More handpicked essays just for you.
Parental involvement in education in the USA
Religious liberty essay
Parental involvement in education in the USA
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
CHILD, FAMILY & STATE ASSIGNMENT – Wisconsin v. Yoder
Case brief
1. Title and Citation
Wisconsin v. Yoder
406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15. (1972)
2. Facts of the Case
Statement of Facts: Defendant Yoder was convicted of violating Wisconsin's compulsory education law by refusing to send his children to school after completing the eighth grade. The Yoders refused to comply with state laws on the basis that additional years of compulsory high school education posits a threat to Amish religious beliefs and that its members would better benefit from home education to prosper in their society.
Procedural History: Defendant Yoder was convicted of violating compulsory education laws through Trial and Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the decision, determining that the Yoder’s actions were just under their First Amendment rights. The state appealed the Court’s decision, which leads to the Supreme Court of the United States granting certiorari.
3. Issues
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?
4. Decisions
Yes, ruled in favor of Yoders; the Court rules in favor of the parents’ and agrees that Amish children could not be placed into compulsory education past the eighth grade.
5. Rule of Law
The evidence presented during the trial clearly indicates that the values and programs set forth by secondary education drastically conflict with those upheld and mandated by the Amish religion. Furthermore, there was a lack of evidence that indicated two additional years of compulsory secondary education would produce the...
... middle of paper ...
...arents are preventing minor children from attending high school despite their expressed desires to the contrary,” but that does not prevent future court rulings from picking details in this case as justification for other possible decisions that bolster the parents’ rights and disenfranchise the children’s. If the case had been decided today, increasing interest in humanitarian rights and decreasing religious sentiment might have positioned the court to come to a similar conclusion of Mr. Justice Douglas. Yet, there are positive outcomes from Wisconsin v. Yoder; the Court’s ruling supported the exemption of compulsory education for religious reasons and supported parents’ rights to “to guide the religious future and education of their children.” This combination of rights is the basis of determining home schooling as a fundamental right under the Due Process clause.
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
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...
...as, J., J. Stewart, J. White, J. Black, and J. Harlan. "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (No. 21)." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 24 Feb. 1969. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. .
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
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."
assigning the book to an eleventh-grade English class. The teacher was appealed and was reinstated by the school board, but the book was
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
Rieff, Burt. "Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty: The School-Prayer Controversy in Alabama, 1962-1985." Alabama Review 3(2001):163. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
Reid, Herbert O. “The Supreme Court Decision and Interpretation.” The Journal of Negro Education 25.2 (1956): 109-117.
In this Supreme Court ruling majority took precedence and was the deciding factor. The final decision came down to a 6-1 vote and the opinion was delivered by Justice Hugo Black.. He delivered the news that the ruling was in favor of Mr. Steven Engel.
Kids, in elementary school and middle school especially, are constantly being bombarded with propaganda. People love to push things on other people because, Heaven forbid, someone disagrees with them. One particular issue is religion and the role it plays in schools. Some teachers and parents are completely against any religious activity at their child’s school and other teachers and parents want everything to do with religion in schools. A big part of the debate includes the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment and the 1st amendment itself. In 1971, in the Lemon v. Kurtzman Supreme Court hearing, it was decided that there are three questions that need to be answered to decide if something goes against the Establishment clause; is there or will there ever have a secular purpose, does it advance or inhibit religion, and does it require the government to get involved with religion. (Marshall 128) This seems pretty straight forward. It makes sure that the government is protecting American’s freedom of religion and keeps the government out as much as possible. Then in 1973 in Miller v. California it was held that the 1st amendment doesn’t ...
In her article “Beyond the Wall of Separation: Church-State in Public Schools”, Martha McCarthy, a Chancellor Professor and chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, makes it clear that her aim is to inform educators of the legal history and constitutional precedents of the Establishment clause and Free speech Clause of the First Amendment with an attached understanding of how educators should implement these findings. She summarizes and analyzes key Supreme Court rulings over the course of the 20th century as they pertain to religious expression in public schools. She clarifies the usage of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause, including recent changes in trends that have been noted in the Supreme Court during the last decade. From the late 1940’s to the 1990’s most Supreme court rulings focused on the Establishment Clause to the increasing exclusion of the Free Speech Clause such that students were increasingly limited in the ways they were allowed to express themselves in school even in a private manner. In recent years, however, it has been noted that forcing students to suppress their religious expression is itself a religious statement and one that denies the role of religion in people’s lives. McCarthy notes that the public schools must take a neutral stand in relation to religion such that they do not defend or deny its role in people’s lives, either directly or indirectly.
The first to occur in the timeline of the cases discussed in this paper is Pierce v. Society of Sisters. In separate cases the Sisters of the Holy Names and Hill Military Academy would sue the governor of Oregon, Walter Pierce as well as state attorney general H. Van Winkle and district attorney of Multnomah County, Stanley Meyers. The Oregon state voters were presented with and passed a law called the Compulsory Education Act on November 7, 1922. This newly elected Act eliminated parochial schools, including Catholic schools except for a few exce...
.... The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. During this period of transition, the courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has protected students’ rights to practice their religious beliefs, so long as they are not “disruptive, discriminatory, or coercive to peers who may not share those same beliefs” (Education Weekly, 2003, para. 3). In 1943, the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stated that students could not be “forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual’s conscience” (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). The 1963 decision in Engel v. Vitale made school prayer unconstitutional, and similarly found school prayer at graduation ceremonies in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). Student-led prayer at public school football games was found unconstitutional in 2000 with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (First Amendment C...