Education Law and Practice Outline
Reutter’s – The Law of Public Education, 7th Edition, Charles J. Russo, ISBN 9781599414232
Professor Donio
Overview
Education is a function of state law (legislature) pursuant to the 10th amendment.
Federal government only interferes when they do so by spending clause or in violation of civil right law.
Legislature power granted through the Executive Branch creates the State Board of Education. The process is as follows:
Commissioner/Superintendent (in NJ, appointed), they delegate authority to local boards of education, who in turn have their superintendents, who hire teachers, staff. Any controversies or disputes get sent to the Office of Admin. Law, then get sent back to commissioner, then judiciary branch may step in under the appellate division, then Supreme Court of NJ.
The Educational Structure
Att. Gen. of Mich. Ex Rel. Kies v. Lowery – Power of Legis. to Change District Boundaries
Constitution of MI demands that legislature establish and provide a system of public schools.
Here, a new school district was created from 4 others, and there was argument that it was a taking of property supported by tax money of that district was without authority.
Funding was by property tax. Here, the property was held by a public agency, not by contract.
The legislature has the power to subdivide. There is contract between the community and the legislature; you are a functionality of the state, so you are subject to the state.
The theme of judicial deference to the legislature and to the state board of education. Only overturn if “arbitrary and capricious”, must defy logic for courts to step in.
Cleveland Board of Ed v. State Board of Ed. – Mandamus against Chief State School Officer
One day strike from school employees forced two days closing.
The district did not want to have to make up the day because of the cost (750K).
The state board wanted them to have an extra school day.
Court said they were allowed to waive the day according to the statute, there was a utility failure.
The court issued a mandamus to force them to do something they already are required to do. Cost benefit analysis does not make it reasonable to have school.
Conley v. Ambach – Judicial Review of Decision of Chief State School Officer
Teacher’s counsel and the chairman of the dispute panel dispute were undisclosedly related.
The hearing panel chairman was said by Commissioner to be unauthorized because of the connection.
But, he overstepped his bounds in other ways, by constraining the panel improperly.
The court defers to the judgment of the Commissioner on the vacated decision, but not on his overstep with the other matters.
Pierce v. Society of the Sisters – Compulsory Educational, Parental Rights, Non-Public Schools
Oregon Compulsory Education Act, requires students be sent to a public institution if they are between the ages of 8 and 16.
This act forced two private institutions to lose business, and it deprived them of business and the 14th amendment.
They had an expectation of profit from opening a school. Forcing kids to public schools was taking their right, and parents’ right, away to choose which school to send children.
This was a liberty issue, so the 14th amendment would apply.
There was a substantive due process guarantee here.
State cannot regulate religious choices as well, and that is related to religion and the private school.
Wisconsin v. Yoder – Amish Exception and Compulsory Education
Wis. Law statute criminal truancy law demands that children attend school to 16, but Amish kids do not go past 8th grade.
Freedom of religion first amendment ties in here very closely, and the fact that the court found that his views were very heavily religiously based.
They received post -vocational agricultural skills.
This law was not damaging to the children, so compulsory education law was exempted here.
San Antonio District v. Rodriguez – Constitutionality of State Finance Plan in Relation to Equality of Ed. Opportunity
System of education according to property tax bracket comes into challenge by regions of lower income.
School funding has a state component and local component.
80% general revenue of the state, 20% of the local property tax.
Court finds that wealth is not a suspect classification under Equal Protection Clause.
Education is not deemed to be a fundamental right.
Strict scrutiny will not be applied for wealth classifications.
Wealth is too difficult to identify a particular group.
This plan follows all other plans, and we do not want to reform all tax systems.
No history of immutability on poor people, no lack of political representation, no purposeful mistreatment.
When poverty prevents you from otherwise exercising another right, then the right is suspect. Page 344 for education fundamental right argument. Voting is not education.
State education is always subject to constitutional rights.
Local Board of Education Powers
Marion v. McPherson Railway – Power of a Board to Levy Taxes
Can a local school board levy taxes?
Graded school board vs. a Union District.
Where a K-8 school unifies in high school and multiple districts want to tax the same people.
2 percent is the tax limit, 2 per cent per school district, but the districts over crossed and it is for the whole.
Court says that the 2 percent for the whole is proper, not for each.
Citizens to Protect Public Funds v. School Board – Power of Board to Expend Funds to Advocate Favorable Vote
Budget bond option to build new buildings for school was tax dollars and needed to be approved by taxpayers at a vote.
They want to encourage voters to yes it, so school money was spent to create this pamphlet to push the building of the new schools.
The vote passed, so the losers challenge.
Court said they were within their power to do so and had the authority to make a leaflet, but that it must be not so one-sided, and must give both the positives and the negatives to satisfy both sides.
They have the power to spend to show how and what the building would do for the schools. If public money is being spent, you cannot advocate for one side or the other.
Epperson v. Arkansas – Constitutionality of Statute Forbidding Teaching of Evolution
Anti-Evolution teaching statute
Any teacher who taught evolution would be criminally sanctioned.
Textbook for new school year had evolution in it, and she needed to know if she could teach it.
Law is stricken because its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion.
Book of genesis view on how life began.
It favored Catholicism over any other religion.
One view over the other would be religiously endorsed, which is unconstitutional.
Judicial deference is not applicable because the constitution is infringed upon.
Seyfried v. Walton – Power of School to choose Spring Play
School superintendent cancels Pippin due to sexual nature.
Does it inhibit first amendment right of expression?
School setting is a protected place, and plays are considered very important to curriculum.
Play was being censored, but it still was caught by super as being wrong.
Play was canceled, and appeals court agrees.
The school environment has a special instance in the first amendment.
The context is different, and the super did not like it, so its out.
They have no right to participate in a play they choose, maybe only a play at all.
No one was punished, the script was in the school library, we simply are telling them that the school cannot endorse such a play and defers to the judgment of the school.
State Ex Rel. Sageser v. Ledbetter – Power of Board to Establish Graduation Requirements
8 semester graduation requirement is overruled.
He gets his diploma because he met the 20 credit scheme, so his absences due to suspension in his junior year are not a rule or statute, it was merely a recommendation.
He challenges the rule on its reasonableness, and wants a writ of mandamus.
The rule is that it is arbitrary, but he missed over 20 percent of his junior year.
He completed the requirements that he needed to, so the 8th semester was useless.
Attendance can be counted, but no deference is given here. He met the state requirements, but not the local board recommendation.
d them into minutes for board approval and placement in his journal.
The next day, plaintiffs asked to examine and copy the minutes so transcribed, but the clerk said that they would not be available for inspection until the board approved them.
The minutes, as transcribed, later were approved by the board unchanged and were placed in the journal that, by title 53-6-15, U.C.A.1953, the clerk had to keep.
On the instant appeal, the court held that the clerk’s un-transcribed notes reasonably were not classifiable as a public writing under title 78-26-1, U.C.A.1953, whereas the transcribed minutes, in final form, but awaiting only approval and placement in the journal, were a public writing in contemplation of the statute.
The court stated that it was unable to determine when the clerk reasonably should have had his minutes available to the public.
The court stated that although the clerk’s action in refusing permission to inspect his minutes was reasonable, it would be unreasonable for the clerk to prevent the public from obtaining information as to what happened at the meeting. Reversed.
Vernet v. Bellmore-Merrick – One Person, One Vote Applies Only to Elected Positions
The high school district was composed of four union free school districts (UFSD).
Each UFSD was governed by a school board consisting of members elected by the residents of the UFSD. Each UFSD school board then appointed two of its members to serve on the school board for the high school district.
The residents of the four UFSDs did not vote directly for the individuals who served on the school board for the high school district.
The resident claimed that the practice of allowing each UFSD to select two of its members to serve on the school board for the high school district, despite a disparity in the number of residents within each UFSD, diluted the votes of the residents in each UFSD.
The high school district filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the exact same claims were decided by the court 30 years earlier in favor of the high school district.
The court held that it would grant the school district’s motion to dismiss because the court’s prior decision provided the requisite stare decisis effect to stave off the resident’s challenges to the appointive nature of the school board and his claim that residents’ votes within the UFSDs were diluted. Dismissed.
Appointed vs. Elected voting schemes
School District Scottsbluff v. Olson Construction – Mistaken Bids
This was an action against the construction company and its bondsman by the school district because of the failure of the construction company to comply with its bid and to contract for the construction of the buildings for which the bid was submitted.
The district court ruled in favor of the construction company and the school district appealed. Bid bond is there to make sure the company accepts.
So the school wants the bid bond.
The record established that the claimed error of $ 23,600 in the amount of the bid was a clerical mistake in tabulating and computing the bid.
It was not an error of judgment in computing the quantity or costs of the materials and labor.
Therefore, the judgment of the district court was supported by the law and the evidence and thus affirmed. Unilateral mistake to get out of contract must be material and not be and error in judgment, must be unconscionable. The court affirmed.
