The decisions of the Supreme Court establish and clarify the rule in a particular case and resolve the common rule of law in the United States (Baker, 2004). Courts are assiduous to ensure that constitutional rights of students are protected since students benefit from many of the same constitutional rights as adults. Therefore, the rules within educational organizations should not be expansive and vague to permit subjective and capricious interpretation (Essex, 2005). In the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court deemed that students maintain the same constitutional rights as adults and continue to possess these rights on school premises. These rulings as well as others have considerably changed the existing affairs involving educational officials and students (Essex, 2005).The following treatise will identify four Supreme Court rulings that have had an affect on education, including identifying the issues and implications for educational organizations. In addition, the landmark cases that the Supreme Court cited in the ruling as well as long-term education effects of the decision will be included.
Supreme Court Rulings Affecting Education, Case One
In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled on Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy et vir. The respondents were already successful in an Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) suit requiring the school board to pay for their son’s private school tuition. However, the respondents were seeking reimbursement for an educational consultant the Murphy’s employed during the IDEA suit, dependent upon a provision in IDEA, which allows a court to award attorney’s fees or costs to parents. The Supreme Court decided that the respondents were not entitled to recover the fees associated with the educational consultant in the case (Findlaw, 2007a).
Issues and Implications for Educational Institutions
An implication for educational institutions includes the term cost, which does not necessarily refer to expenses and was intended to be a provision designating that States are responsible for expenses incurred by prevailing parents in association with IDEA cases including, travel, and lost wages. Additionally, the reimbursement of costs may include awarding reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing parents but does not relate to all costs incurred by prevailing parents (Findlaw, 2007a).
Educational Landmark Cases Cited in the Supreme Court Ruling
This Supreme Court decision cited one educational case, Schaffer v. Weast (2005), and cited cases involving cost or expert fees that could not be recovered under these provisions, Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., (1987) and West Virginia University. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, (1991). Congress endorsed IDEA in accordance with the Spending Clause, as in Schaffer v. Weast (2005). IDEA imparts federal funds to assist state and local agencies in educating students with disabilities but those funds are conditioned upon a State’s conformity with objective and procedures as set in Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester County. v. Rowley, (1982). Congress does maintain power to establish terms to disburse federal money to States, South Dakota v. Dole, (1987), but when Congress assigns stipulations they must be clear as deemed by Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, (1981) (Findlaw, 2007b).
Long-term Educational Affects of Decision
In order for a state to be responsible for an issue under IDEA, the law must provide clear notice to the state of the responsibility for such an issue (Anonymous, 2006c). The question of expert witness fees in IDEA cases may continue to be a subject of challenge (Anonymous, 2006d).
Supreme Court Rulings Affecting Education, Case Two
In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled on Schaffer v. Weast (2005), a case concerning the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was intended to strongly affect the pattern of indifference and disregard disabled students traditionally met in his or her public education endeavors. This case involves the education entitled to Brian Schaffer, who possesses learning disabilities and speech-language impairments, under IDEA. Brian Schaffer attended a private school through seventh grade.
In 1997, Brian’s mother was advised that Brian required better accommodations for his needs. An IEP was conducted and Brian was to be placed in a middle school. Brian’s parents thought that smaller classes and concentrated services would better suit Brian’s needs and enrolled Brian into another private school. Consequently, Brian’s parents filed a due process hearing disputing the IEP and sought compensation for the cost of the private school (Findlaw, 2007b). The Supreme Court decided that the parents in this case collaborated with the school to aid in creating a suitable IEP and the school could not demonstrate that the student was indeed provided with a suitable IEP (Anonymous, 2003b).
Issues and Implications for Educational Institutions
School districts are encumbered with responsibility to present each disabled student an individualized education program (IEP) appropriate to the student’s special needs (Cornell Law School, 2007). Parents are then able to request a hearing challenging the student’s IEP; however, IDEA does not specify whether the school district or the parents endure the burden of persuasion at the hearing. The decision in this case was that the burden of persuasion in an IEP hearing is the responsibility of the participant seeking relief whether that is the disabled student or the school district (Findlaw, 2007b). The objective of Congress when passing IDEA was that when procedural requirements are respected parents will be successful when they have justifiable complaints (Anonymous, 2006a).
Educational Landmark Cases Cited in the Supreme Court Ruling
In this opinion, the Supreme Court cited Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County. v. Rowley, (1982), stating that State’s are held accountable in formulating and implementing educational plans for handicapped students, however, there are significant requirements to be adhered to in the fulfillment of that responsibility (Findlaw, 2007b). Mills v. Board of Education, (1972), and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth, (1971), were mentioned in this case since these two landmark cases guided the drafting of IDEA. Safeguards were taken from these to cases and written directly into IDEA.
In addition, the decision mentions School Community of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts (1985) and states that school districts have an advantage to information and knowledge and must safeguard the procedural rights of parents and communicate information to the parents. In other words, parents have the right to review all records concerning his or her child (Findlaw, 2007b). The notion of school districts having better access to information is also cited in Oberti v. Board of Education, Borough of Clementon School District, (1993), Lascari v. Board of Education, Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, (1989) (Findlaw, 2007b).
Long-term Educational Affects of Decision
State educational agencies must substantiate that schools districts and teachers are satisfying educational standards. School districts only receive IDEA funds if there is confirmation that State standards are being attained. A fundamental implication of this case is the collaborative procedure formed between parents and educational organizations; although, the main tool for this group effort is the IEP process. Educational organizations are required to determine and evaluate disabled students, develop an IEP for the student, and examine the IEP at least once a year (Findlaw, 2007b)
Supreme Court Rulings Affecting Education, Case Three
In 2004, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., concerning the Pledge of Allegiance in the school. In the school district, elementary students recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Mr. Newdow, who is an atheist, did not want his daughter to participate in this process since the words “under God” are spoken, and filed suit against the school district. Mr. Newdow proposed that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment (Findlaw, 2007c). Mr. Newdow believed that he could file suit on his own behalf as well as in his daughter’s behalf. Mr. Newdow, being a non-custodial parent does maintain the right to subject his daughter to his religious views but does not maintain the right to sue on her behalf (Findlaw, 2007c).
The laws in California prohibit Newdow from suing on behalf of his daughter; consequently, he lacks position to question the school district’s policy in federal court. The view of each parent in this case is not similar and thus presents a conflict. Newdow still maintains the right to educate his daughter according to his religious views, however, he does not maintain the right to determine or influence what other individuals believe in regard to religion given his parental status by the family court according to California law (Findlaw, 2007c).
Issues and Implications for Educational Institutions
When students recite the pledge of allegiance, he or she is not declaring the existence of God but merely affirming his or her belief in the country in which he or she resides. Consequently, the Pledge of Allegiance recited in educational organizations does not represent a religious exercise. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from conveying a
position relating to religious beliefs. The Pledge policy of educational organizations does not provide coercion in regard to religious founding and the Pledge policy corresponds entirely with the Constitution. The Pledge of Allegiance within educational organizations is not incorporated in the Establishment Clause (Cornell, 2007).
Educational Landmark Cases Cited in the Supreme Court Ruling
This Supreme Court case cites several landmark cases in the ruling. The case Lee v. Weisman, (1992) and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, (2002), deal with the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court decided that the Pledge of Allegiance in this case is not incorporated into the Establishment Clause as prayer in educational organizations and is relevant to the two landmark cases. The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) is also mentioned in this case and involves students being required to attend school. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, (1943), the court decided that States could not force students to Pledge their Allegiance and students have the right to choose not to take place in this action (Cornell Law School (2007).
Long-term Educational Affects of Decision
The decision as to what issues are pertinent to the establishment of religion has and will continue to necessitate debate even though the Supreme Court has decided that the phrase “one nation under God,” does not reflect the religious connotation the phrase once did. If an action or issue does not contain any religious elements, the action or issue will survive Establishment Clause review (Toy, 2005). The references to God and religion in the United States are an unavoidable result of the history and founding principles of this country (O’Connor, 2004).
Supreme Court Rulings Affecting Education, Case Four
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled on the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al v. Earls et al (2002) case regarding the student drug testing policy. In order to participate in extracurricular activities, the school district in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, requires middle and high school students to comply with urinalysis drug testing (Findlaw, 2007d). High school students and parents filed suit alleging the drug testing policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that the policy of the Tecumseh School District does not violate the Fourth Amendment and that the policy is reasonable in aiding the school to prevent and deter drug use among students (Findlaw, 2007d).
Issues and Implications for Educational Institutions
The obligation of school districts to prevent and discourage the significant damage of student drug use grants the essential urgency for a school testing policy. This was especially true given the nationwide use of drugs and indications of increased drug use in the Tecumseh School District. The Tecumseh School District was completely reasonable for enacting a drug testing policy. Drug testing policies do not violate the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search (Findlaw, 2007d; Hurley, 2002).
Educational Landmark Cases Cited in the Supreme Court Ruling
The court cited Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1983) in this case and stated that by applying the same principles to the Tecumseh School District case the policy is constitutional. A search by school authorities does involve the Fourth Amendment and as such, school authorities must execute reasonableness in his or her actions. In addition, in accordance with Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1983), students who participate in extracurricular activities expose themselves to infringements on their privacy and that this invasion of privacy was not significant (Findlaw, 2007d; Hurley, 2002).
Long-term Educational Affects of Decision
There will always be debates over drug testing and violation of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The decision of this case will definitely have long-term influences on educational organizations. School districts wanting to institute a drug-testing policy for athletes will need to review this case before instituting a policy and ensure that the policy: Permits students to collect sample behind closed doors with a same sex monitor outside of the facility, have a chain of command responsible for the samples, and offer retesting for positive results. In addition, inflict no or mild discipline for positive tests, focus on changing behavior if test is positive, and inflict nonacademic consequences on those students who test positive (Carpenter, 2003).
Conclusion
As can be seen by the preceding treatise, the decisions of the Supreme Court establish and clarify rules that come into question regarding particular cases. The decisions of the Supreme Court have noticeably altered concerns involving educational officials and students (Essex, 2005). The cases decided by the Supreme Court include various aspects of education that affect students including rights protected under the U.S Constitution and legislation established to improve the education and lives of students.
References
Anonymous, (2006a). Recent decisions: Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Education,
35. Retrieved January 12, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Anonymous. (2003b). State court and lower federal court decisions: Primary and
secondary education. Journal of Law and Education, 32. Retrieved January 12, 2007
from ProQuest database.
Anonymous. (2006c). Recent Decisions: Supreme Court decisions. Journal of Law and
Education, 35. Retrieved January 12, 3007 from ProQuest database.
Anonymous. (2006d). Law review digests: Articles, notes and commentary, primary and
secondary. Journal of Law and Education, 35. Retrieved January 12, 2007 from
ProQuest database.
Baker. T. E. (2004). A primer on Supreme Court procedures. American Bar Association.
Retrieved January 12, 2007 from
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/scprimer.pdf
Carpenter, L.J. (2003). Drug testing and the constitution. Strategies, 16. Retrieved
January 12, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Cornell Law School (2007). Schaffer, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Schaffer,
et al. v. Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools, et al. Legal
information collection: US Supreme Court decisions. Retrieved January 9, 2007 from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=students&url;=/supct/ht
ml/04-698.ZD.html
Essex, N. L. (2005). School law and the public schools: A practical guide for educational
leaders (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Findlaw (2007a). Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy et vir.
Retrieved January 10, 2007 from
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/caseindex.html
Findlaw (2007b). Schaffer, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Schaffer, et al. v.
Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools, et al. Retrieved January
9, 2007 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol;=000&invol;=04-698
Findlaw (2007c). Elk Grove Unified School District and David W. Gordon,
Superintendent, Petitioners v. Michael A. Newdow, et al. Retrieved January 9, 2007
from http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/02- 1624.mer.usa.rep.html
Findlaw (2007d). Board of Education of Independent School District no. 92 of
Pottawatomie County, et.al. v. Lindsay Earls et al. Retrieved January 10, 2007 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby;=case&vol;=000&invol;=01-332
Hurley, S.R. (2002). Supreme Court review. Principal Leadership, 3. Retrieved January
11, 2007 from ProQuest database.
O’Connor (2004). Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Cornell Law School.
Retrieved January 12, 2007 from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=establishment%20and%
20religion&url;=/supct/html/02-1624.ZC1.html
Toy, D.A. (2005). The Pledge: The constitutionality of an American icon. Journal of Law
and Education, 34. Retrieved January 12, 2007 from ProQuest database.
