Transcript Desegregation

Desegregation
► Brown
(1954)
vs. Board of Ed
► Bottom
Line 
Overturned Plessy vs
Ferguson (1896) that
said separate but
equal. Said
segregation was
unconstitutional.
Per Pupil Expenditure
► San
Antonio vs.
Rodriguez
► Bottom Line 
Permitted ANY kind of
school finance system
as long it provides a
minimum education for
every student.
Students With Limited English Proficiency
► Lau
vs. Nichols (1974)
► Bottom Line  The
court held that Title VI
required school
districts to take steps
to rectify the language
deficiency of students
with limited English.
Special Education
► Board
of Education vs.
Rowley (1982)
► Bottom Line  The
IEP must be followed
giving the student a
free and appropriate
education. This did
NOT include an
interpreter for every
class.
Accommodating Disabilities
► School
(1987)
►
Board v. Arline
Bottom Line 
Accommodation of students and
employees with disabilities is an
important feature. Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act says
you CANNOT discriminated on
the basis of a disability. Most of
the time segregation is NOT a
reasonable approach.
Saluting the Flag
► West
Virginia BOE v.
Barnette (1943)
►
Bottom Line You can’t
make a student say the
pledge. Famous court
quote - “No official , high
or petty, can prescribe
what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism,
religion, or other matters
of opinion.”
Student Speech
► Tinker
v. Des Moines
Independent
Community (1969)
►
Bottom Line  Students
don’t have to shed their
constitutional rights at the
school house gate….based
on the 1st Amendment –
Freedom of Speech. Issue
is, does it impede the
educational process?
Censorship
► Hazelwood
School
District v. Kuhlmeir
(1988)
► Bottom
Line  Schools
officials may exercise
content-based
control as long as it is
for educational
purposes.
Teachers’ Speech
►
►
1.
2.
3.
Mt. Healthy City
School District v.
Doyle (1977)
Bottom Line  3 step freedom of
expression clause to public employees
including public school teachers.
Expression is public and the right to
speak outweighs the responsibility to
teach
The expression was a substantial
factor in the adverse action being
challenged
Employer must prove that it would
have taken the adverse action
regardless of the expression of the
employee
School Libraries
► Board
of Education
Island Trees Union
Free School District
#26 v. Pico (1982)
►
Bottom Line  May not
remove books from the
library simply because they
dislike the books ideas.
MUST be educationally
UNSUITABLE in order to
be removed.
Student Suspensions and Expulsions
► Goss
►
v. Lopez (1975)
Bottom Line  on
suspensions of up to 10
school days must have at
least oral notice of the
charges. If student
protests, must have
explanation of evidence
and a chance for the
student to tell their side of
the story.
Corporal Punishment
► Ingraham
(1977)
►
v. Wright
Bottom Line  8th
Amendment's guarantee
against cruel and unusual
punishment applies to
prison not school context.
BUT if the student can
prove that the punishment
was excessive then it
breaks the 14th
Amendment of “due
process”. Student can
Searches of Students
► New
Jersey v. TLO
(1985)
► Student
searches are
allowed give there is
“reasonable suspicion”.
Even noninvasive
strip searches have
held up in court.
Random Drug Test
► Vernonia
School
District v. Acton (1995)
► Random
Drug testing
for students that
participated in athletics
was CONSTITUTIONAL
and does NOT violate
the 14th Amendment.
Sexual Harassment
► Franklin
v. Gwinnett
County Public Schools
1992
►
Bottom Line  Title IX
authorizes a suit for
money damages.
Gebser vs. Lago Vista,
stated that the institution
can be held liable when
they knew of the situation
but did not take corrective
measures.
Disruptive Students in Special Education
► Honing
v. Doe (1988)
► Bottom Line Special
Education students can
only be removed with
an agreement between
the school and the
parents…OR by an
injunction by the
courts if the student
could cause harm.
Government Aid to Religious Schools
► Lemon
1971
►
v. Kurtzman
Government salary supplements for
teachers of secular subjects in
parochial schools violate 1st
amendments establishments clause.
3 part Lemon Test:
a. Is activity secular in purpose?
b. Does it neither advance or
inhibit religious activity?
c. Does its implementation
excessively entangle
government and religion?
Prayer at School Events
► Lee
v. Weisman
(1992)
► Cannot
be teacher led
but most of the time
can be can be student
led.
Again, it has to pass
the lemon test. Does it
ESTABLISH a religion.