Landmark+Cases+in+Education+During+the+1900s

This particular case was a significant victory for a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who argued that it was against their religion to salute or pledge the American flag (or any other symbol for that matter). However, this case was not won due to Freedom of Religion. It was won because it was ruled that the state does not have the power to force speech from anyone. Hence, the freedom of speech is taken to a whole new level--the freedom to speak AND the freedom NOT to speak!
 * Summary of Case:**

In 1942, the West Virginia State Board of Education ordered that saluting the flag become a part of the daily program of the public schools in their state. They further said that all teachers and students were to participate and by not doing so would be an act of insubordination. If a student failed to comply, she would be expelled from school. To make matters worse, any parents who kept their child home from school could be fined $50 and face up to 30 days in jail. In light of that, the Barnettes were counseled to at least send their children to school even though they knew the children would be sent home for not participating in the pledge.

In a 6-3 decision it was held that nobody could be compelled to salute the flag. Two of the justices making the decision, Hugo Black and William O. Douglass, wrote, stated that a love of country must come from within. It cannot be coerced or forced. It has to be something that the individual chooses to do.


 * Impact on Education Today:**

This victory sends a powerful statement about the liberties one finds in the First Amendment. We always hear of "freedom of speech" and think that that refers to us being able to say anything we want to say. Now we see that it also frees us from having to say things that we do not want to say. Because of this, school children today do not have to say the pledge of allegiance. It does not give them the right to be disrespectful and interrupt the learning environment but it does mean that they can keep their mouths shut while others recite the pledge.

This is the salute (somewhat Socialist) that the children were required to do in West Virginia. It is quite different than what we see today.


 * Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)**
 * Summary:** This landmark case was a class action suit that dealt with segregation within the public school system in America during the 1950s. Previous cases such as Plessy V. Ferguson and Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education of 1899 that were associated with racial discrimination such as the “separate but equal” doctrine were overturned. The Supreme Court had a 9-0 decision that de jure (concerning law) racial segregation was illegal because it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The case started when a girl named Linda Brown wanted to attend her local elementary school instead of her segregated school in Topeka, Kansas and was denied the right because she was African American. Linda was a third grader and had to walk six blocks to her bus stop, and then she rode the bus for a mile before she got to her segregated school. The “white-only” school was only seven blocks away. The plaintiffs were Topeka parents, one of who was Linda’s father. The lawyers for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took on the case and argued that segregation created a “badge of inferiority” for minority children, and therefore they couldn’t development academically and socially to their fullest potential in American Society
 * Impact on Education Today:** This landmark case was instrumental to the civil rights movement and the desegregation within public institutions such as the school system. During this time, the Supreme Court ruled that all schools be desegregated as quickly as possible, mainly referring to schools in the South (obviously not all regions in the United States were segregated). There was much resistance in the South with integration, and the dismantling of “separate but equal” took a long time. Especially in Little Rock, Arkansas where one little girl named Ruby Bridges entered first grade at an integrated school, and had no choice but to be escorted by federal marshals to protect her against racial violence. Today in American public schools, segregation is unconstitutional, however based on housing patterns and socioeconomic backgrounds, students experience de facto school segregation.

[|The Story of Ruby Bridges]



media type="youtube" key="4ShNK916778?version=3" height="390" width="640" align="center"

Engel v. Vitale (1962)


====**Summary of Case**: In Hyde Park, New York, students were required to recite a prayer by the school board over the intercom system every morning. Parents brought suit against the school board because the prayer conflicted to the religious beliefs and practices of the parents and the students. The Supreme Court take the case by //certiorari//. The court ruled in favor of the parents. The Supreme Court struck down the daily prayer. There was placed a banned any form of prayer in all school activities across the United States. The court's decision was based on prayer violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.==== ====Justice Black wrote, "Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may, in certain instances, overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion." (Black, 1962)====

**Impact on Education today:**
School endorsed prayer is banned across the United States in public schools. The case does leave a gray area prayer at graduation. Students can initiated prayer as long as it not endorsed by school officials. Right now, voluntary student-led prayer at graduation ceremonies may be allowed. The ban on school prayer is to preserve the separation of church and state, and to protect the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

**Tinker V. Des Moines (1969)** media type="youtube" key="UagZXxlshZ0" height="349" width="425" align="center"

====**Summary of Case**: Students in Des Moines schools were wearing arm bands to protest against the Vietnam War. The School Board met and adopted a policy that any students wearing an armband to school would be ask to remove it. If the students refused, they would be suspended until they did not wear the arm band. The students were aware of the policy, but wore the arm bands anyway. The students were suspended. The parents filed suit against the school district. The case moved up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students. The Supreme Court ruled the following:====

An except from the cases states:
===="School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They possess fundamental rights which the State must respect...In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the state chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."====

**Impact on Education today:**
====Schools are not allowed to restrict freedom of expression as protected by the 1st Amendment. Schools officials may restrict freedom of expression where there is evidence of material and substantial disruption, indecent or offensive speech, violation of school rules, destruction of school property, or disregard for authority. In each case, students must be provided minimal due process before any punitive action is taken.====

**Valent v. New Jersey State Board of Education (1971)**



**Summary of the Case:** Larance and Joan Valent had three children who attended public school. They were also Catholic and help tight to their religious beliefs. They disagreed with the school boards decision to teach sex education as a part of the curriculum and they wanted to have their children excused from participating. There request was denied, hence the court case of Valent v. New Jersey State Board of Eduction.

The Valent's filed suit against the school district' ﻿ claiming that the course on "Human Se ﻿xuality" violated their rights under the United States Constitution--specifically with respect to the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The school board claimed that their course on Human Sexuality did not, would not, and could not be offensive to any religion, belief, or doctrine. The continued their argument by stating that such a class is needed and beneficial for students and, therefore, parents should not be able to excuse their child or children from participating in such a class. The court's position was to determine if any harm would come to the state, the school, or the children involved by allowing them to excused from the class. In addition, would excusing them cause the class to be unsuccessful in the future?

The burden of proof was upon the defendents -- the New Jersey State Board of Education. They presented "facts," one being that "70% of the Junior Chamber of Commerce members thought that sex education was a good idea." (Legal, Inc, 2010) The comment to that..."If majority rule were to govern in matters of religion and conscience, there would be no need for the First Amendment. The First Amendment, and particularly the 'free exercise clause,' was adopted to protect the one percent, one individual, one person, who is sincere in a conscientious religious conviction. In conclusion, the court notes that: If educators are not careful about what they compel, parental discipline and respect will diminish as the great sovereign state forces its way into the home as a foster parent." ("Landmark court cases," 2004)


 * Impact On Education Today:** A case like this stresses and supports the fact that parents do have the right to make decisions in certain areas with respect to their child's or children's education. Schools are not allowed to just teach whatever they want just because "the majority says that it is a good thing, a needed thing." Religious convictions do paly a vital role in decision making processes for parents. To say that the state can teach sex education better than the parent(s) is saying that parents are incompetent in their ability to guide their children in important matters and areas of life. WRONG!

Sources Cited:

//Landmark court cases -- parental rights at school//. (2004). Retrieved from []

Legal, Inc,. (2010). //Debates, cases, statutes, regulations, and more//. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1971177114NJSuper63_1171.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

**New Jersey V. T.L.O. (1985)**

**Summary of Case**:
At Piscataway High School, in 1980, a teacher caught two girls smoking in the bathroom. T.L.O lied and the Principal searched her purse. The Principal found evidence of drug dealing. Parents wanted the evidence suppressed. The ruled in favor of the school district. The Supreme Court upheld the administrator based on "probable cause" and the needed swift discipline needed in school. The Supreme Court created a balance between the pupil's legitimate expectations of privacy and the need of the school to preserve a proper learning environment. School officials have reasonable grounds to believe search of a particular student is necessary to provide pertinent proof that student has violated a particular policy, rule or law. (Essex)

**Impact on Education today:**
The way it affects education today is that schools have the right to search on reasonable grounds to help maintain order, maintain discipline, and to protect the health, safety, and the welfare of all students.Schools cannot do massive searches of the school body or arbitary searches.