FEDERAL LAW

NEW YORK STATE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATIONEDUCATION

FEDERAL LAWFEDERAL LAW

FEDERAL LAWFEDERAL LAW

During the past two centuries, During the past two centuries, Congress has become increasingly Congress has become increasingly involved in educationinvolved in education

Education is the responsibility of Education is the responsibility of each stateeach state

Federal involvement in education Federal involvement in education is a function of the “general is a function of the “general welfare” clausewelfare” clause

The United The United States federal States federal government government

does not assume does not assume full responsibility full responsibility

or even major or even major responsibility for responsibility for the education of the education of

its citizensits citizens

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATION SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATION LEGISLATIONLEGISLATION

HIGHER EDUCATIONHIGHER EDUCATION

THE MORRILL ACT THE MORRILL ACT 18621862• AUTHORIZE LAND GRANDS THAT THE STATES WERE TO USE AUTHORIZE LAND GRANDS THAT THE STATES WERE TO USE

TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTEIN AGRICULTURAL AND MACHANICAL COLLEGESTO ESTABLISH AND MAINTEIN AGRICULTURAL AND MACHANICAL COLLEGES• TODAY THESE COLLEGES PRODUCE GRADUATES IN SPECIALIZED FIELDSTODAY THESE COLLEGES PRODUCE GRADUATES IN SPECIALIZED FIELDS

THE SERVICEMEN’S READJUSTMENT ACTTHE SERVICEMEN’S READJUSTMENT ACT 19441944• ANABLED RETURNING VETERANS TO PAY FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONANABLED RETURNING VETERANS TO PAY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION• IT INCREASED COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENTIT INCREASED COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT

THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACTTHE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT 19641964• PROVIDED FUNDS FOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES, INSTRUCTIONAL PROVIDED FUNDS FOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES, INSTRUCTIONAL

EQUIPMENT, AND TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMSEQUIPMENT, AND TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

ELEMENTRYELEMENTRYANDAND

SECONDARY SECONDARY SCHOOLSSCHOOLS

THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCESTHE NORTHWEST ORDINANCES17851785

• THE EARLIEST FEDERAL LAND GRANT. THE ORDINANCES EVENTUALLY GRANTED PUBLIC THE EARLIEST FEDERAL LAND GRANT. THE ORDINANCES EVENTUALLY GRANTED PUBLIC LANDS TO 39 STATESLANDS TO 39 STATES

• GRANTS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WERE THE FIRST INSTANCE OF FEDERAL GRANTS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WERE THE FIRST INSTANCE OF FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATIONAID TO EDUCATION

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LANHAM ACTTHE AMENDMENTS TO THE LANHAM ACT 19501950• PROVIDED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING SCHOOLS IN AREAS PROVIDED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING SCHOOLS IN AREAS

WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEESWITH LARGE NUMBERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES• THE INTENT WAS TO HELP LOCAL AREAS AVOID FINANCIAL PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LARGE THE INTENT WAS TO HELP LOCAL AREAS AVOID FINANCIAL PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LARGE

ENROLLMENT OF THE CHILDREN OF ADULTS IN FEDERAL SERVICESENROLLMENT OF THE CHILDREN OF ADULTS IN FEDERAL SERVICES

THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACTTHE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT19461946

• PROVIDED FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL USE IN ESTABLISHING, OPERATING, AND PROVIDED FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL USE IN ESTABLISHING, OPERATING, AND MAINTEINING SCHOOL CAFETERIAS AND LUNCH PROGRAMSMAINTEINING SCHOOL CAFETERIAS AND LUNCH PROGRAMS

• DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD TO SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMSDISTRIBUTION OF FOOD TO SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

THE SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM THE SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM 1954 1954• FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED FOR THE PURCHASE FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED FOR THE PURCHASE

OF MILKOF MILK

THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT ((HEAD START PROGRAM)

19641964• PREPAREING YOUNG CHILDREN FOR ENTRY INTO SCHOOLPREPAREING YOUNG CHILDREN FOR ENTRY INTO SCHOOL• HELPING INCREASE THEIR ACHIVMENT IN THE PRIMARY GRADESHELPING INCREASE THEIR ACHIVMENT IN THE PRIMARY GRADES• LONG TERM RESULTS: CHILDREN WERE SUBSTANTIALLY BEHIND NATIONAL NORMSLONG TERM RESULTS: CHILDREN WERE SUBSTANTIALLY BEHIND NATIONAL NORMS• VISTAVISTA- PROGRAM PROVIDES VOLUNTEERS TO COMMUNITY AGENCIES HAT ARE - PROGRAM PROVIDES VOLUNTEERS TO COMMUNITY AGENCIES HAT ARE

DEVELOPING LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS CAUSED BY RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPING LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS CAUSED BY RURAL AND URBAN POVERTYPOVERTY

CIVIL RIGHTSCIVIL RIGHTS

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTTHE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 19641964

• FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS

TO HELP EDUCATORS DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATED TO DESEGRAGATIONTO HELP EDUCATORS DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATED TO DESEGRAGATION• THE ACT PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION BASED ON COLOR, RACE, RELIGION, NATIONAL THE ACT PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION BASED ON COLOR, RACE, RELIGION, NATIONAL

ORIGIN, AND SPECIFICALLY FORBADE DISCRIMINATION IN HIRINGORIGIN, AND SPECIFICALLY FORBADE DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING

THE EDUCATION AMEDMENTS OF THE INDIAN EDUCATION ACT THE EDUCATION AMEDMENTS OF THE INDIAN EDUCATION ACT 19721972

• ESTHABLISHED OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION ESTHABLISHED OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION • ATTEMPTED TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIVE AMERICANSATTEMPTED TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS• REDUCED THE UNACCEPTABLY HIGH LEVELS OF ILLITERACYREDUCED THE UNACCEPTABLY HIGH LEVELS OF ILLITERACY• PROHIBITED SEX BIAS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTRY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS AS CWELL AS PROHIBITED SEX BIAS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTRY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS AS CWELL AS

IN ADMISSION TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS FOR ANY PROGRAM IN ADMISSION TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS FOR ANY PROGRAM RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCERECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT 19731973

• ALSO CALLED BUCKELY AMENDMENTALSO CALLED BUCKELY AMENDMENT• PROTECTS STUDENTS FROM HAVING THEIR GRADES OR RECORDS DISCLOSEDPROTECTS STUDENTS FROM HAVING THEIR GRADES OR RECORDS DISCLOSED• SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT CHECKING OF PAPERS BY SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT CHECKING OF PAPERS BY

STUDENTS PEERS IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE STUDENTS PEERS IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE • ADVISES TEACHERS NOT TO PUT DEFAMATORY COMMENTS IN A STUDENT’S FILEADVISES TEACHERS NOT TO PUT DEFAMATORY COMMENTS IN A STUDENT’S FILE

THE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACTTHE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT19741974

• CREATED A NATIONAL CENTER THAT COLLECTS DATA ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CREATED A NATIONAL CENTER THAT COLLECTS DATA ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT • CONDUCTS RESEARCH AND TRAINING MATERIALSCONDUCTS RESEARCH AND TRAINING MATERIALS

THE STUDENT RIGHT TO KNOW AND CAMPUS SECURITYTHE STUDENT RIGHT TO KNOW AND CAMPUS SECURITY19901990

• POST SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS THAT POST SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS THAT

RECIVE FEDERAL AID ARE REQUIRED RECIVE FEDERAL AID ARE REQUIRED

TO PROVIDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

WITH INFORMATION ABOUT GRADUATION WITH INFORMATION ABOUT GRADUATION

RATES OF STUDENTS ATHLETESRATES OF STUDENTS ATHLETES• SCHOOLS WERE TO REQUIRED TO SCHOOLS WERE TO REQUIRED TO

PROVIDE ECURITY SERVICES PROVIDE ECURITY SERVICES

AND FILE ANNUAL CRIME REPORTSAND FILE ANNUAL CRIME REPORTS

EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATIONEXCEPTIONAL EDUCATION

THE EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN ACTTHE EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN ACT 19581958• PROVIDED FUNDS FOR TRAINING TEACHERS OF THE HANDICAPPEDPROVIDED FUNDS FOR TRAINING TEACHERS OF THE HANDICAPPED

ELEMENTRY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTSELEMENTRY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 19681968• PROVIDED REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE HANDICAPPED CHILDRENPROVIDED REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN• SERVICES FOR BLIND OR DEAF CHILDRENSERVICES FOR BLIND OR DEAF CHILDREN• INFORMATION RESOURCES FOR THE HANDICAPPED INFORMATION RESOURCES FOR THE HANDICAPPED • SUPPORT FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMSSUPPORT FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS• DROP-OUT PREVENTION PROGRAMDROP-OUT PREVENTION PROGRAM

THE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN’S EARLY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE THE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN’S EARLY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACTACT

• ALLOCATED FOUNDS FOR PROGRAMS FOR HANDICAPPED KIDS AGE 0-6ALLOCATED FOUNDS FOR PROGRAMS FOR HANDICAPPED KIDS AGE 0-6

4444

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACTSECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT 19731973• IT PROVIDES FOR CHILDREN WHO HAVE OR HAVE HAD A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL IT PROVIDES FOR CHILDREN WHO HAVE OR HAVE HAD A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL

IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY ORIMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY OR

IS REGARDED BY OTHERS AS DISABLEIS REGARDED BY OTHERS AS DISABLE• THIS LAW FORBADE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST STUDENTSBECAUSE OF HANDICAPPEDTHIS LAW FORBADE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST STUDENTSBECAUSE OF HANDICAPPED

EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDRENEDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN - IDEA- IDEA19751975

• PROVIDES FREE AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROVIDES FREE AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION

FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AGES 3 AND 18FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AGES 3 AND 18• CONSISITS OF SIX MAJOR CONCEPTSCONSISITS OF SIX MAJOR CONCEPTS

1.1. ZERO REJECTZERO REJECT

2.2. NONDISCRIMINATORY EVALUATIONNONDISCRIMINATORY EVALUATION

3.3. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAN PROGRAM (IEP) INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAN PROGRAM (IEP) – WRITTEN– WRITTEN

PLAN INCLUDING CURRENT PERFORMANCE,GOALS, SERVICESPLAN INCLUDING CURRENT PERFORMANCE,GOALS, SERVICES

TO BE RENDERED, AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THE RESULTS TO BE RENDERED, AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THE RESULTS

WILL BE MEASUREWILL BE MEASURE

4. 4. LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE) LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE) - THE REQUIREMENT- THE REQUIREMENT

THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, A HANDICAPPED CHILD MUST BE EDUACTED WITH THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, A HANDICAPPED CHILD MUST BE EDUACTED WITH NONHANDICAPPED CHILDREN, THAT IS, IN A MAINSTREAMED ENVIRONMENDNONHANDICAPPED CHILDREN, THAT IS, IN A MAINSTREAMED ENVIRONMEND

5.5. DUE PROCESS – PROCEDURES INTENDED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITYDUE PROCESS – PROCEDURES INTENDED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

6.6. PARENT/GUARDIAN PARTICIPATION – PARENTS ARE ENTITLED TO SEE THAIR CHILDREN’S PARENT/GUARDIAN PARTICIPATION – PARENTS ARE ENTITLED TO SEE THAIR CHILDREN’S RECORDS AND TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IEPRECORDS AND TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IEP

COMPENSATORY EDUCATIONCOMPENSATORY EDUCATION

EDUCATION CONSOLIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACTEDUCATION CONSOLIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT(ECIA)(ECIA) 1981 1981

• COMBINED 42 PROGRAMS INTO SEVEN COMBINED 42 PROGRAMS INTO SEVEN BLOCK GRANTSBLOCK GRANTS• GRANTS THAT ALLOW STATE EDUCATION GRANTS THAT ALLOW STATE EDUCATION

AGENCIES THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE AGENCIES THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE

FUNDS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORKFUNDS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK

OF THE FEDERAL LAWOF THE FEDERAL LAW• THUS BEGAN THE EFFORT TO THUS BEGAN THE EFFORT TO

USEUSE CATEGORIAL GRANTS CATEGORIAL GRANTS• GRANTS THAT ALLOW STATE GRANTS THAT ALLOW STATE

EDUCATION AGENCIES MAXIMUMEDUCATION AGENCIES MAXIMUM

FLEXIBILITY TO APPORTION THEFLEXIBILITY TO APPORTION THE

FUNDS ACCORING TO FUNDS ACCORING TO

THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDSTHEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACTNO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT20012001

• MASSIVE EDUCATIONAL OMNIBUSMASSIVE EDUCATIONAL OMNIBUS• THE GOAL IS TO HAVE ALL CHILDREN PROFICIENTTHE GOAL IS TO HAVE ALL CHILDREN PROFICIENT

READERS BY THE SCHOOL YEAR 2013-2014READERS BY THE SCHOOL YEAR 2013-2014• IT MANDATES TESTING IN READING AND MATHIT MANDATES TESTING IN READING AND MATH

(3-8 GRADE ONCE A YEAR AND GRADES 10-12 (3-8 GRADE ONCE A YEAR AND GRADES 10-12

ONCE IN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS)ONCE IN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS)

• REQUIRES EACH STATE TO DEVELOP STANDARDS REQUIRES EACH STATE TO DEVELOP STANDARDS

AND OBJECTIVES FOR ALL ELEMENTARY AND AND OBJECTIVES FOR ALL ELEMENTARY AND

SECONDARY GRADES AND THEN ADMINISTER SECONDARY GRADES AND THEN ADMINISTER

HIGH-STAKES TESTSHIGH-STAKES TESTS• HIGH- STAKES TESTS HIGH- STAKES TESTS – STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENTS – STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENTS

TESTS THAT ARE USE FOR PROMOTION, GRADUATION, TESTS THAT ARE USE FOR PROMOTION, GRADUATION,

OR ASSIGNMENT OF SCHOOL GRADES AND THAT CARY OR ASSIGNMENT OF SCHOOL GRADES AND THAT CARY

PENALTIES FOR POOR SCHOOLWIDE PERFORMANCE. PENALTIES FOR POOR SCHOOLWIDE PERFORMANCE.

THUS THEY HAVE SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS THUS THEY HAVE SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS

FOR STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT MEETFOR STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT MEET

PREDETERMINED CRITERIAPREDETERMINED CRITERIA

CHALENGES TO THE LAWCHALENGES TO THE LAW

DURING THE PAST HALF CENTURY,THE SUPREME DURING THE PAST HALF CENTURY,THE SUPREME

COURT HAS BECOME THE FINAL ARBITER IN A LARGE COURT HAS BECOME THE FINAL ARBITER IN A LARGE

NUMBER OF CASES THAT AFFECT BOTH PUBLIC AND NUMBER OF CASES THAT AFFECT BOTH PUBLIC AND

PRIVATE EDUCATIONPRIVATE EDUCATION

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF

SIGNIFICANT CASES WITH WHICH SIGNIFICANT CASES WITH WHICH

YOU SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITHYOU SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH

INTEGRATIONINTEGRATION

PLESSY V. FERGUSONPLESSY V. FERGUSON “SEPARATE AND “SEPARATE AND EQUAL”EQUAL”On June 7, 1892, HOMER PLESSY boarded a car of the East Louisiana Railroad that On June 7, 1892, HOMER PLESSY boarded a car of the East Louisiana Railroad that was designated for use by white patrons only. Although Plessy was born a free was designated for use by white patrons only. Although Plessy was born a free person and was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, under a Louisiana law person and was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, under a Louisiana law enacted in 1890, he was classified as an African-American, and thus required to sit in enacted in 1890, he was classified as an African-American, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car. When, in an act of planned disobedience, Plessy refused to leave the "colored" car. When, in an act of planned disobedience, Plessy refused to leave the white car and move to the colored car, he was arrested and jailed.the white car and move to the colored car, he was arrested and jailed.

U.S. Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence U.S. Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence

of the United States, upholding the of the United States, upholding the

constitutionality of racial segregation even in constitutionality of racial segregation even in

public accommodations (particularly railroads),public accommodations (particularly railroads),

under the doctrine of "separate but equal".under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine

in U.S. law until…in U.S. law until…


BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATIONBROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

SCHOOL SEGREGATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALSCHOOL SEGREGATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL “ “SEPARATE AND EQUAL” SEPARATE AND EQUAL”

On May 17, 1954, On May 17, 1954,

Chief Justice Earl Warren read the Chief Justice Earl Warren read the

decision of the unanimous court: decision of the unanimous court:

We come then We come then

to the question presented: to the question presented:

Does segregation of children in Does segregation of children in

public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilitiespublic schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities

and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal equal

educational opportunities? We believe that it doeseducational opportunities? We believe that it does


SWEATT V. PAINTERSWEATT V. PAINTER 19511951THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL WAS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL WAS

REQUIRED TO ADMIT AFRICAN AMERICANSREQUIRED TO ADMIT AFRICAN AMERICANS

Herman Sweatt, a black, prospective law student filedHerman Sweatt, a black, prospective law student filed

suit against administrators of the University of Texassuit against administrators of the University of Texas

after being denied admission because of his race. after being denied admission because of his race.

Defendants argued that separate law schools for blacks Defendants argued that separate law schools for blacks

were opening soon. were opening soon.

The court maintained the The court maintained the separate but equal separate but equal doctrine,doctrine,

but ruled that black schools were inferior to white ones.but ruled that black schools were inferior to white ones.

As for the ruling, the university was found guilty of As for the ruling, the university was found guilty of

violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.


SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURGSWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG19711971

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATIONNORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATION

BUSING WAS ORDERED TO ACHIVE DESEGRAGATIONBUSING WAS ORDERED TO ACHIVE DESEGRAGATION

After Brown, it had ended segregation After Brown, it had ended segregation

with a school assignment with a school assignment

plan based on neighborhoods that plan based on neighborhoods that

was approved by the Court.was approved by the Court.

However, when Charlotte consolidated schoolHowever, when Charlotte consolidated school

districts from the city districts from the city

itself and a surrounding area totaling 550 itself and a surrounding area totaling 550

square miles, the majority square miles, the majority

of black students of black students

(who lived in the central Charlotte) (who lived in the central Charlotte)

still attended mostly black still attended mostly black

schools as compared withschools as compared with

majority white schools further majority white schools further

outside the city. outside the city.

CHURCH AND STATECHURCH AND STATE

ENGEL V. VITALEENGEL V. VITALE 19621962

THE COURT DECIDED THAT GOVERNMENT-DIRECTED PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE COURT DECIDED THAT GOVERNMENT-DIRECTED PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE) REGARDING THE CHURCH AND STATE(ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE) REGARDING THE CHURCH AND STATE

The case was brought by the families of public The case was brought by the families of public

school students in new Hyde Park, New York whoschool students in new Hyde Park, New York who

complained complained the prayer to "almighty god" the prayer to "almighty god"

contradicted their religious beliefs.contradicted their religious beliefs. they were they were

supported by groups opposed to the school prayersupported by groups opposed to the school prayer

including rabbinical organizations, ethical culture, including rabbinical organizations, ethical culture,

and Judaic organizations and Judaic organizations

CHURCH AND STATECHURCH AND STATE

ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARISZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARIS2002 2002

HANNAH PERKINS SCHOOL V. SIMMONS-HARISHANNAH PERKINS SCHOOL V. SIMMONS-HARIS

TYLOR V. SIMMONS-HARISTYLOR V. SIMMONS-HARIS

A school voucher program that serves a A school voucher program that serves a

fraction of this city's 77,000 students has fraction of this city's 77,000 students has

become the Supreme Court's test become the Supreme Court's test case for case for

deciding whether taxpayer dollars may be deciding whether taxpayer dollars may be

used for religious school tuition. used for religious school tuition.

"This program is not about religion, its about"This program is not about religion, its about

providing educational opportunities to providing educational opportunities to

children who desperately need them"children who desperately need them"

On June 27, 2002, the Court determined that Cleveland's scholarship program did not On June 27, 2002, the Court determined that Cleveland's scholarship program did not offend the 1offend the 1stst Amendments Establishment Clause. Amendments Establishment Clause.

EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENEXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATIONMILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION19721972

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

It was a case against the District of Columbia that declared It was a case against the District of Columbia that declared

that students with disabilities must be giventhat students with disabilities must be given

a public education, and that financial limits were a moot a public education, and that financial limits were a moot

point in providing education to thesepoint in providing education to these

students. It set a precedent that students. It set a precedent that educational educational

services must be made based on children's needs, not on services must be made based on children's needs, not on

the schools’ fiscal capabilities to provide such services.the schools’ fiscal capabilities to provide such services.


PENSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (PARC) V.PENSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (PARC) V.

PENSYLVANIAPENSYLVANIA 19721972

This case occurred as a result of the dissatisfaction of This case occurred as a result of the dissatisfaction of PARC regarding the conditions of services being PARC regarding the conditions of services being

provided provided

for students (children) with disabilities. for students (children) with disabilities.

EDUCATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR ALL CHILDREN EDUCATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR ALL CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HANDICAP REGARDLESS OF ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HANDICAP

The court required that the state educate them in the The court required that the state educate them in the least restrictive environment, pay for private school least restrictive environment, pay for private school

education if the state could not meet children’s needseducation if the state could not meet children’s needs


HONIG V. DOEHONIG V. DOE19881988

Official hearing must be held before Official hearing must be held before

disruptive students disruptive students

With disabilities can be removed from With disabilities can be removed from

their placement as their placement as

Indicated on an IEP. Indicated on an IEP.

For instance, For instance,

they cannot be placed they cannot be placed

Homebound instruction, suspended, Homebound instruction, suspended,

or expelled prior to or expelled prior to

The hearingThe hearing

STUDENT DIVERSITYSTUDENT DIVERSITY

LAU V. NICHOLSLAU V. NICHOLS 1974 1974

A civil rights violation case that was brought by Chinese A civil rights violation case that was brought by Chinese

American students living in San Francisco, American students living in San Francisco,

California who had limited English proficiency. California who had limited English proficiency.

The students claimed that they were not receiving special The students claimed that they were not receiving special

help in school due to their inability to speak English,help in school due to their inability to speak English,

help which they argued they were entitled to.help which they argued they were entitled to.

Court found that the lack of linguistically-appropriateCourt found that the lack of linguistically-appropriate

accommodations e.g. educational services in Chinese accommodations e.g. educational services in Chinese

effectively denied the Chinese students equal effectively denied the Chinese students equal

educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity.educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity.

In practice, the major ethnic group that benefited In practice, the major ethnic group that benefited

from this ruling was Hispanics.from this ruling was Hispanics.

Language-based discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination.Language-based discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination.

Civil rightsCivil rights

GOSS V. LOPEZGOSS V. LOPEZ19751975

RIGHT TO EDUCATION IS A “PROPERTY RIGHT”RIGHT TO EDUCATION IS A “PROPERTY RIGHT”

Case held that the school must conduct a Case held that the school must conduct a

hearing before hearing before

subjecting a student to suspension. Suspending subjecting a student to suspension. Suspending

a student from school a student from school

without holding an appropriate hearing was without holding an appropriate hearing was

considered by the Court to considered by the Court to

be a violation of the due process clause of be a violation of the due process clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.to the United States Constitution.


INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT 19771977

This case presents questions concerning the use of This case presents questions concerning the use of

corporal punishment in public schools: First, corporal punishment in public schools: First,

whether the paddling of students as a means of whether the paddling of students as a means of

maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

Amendment; and, second, to the extent that Amendment; and, second, to the extent that

paddling is constitutionally permissible, whether paddling is constitutionally permissible, whether

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment requires prior notice and an Amendment requires prior notice and an

opportunity to be heard.opportunity to be heard.

THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT ATHE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT A

VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENTVIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT


REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE 1978 1978

The quota system in college admissions was prohibited, The quota system in college admissions was prohibited, but the but the

constitutionality of granting advantages to minors was constitutionality of granting advantages to minors was upheldupheld

HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUHLMEIER HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUHLMEIER 19881988

school officials are permitted toschool officials are permitted to

regulate school newspapersregulate school newspapers

FEDERAL LAW

Documents

Transcript of FEDERAL LAW