Educational+Case+Time+Line

Case Studies That Changed Education

This court case deals with segregation of African American students and White students in public schools. At this time, 17 states and the District of Columbia required segregation by law and four other states specifically allowed it. Class action suits were filed on behalf of African American students in four states to obtain admission to public schools on a nonsegregated basis. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation of students in public schools on the basis of race violated the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which was based on "separate but equal," stating that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal".
 * Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)**

Today, for the most part, diversity is encouraged in schools. There are programs in place for schools to achieve a more diverse student body such as: attendance zones; transfer policies; magnet schools; admission to elite or special academics; controlled choice; and inter-district transfer programs. There is also affirmative action that not only prohibits discrimination, but also says certain affirmative steps are needed to hire, recruit, admit, and retain individuals who are underrepresented in the workforce and student body.

In this case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students cannot be required to recite a state-sponsored prayer at school. This extends to school sponsored activities and situations. The court ruled that the state cannot impose official prayers for any group of American people. Students and employees still have the right to engage in individual or group prayer as long as it is not an endoresment of religion by the school. The prayers must not be disruptive and are still held under the same restraints as all student's speech.
 * Engel v. Vitale (1962)**

This impacts our current practices because a school cannot endorse or appear to endorse any religion. Because of that, a school cannot endorse prayer even if it is nondenominational.

A teacher wrote his opinion to the newspaper about a tax increase the school was asking voters to vote on. The teacher signed his name as a citizen and not as a teacher. The school fired the man. The court found the man to be a voter that has the right to state his opinion about matters as citizen of the community. The courts also found through lack of evidence the letter did not influence teachers and other people in the community to vote one way or the other.
 * Pickering v. Board of Education (1967)**

This affect us today because, it allows us to be able to state our opinions when we are part of the community. We are seen through a glass window but we can stand up for the things that we feel are right.


 * Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)**

Three students were wearing black armbands to show the government they wanted to stop the war with Vietnam. The school board of Des Moines Independent School District said they were not allowed to be worn while at school. The students were asked to remove their armbands and they would not. They were suspended from school and were told not to return until they removed the armbands. The three students stayed home until after the New Year. It was never found that these students had done anything wrong. They never interrupted the learning environment. The Supreme Court did find the students had the right to free speech, unless it disrupted the learning environment. The court found the suspensions were unconstitutional.

This effects our teaching today; because our students have the right to wear "I love BOOBIES" bracelets, which support breast cancer. Some school districts can stop the students from wearing them, but if it isn't effecting the learning environment it likely wouldn't stand up in court.

Rhode Island and Pennsylvania both enacted laws that allowed the state to reimburse nonpublic school (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught only secular courses. The laws were challenged based on the claim that they violated the establishment clause which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". The Supreme Court analysed the case by using a three-part test now known as the "Lemon test". The laws were overturned based on the fact that the laws fostered an excessive entanglement with government and religion.
 * Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)**

This impacts our current practice because it still stands that government may not appear to or actually endorse religion.

A teacher was dismissed after she refused to sign a loyalty oath which was required by all public employees in Florida. The loyalty oath stated they would not overthrow the government and that they would basically stand behind the federal and state government at all times. Those who would not sign the oath could be dismissed from their jobs without due process. The court was okay with them having to sign an oath agreement. The problem with the oath was that the were allowing the teachers to be dismissed without having due process.
 * Connell v. Higginbotham (1971)**

This case helps us each to be able to have due process. This is not just for teachers but this goes for everyone. As we have discussed in class, we are responsible to help our students have due process.

An employer was challenged as discriminatory because he required job applicants to either have a high school diploma or pass two standardized tests. However, neither requirement correlated with the applicant's ability to learn or to perform job tasks. This job requirement was considered discriminatory to African American applicants because they were disproportionately eliminated from consideration due to this job requirement. The Supreme Court found this requirement to be discriminatory because the employer could not show that the requirement was related to successful job performance.
 * Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971)**

Prospective teaching applicants should be aware of this ruling because they may encounter certain types of discrimination by employers who do not significantly and directly link their requirements to job performance.

In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that it would infringe on the free exercise of religious right to enforce a state attendance law that would require Amish children to attend school beyond the eighth grade. The decision was based on the fact that there was no compelling interest for the state to require them to continue their education after their basic educational skills have been learned.
 * Wisconsin v. Yodes (1972)**

This impacts our current practice because students cannot be required to continue getting a formal education once they have learned basic educational skills if it is against their religion and there is no compelling reason for the state to require them to do so.

In this case, nine students were suspended from school for misconduct. At this time, Ohio state law required the principal to notify the students' parents within 24 hours to state the reason he suspended them. However, public schools were allowed to suspend students for up to 10 days without notice and without a hearing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and found that the Ohio schools did violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The students' due process rights were violated because they were not given a hearing within a reasonable time after being suspended. The Court also decided that due process applies to school discipline because education is a property right under state law. The Gross decision requires schools to use fair procedures before taking away a student's liberty or property interest.
 * Gross v. Lopez (1975)**

As the lead case in student due process, Gross v. Lopez set the precedent for schools' adherence to due process for students. Today, due process requires that students be given (1) oral or written notice of the charges, (2) an explanation of the evidence the authorities have, and (3) an opportunity to present their side of the story. Schools cannot take away a student's liberty and property interest unfairly without following the steps of due process. However, there are times when the discipline must be enforced before due process, such as emergency situations where people's safety or property is threatened. Due process must be followed as soon as the threat passes in these situations.

In this case, the supreme court stayed consistent in their ruling that schools may not display anything that endorses education by ruling that requiring the schools to display the Ten Commandment was unconstutional. If the purpose of the display was to promote or endorse religion, it violates the Establishment Clause.
 * Stone v. Graham (1980)**

This impacts our education because it still holds that it is unconstitutional for schools to display anything that promotes a religioius belief that will likely endorse religion.

//**Board of Educ. Of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1981)**// Amy Rowley completed a year of kindergarten. During this year she was provided a hearing aid because she was a deaf student. The next year, she also received additional services from a deaf tutor and a speech therapist. Her parents requested that she also receive services from the school to provide a sign language interpreter. The Supreme Court said they did not have to provide the interpreter because Amy was achieving and succeeding as well as any other child. Also it was reported that the interpreter concluded that Amy didn’t need these services. Amy was not in need of additional services.

How this case impacts current teaching practices is that students are provided a free and appropriate education and related services, to meet their unique needs. Teachers who have reason to believe that students have a disability, and are in need of special education refer those students. Teachers then meet with a team to talk about whether or not the student is qualified for services. If the student meets qualifications, the teacher helps develop a student’s IEP (Individualized Educational Plan.) This plan meets student’s needs and provides additional resources. Teachers put a lot of effort into interventions and meeting with the child one-on-one before coming to conclusion that the child needs additional attention.

Amber Tatro, a girl born with spina bifida, needed many services to accommodate her needs at school. One of these included emptying her bladder by being catheterized every three to four hours to avoid injury to her kidneys. CIC -- Clean intermittent catheterization, a medical procedure which involves the insertion of a catheter to drain the bladder. The school district agreed on providing special education for Amber, however did not approve school personnel to administer CIC. The parents filed suit against the school district. They demanded that this service should be required in order for Amber to receive an education. The court concluded that it was a related service needed in order for the student to remain in the classroom.
 * Irving Indep. School District V. Tatro (1984)**

This case impacts current teaching practices because many children have individual needs that aren’t formulated in the special education program. As a teacher, it is important to be aware of what is included and not included in special education. Not every student is going to have the same type of need. It is important to brainstorm all the services necessary for the student to make progress to reach their goals. Once identified, the teacher and district need to take steps in helping the student receive those special services.

A school security guard lied about his criminal record. When the school board found out about his criminal record they let him go. They gave the guard a hearing after he was terminated from his position. The school security guard was seen as a civil servant and he has the right to explain something before he is terminated. The Supreme Court said he did need to know why he was being terminated and a meeting should have been held prior to the decision for termination.
 * Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)**

This helps us as teachers because we have the right to due process. We should be given notice and a chance to explain ourselves before they terminate us. We have the right to plead our case.

Former High school students filed suit against the school district and school officials for not printing their story in the school newspaper. A teacher submitted the final draft to the principal who felt the story about students who were pregnant and another story about how the students deal with divorced should be taken out. There were no names in the pregnancy article but the principal felt it was too much about sex and birth control for the younger students. The school felt they did not have enough time to fix the problem so the paper was issued without both of these articles. The student felt he should have has a say in what should be printed. The court decided that the First Amendment rights were not violated in the case because the newspaper was part of the school curriculum.
 * Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987)**

Students are not able to use the school newspaper to express whatever they want freely. This still effects us today because students and teachers are not able to freely voice their opinions thought the school newspaper. There are other means they can use to do so. The principal or the adult in charge gets to have the final say in whether or not something can be printed because it is part of the school curriculum.

A high school student asked if his Christian Student club could be allowed to meet in the school after hours. The school denied the request even though it had given permission to other groups. The school refused according to Establishment Clause concerns. The student took it to court saying the school had violated his rights under the Equal Access Act. (Allowing student organizations to meet.) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student and granted the club meetings at the school.
 * Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1989)**

This is related to current teaching practice because if a non-curriculum related student group meets in the school, then that school must allow ANY other non-curriculum-related groups to meet, regardless of views. If students meet, it has to be voluntary and student initiated, the school may not sponsor the meeting. Employees of the school are present at religious meetings but do not participate. The meeting also does not interfere with educational activities of the school. The Equal Access Act (EAA) permits student organizations, however the school must be cautious of not violating the Establishment Clause.

A female student sued her coach for verbal and physical sexual harassment that went as far as coercive sexual intercourse. The student sued under Title IX for money damages for intentional acts of discrimination. The Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment can create a hostile environment for the student and will therefore limit the student's ability to benefit from or participate in an educational program or activity-which is why she was able to file in violation of Title IX.
 * Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1991)**

Teachers should never under any circumstances sexually harass students (or harass in any way) or get involved with them intimately. Teachers should also be aware of how certain types of discrimination can be a violation under different laws. Teachers should be aware of how they are treating their students to ensure that they are respecting their students' differences and treating all students fairly.

This case challenged the state of Rhode Island for allowing a member of the clergy to attend graduations and offer a prayer at graduation exercises. The school district's argued that it did not violate the Establishment Clause because graduation ceremonies are voluntary. However, not attending because of the prayer would require that student miss their high school graduation. The court ruled that the school-sponsored prayers at graduations violate the Establishment Clause.
 * Lee v. Weisman (1992)**

This impacts our current practice because not only are we not allowed to require prayer in school but it also violates the Establishment Clause to have school-sponsored prayer at voluntary activities.

Joseph Oncale, a gay man, worked on an oil rig where he was subjected to harrassment by the other workers on the rig. He eventually quit his job because of the harassement. He filed a complaint against Sundowner stating that he was discriminated against while employed at Sundowner because of his sex. The Supreme Court made the decision that same-sex harassment is actionable under Title VII. This case set the precedent by stating that any discrimination that is based on sex is actionable as long as the plaintiff can prove that the conduct placed them at a disadvantage regardless of the gender of the victim or the harasser.
 * Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)**

This impacts our current practices because it helps us realize that sexual harrassment does not have to come from a member of the opposite sex. We need to be cautious about what we say and do to both genders. It also helps us to know our rights if we feel that we are being sexually harrassed by members of either sex.

A male teacher had a sexual relationship with an eighth grade female student. All of the sexual contact took place outside of school and off school grounds. The sexual contact was also unknown to the district and was discovered by a police officer. The teacher was then fired and his license was revoked. While this relationship was going on, the district had no anti-harrassement policy or policy for handling harrassment complaints. The student filed suit against the school district. However, The Supreme Court held that someone within the school district must have had actual knowledge of the harassment and failed to respond before they could be held liable under Title IX.
 * Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998)**

This impacts our current practice because we cannot report and respond to an incident we are unaware of. However, it does reemphasize the important of reporting harassment that we are aware of to the proper officials and following up on the actions being taken.

Garrette, a quadriplegic student, was in a severe motorcycle accident when he was four years old. Due to the accident, Garret was put on a ventilator and required a one-on-one nurse. His parents provide the nursing services at school until he was in fifth grade. They then asked the school district to pay for his services. The district refused. Parents asked for a due process under IDEA. The court justified that Garrett must remain in school because IDEA provides “related service.” This meant that the school doesn’t reason under finance, but provides the services to help Garrette be integrated into education.
 * Cedar Rapids Indep. School District V. Garrette F. (1999)**

This case impacts current teaching practices because not only do students receive a free education, but they must be provided a least restrictive environment according to IDEA. It is important that teachers keep this in mind because students with disabilities, are also going to have to interact with children who do not have disabilities. This child must have the proper resources in order to function in the classroom smoothly. Students without disabilities are going to have learn how to deal with the students that have the disabilities. Teachers need to be aware of accommodations they can make and request in order to help all students succeed.

Davis petitioned the courts on behalf of her 10-year old daughter. She alleged that a 5th grade student had sexually harassed her daughter over the course of 5 months by attempting to inappropriately touch her, rubbing against her sexually, and making comments about wanting to have sex with her. Davis alleged that the school was contacted after each incident, but they took no action. She also alleged that because of the lack of response from the school, her daughter's education was affected. She had evidence of the girl's grades dropping and a suicide note written by the girl. The Supreme Court ruled that school are liable for damages in private actions brought under Title IX when school officials have actual knowledge of student peer sexual harassement and are deliberately indifferent.
 * Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999)**

This impacts our current practice because we need to make sure that when we are informed of peer sexual harassement, we take the proper steps to report the incident to the proper officials and follow-up to make sure appropriate actions have been taken.

Kristja J. Falvo, a parent, asked Owasso Independent School to eliminate peer grading and having to call scores out, due to the privacy act and according to the Fourteenth Amendment & FERPA. (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) The District disagreed that grades (student’s marks) are not official educational records and students are not maintaining the records but assisting the teacher.
 * Owasso Independent Sch. Dist. V. Falvo (2002)**

Teachers and the school must be careful not to release educational records or personal information of students to anyone without prior written consent of parent or guardian. There are a few exceptions based according to authority. As teachers it is important not to violate student’s privacy. It is also important to be considerate of student’s feelings and provide student records to those that are given permission.

Grutter filed suit against University of Michigan Law School when she was denied admissions despite a high GPA and LSAT score. She claimed she was denied solely because of her race (White) and that this was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She believed she was discriminated against because the school uses race as a predominant factor which gives students of certain minority groups a greater chance of being accepted. The Court ruled that the school was allowed to consider a student's race in making admission decisions in a "carefully constructed admissions program" because diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest. It was also concluded that University of Michigan Law School's admissions department considered each applicant individually and looked at all of the attributes that the student would bring to the school-not only the student's race.
 * Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)**

The reasoning from this case has even been applied at the elementary level as in Comfort v. Lynn School Committee. In this case, the court agreed that encouraging racial and ethnic diversity in its school populations was a compelling interest and the student assignment plan was narrowly tailored. Schools that use race as a factor in student assignment plans should be narrowly tailored, avoid the use of quotas, and be of a finite duration.