Education Law Outline
Setting the Framework: The Interests of Parent, Child, State
The Trilogy: Meyer, Pierce and Prince
Until the late 1800s parental control over a child was almost unquestioned and the state interfered very little in the family unit. In the early part of the twentieth century, state involvement in the lives of children grew with the idea that the state has a responsibility for protecting the welfare of children, who were considered some of society’s most vulnerable members. In addition to its interest in protecting children, the state also has an interest in its own preservation that prompts it to protect children so they will be able to participate effectively in economic and democratic institutions as adults. The United States Supreme Court has determined that parental autonomy in the control of their children’s upbringing is of a constitutional dimension that is not well-defined.
The state actor will be the school. In that case, the structure will look like this:
To what extent can the school intervene with the education of the child? (overriding parental rights) Who has the greatest power to mold the socialization patterns of the child?
A child was treated like property until the late 1800’s. They were looked at as commodities and the state was not involved.
One of the biggest changes was compulsory school laws. Horace Mann in Massachusetts decided that it was a good idea for the state to offer free schooling. This was because of the influx of immigrants that may not be properly raised by their family. The state was interested in self preservation (to make model citizens for a productive citizenry).
Meyer v. State of Nebraska-Supreme Court of the United States (1923)
State’s interests that were argued: an educated citizenry, that needed to move forward economically, and that were involved in the political process.
This case is about an instructor/teacher that unlawfully taught the subject of reading in the German language to a student. The statute said that a child could not be taught another language in school until he/she successfully completed the 8th grade.
HISTORY: The statute was passed after World War I, a likely result of antipathy towards Germany and all things German.
Question for the Court: Whether the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Rule: The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to
refer to bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the
McReynolds opens the door to liberty that only can be closed by the government, with a legitimate state interest. Although it may serve a state interest, the policing poser is not final or conclusive, but is subject to supervision by the courts.
A parent can go really far if they do not tilt over into a proscribed curriculum. STANDARD: Must not be arbitrary and must be in reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the state.
