Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, et al V. Simmons-Harris et al (2002)
- 2002/1/1
As the debate over school choice intensified, the State of Ohio sponsored a pilot project in the City of Cleveland in which tuition vouchers were given to low-income families to help pay for the children to attend the school of their choice. More than 90% of the children whose families received the financial aid, used the aid to attend a religiously affiliated school which were less expensive than other private schools. A group of taxpayers sued, arguing that the program violated the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because the government program provided funding for religious education. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program was constitutional because, even though most students chose religious schools, the families were allowed to use the aid equally for any public, private, religious or nonreligious school they like.
(Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1751&friend=nytimes#section1)
|
San Antonio Independent School District Et Al. V. Rodriguez et al (1973)
- 1973/1/1
Following a student walkout protesting poor conditions in the neighborhood schools, a group of parents sued the State of Texas over the differences in funding between rich and poor districts. The differences were due to the fact that funding for schools throughout the state came largely from local property taxes – a funding scheme that would mean wealthier school districts would always have more money. The parents claimed that the system of funding was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the parents. They said that, while education is extremely important, it is not a constitutional right. They also said that “poor” people, as a group, are not protected from discrimination in the constitution the way people of the same race, ethnicity and nationality are protected. Finally, the Court ruled that there is no federal constitutional violation because decisions about funding are made on a local level.
(Link: http://www.brownat50.org/brownCases/PostBrownCases/SanAntoniovRogriguez1973.html)
|
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
- 1925/1/1
The Society of Sisters ran a number of programs in the State of Oregon to care for children including the operation of several schools. After voters in that state passed the Compulsory Education Act of 1922 which required children between 8 and 16 years of age to attend public schools, the Sisters sued the state. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down, in a unanimous decision, the law saying that decisions as fundamental as the education of children must be left to parents and guardians. The government may certainly provide education, but, the Court said, the final decision is up to each family to decide whether to take advantage of it.<br><br>
(Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=510)
|