{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Education Law- Canner- Spring 2006 Grade A-

Education Law- Canner- Spring 2006 Grade A- - Education Law...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Education Law Outline : Spring 2006 SCHOOLING AND THE STATE : I. Introduction to the Course: a. Purposes of Education: i. Skills/job training; Social development; literate and educated electorate; social reproduction; patriotism, prevent welfare drain, integrate immigrants ii. Public educ = democratizing and maximizes return b. History of the Common School: i. Horace Mann: represents the religious zealousness with which people like him advocated for the common school ii. Horace Mann Compromise : In order to appease those who wanted some religion and all the different religions, schools taught Protestant ethic in secular way (thrift); produced Catholic parochial II. Compulsory Schooling: Parental v. State Control: a. Parens patriae : Parent of the country; state guardian of incapacitated b. In loco parentis : In place of the parent , the state steps in so teacher has all rights, duties, responsibilities of parent c. Two constitutional avenues for challenging compulsory education : i. Free Exercise Clause ( Yoder )- very limited right following Smith ii. Parental fundamental liberty interest in controlling upbringing and education of child: ( Pierce ) 1. CO ct held ok to teach at home and test at school b/c statute = enrolled not attend d. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Pierce Compromise i. SCT held that parents have a liberty interest in the upbringing of their children which includes a right to control their religious upbringing ( child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations ) ii. BUT this liberty interest is limited b/c SCTT recognized that State does have significant authority to limit parents’ control 1. No question is raised concerning the power of the State reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught” 2. Pierce Compromise : Not complete state control nor complete parental control: Compulsory education valid ONLY IF had exceptions allowing parents to satisfy the law by sending their children to private schools iii. Based on Pierce , states do have some authority to regulate what occurs in parochial and private schools- despite EC issues
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
e. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Amish kids drop out after 8th i. In order to win on a Free Exercise of religion claim: There has to be a fundamental tenet of a sincerely held religious belief that would be heavily burdened by the state’s action AND there is a less intrusive way for the state to meet its compelling interest ii. SCT: Utilizes a balancing test to weigh the state’s interest in enforcing compulsory education with the unique Amish circumstances who privately taught children how to be self- sufficient; high water mark for freedom of religion 1. Narrow exception: Amish only b/c 200 year history of being self-sufficient and removed from society 2. Yoder Dissent:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}