Cannot be teacher Cannot be teacher led but most of the led but most of the time can be can be time can be can be student led. student led.

Again, it has to pass Again, it has to pass the lemon test. the lemon test. Does it ESTABLISH a Does it ESTABLISH a religion. religion.