Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The 14th Amendment's Impact on Education essay
The 14th Amendment's Impact on Education essay
The 14th Amendment's Impact on Education essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The 14th Amendment's Impact on Education essay
Throughout educational history, student discipline & rights have been a topic of discussion. In 1974, they became a national topic when a case on student disciplinary action stood before the U.S. Supreme Court, Goss v. Lopez. With the case came two important questions that needed answers: (1) “Are students entitled to due process if they are suspended from public schools for one to ten days?” (Education Law) (2) “If so, what process is due?” (Education Law)
Those questions would be resolved in January of 1975.
COURT CASE HISTORY
In Columbus, Ohio, nine public school students received a suspension of up to 10 days for disruptive behavior. The students were not given the opportunity for a formal hearing (Britannica). Law § 3313.66 allowed the disciplinary action taken by the school (LII / Legal Information Institute). They claimed that the law violated their due process rights, under the Fourteenth Amendment. They filed a class-action
…show more content…
Lopez indeed change educational policy and have multiple implications regarding students, teachers and administrations. Due to Goss v. Lopez, students now have the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of this, the school is required to issue an oral or written notice. They are also required to conduct a formal hearing, where the student(s) can present their version of events. It is only after the hearing that the administrators can give any disciplinary action, such as suspension (LII / Legal Information Institute). Goss v. Lopez also established the proper protocol for teachers to follow when suspending student(s). Now, teachers are not only aware of the students’ rights but also are aware of the possible legal action taken against the school and them (Brubaker). Teachers now have a duty, to not only educate themselves but their students on their rights they still possess while working / attending school (Brubaker).
PERSONAL
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
Justice Hugo Black dissented and feared that the Court’s ruling would cause more revolutionary actions from students. However, Justice Fortas addressed this potential outcome. He says, “Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.Burnside v. Byars, supra at 749.” The school’s ban of the armbands could not be upheld because the expression had not caused any harm. If the students underwent another expression, the school would still have the power to make a decision. If their actions were disruptive, the school would still have the power to limit these actions. The students’ rights are still protected, and the school still has the authority to operate the
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
Did the state’s compulsory education n laws, which requires child’s attendance until age 16, infringe upon the parents’ First Amendment rights by criminalizing the parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?
It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."
Bennett, A., & Brower, A. (2001). ’THAT’S NOT WHAT FERPA SAYS!’: THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT GIVES DANGEROUS BREADTH TO FERPA IN ITS CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISION. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 327.
In Goss v. Lopez, a student sued because an Ohio law allowed a school principal to suspend a student for 10 days or more with only a simple 24-hour notice to parents. The court ruled that this was a violation of a student’s 14th amendment due process clause rights because students were not given a due process hearing. In Dixon v. Alabama, a federal appellate court affirmed same standard in higher education by maintaining that a public college or university cannot expel a student without a hearing.
The case specifics involve a student who made a provocative speech to the school body and received a three-day suspension. The schools yet again where given the right to violate his first amendment rights by not letting him give the speech which is not justifiable because the first amendment is supposed to give him all the rights that would allow him to make that speech. One huge case that involves vast majority of most students is the case named Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 2002.
“I join the judgment of the Court and agree with much that is said in its opinion. I write separately, however, because I believe the Court omits a crucial step in its analysis of whether a school search must be based upon probable cause. The Court correctly states that we have recognized limited exceptions to the probable cause requirement "[w]here a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served" by a lesser standard. I believe that we have used such a balancing test, rather than strictly applying the Fourth Amendment's Warrant and Probable-Cause Clause, only when we were confronted with "a special law enforcement need for greater flexibility. Florida v. Royer, (1983) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting).” The first of the two concurrences in part comes from Marshall. “I fully agree with Part II of the Court's opinion. Teachers, like all other government officials, must conform their conduct to the Fourth Amendment's protections of personal privacy and personal security. As JUSTICE STEVENS points out, this principle is of particular importance when applied to schoolteachers, for children learn as much by example as by exposition. It would be incongruous and futile to charge teachers with the task of embuing their students with an understanding of our system of constitutional democracy, while at the same time immunizing those same teachers from the need to respect
Schools inevitably must deal with disciplinary action when it comes to misconduct in students. However, at what point should the courts and law enforcement intervene? “Zero tolerance” policies started as a trend in the school setting during the 1990s in “response to the widespread perception that juvenile violence was increasing and school officials needed to take desperate measures to address the problem” (Aull 2012:182-183). However, national statistics indicated a decrease in juvenile’s share of crime during the influx of zero tolerance policies in schools (National Crime Justice Reference Service 2005).
Students were not provided with due processing before they were given their 10 day suspensions. Due to the students not receiving a hearing or a change to speak on their own behalf a class-action suit was filed which claimed that their fourteenth amendment rights had been violated. This would require prior notice and an opportunity to be heard for each of the students. At the time the Ohio law did not require principals to hold hearings for students before giving suspensions. The defendant of this case was listed as Norval Goss who was the director of pupil personnel for the Columbus school
Many challenges had to be faced during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s; one of those challenges being the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which tested the ruling in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson back in the year 1896 proclaiming segregation to be constitutional as long as it was “separate but equal”. In this particular case, Thurgood Marshall claimed that forcing African Americans to used separate education facilities was violating the 14th Amendment which gave the right of equality to all citizens under the law of the United States.
Because of the introduction of this law, students began to fight back. When the government announced that schools would be require...