Legal History Analysis

Topic: Curriculum
State ex rel.
Andrews v.
Webber, 108 Ind.
31 (1886)

Facts: LaPorte, IN school required ALL students to study and practice

music and provide prescribed books. Abram P. Andrew, father of Abram
Andrew, asked that his son be excuses from studying music. The
superintendent required Abram to participate in the practice and study of
music. Abram, per his fathers wishes refused to participate. The
superintendent suspended Abram indefinitely. Lower court ruled in favor
of the school.
Question: Do schools have the discretionary power to mandate that ALL
students are required to study music?
Pros: Two state statutes that give authority to schools to take charge of
education affairs for their city. Schools can establish and enforce rules, in
their discretion, for prescribing the course of instruction.
Cons: Not all students wish to study music or are musically inclined.
Parents should have some say in whether or not their child participates in
musical studies.
Decision: The High Court overturned the lower courts ruling saying that
enforced without exception, would demonstrate its own utter absurdity.
They also stated the parent has the right to make a reasonable selection
from the prescribed studies for his child to pursue.

Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262
U.S. 390 (1923)

Facts: Nebraska State law prohibited a teacher in an school of 8th grade

or under from teaching any subject in any language other than English. To
do so was punishable by law. Teacher at the Zion Parochial School taught
reading to a student, ten years of age, in the German language. Teacher
was tried and convicted of breaking the law.
Question: Has the State law in Nebraska violated the liberties
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and does it exceed the power of the
State?
Pros: State wishes to raise all children in American ways and speaking
the English language. Allowing them to learn in their native tongue, could
pose a danger by inculcating them in sentiments foreign to the best
interests of this country.
Cons: Law imposes unwarranted restriction on those citizens who have
emigrated here and do not speak English. It is unreasonable to not be
able to teach languages other than English until after the completion of 8th
grade.
Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision,
concluding that the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable
relation to any end within the competency of the State. It also concluded
that there was no danger to the public by allowing non-English language
to be taught in schools.

Keefe v.
Geanakos, 418
F.2d 359 (1969)

Facts: Plaintiff is a high school English teacher for Ipswich Public

Schools. He assigned a reading to his senior English class that contained
an offensive and vulgar word. Plaintiff discussed the word with the class
as part of teaching the meaning of the article. The school committee
suspended the plaintiff and then proposed that he be dismissed.
Question: Can a teacher, for demonstrated educational purposes, quote
a dirty word in order to teach or give context to what is being taught?

Pros: Parents do not want their children subjected to dirty words in

school. Schools must maintain standards prohibiting obscenity around
young minds to maintain moral character.
Cons: Many students have heard that word used in public and already
know the word. The circumstances with which it was discussed were
purely for educational purposes, not to defame a person or persons.
Decision: The Supreme Court found in favor of the Plaintiff, reversing a
lower court ruling. The sensibilities of the parents did not outweigh the
educational benefit of teaching the article. They also noted inconsistency
on the part of the school for having multiple books in the library with the
exact same word in them. There was also irreparable injury to the plaintiff
and academic freedom was not preserved.

Debra P. v.
Turlington, 564 F.
Supp. 177 (1984)

Facts: State of FL requires students to pass a functional literacy test to

receive a high school diploma. Students filed a class action challenging
the constitutionality of the requirement. Two main points of the case: 1.
Did FL teach to all students the material being tested? 2. Has past
discrimination unfairly impacted black students who take the test?
Question: Can the State of FL require all students to pass a literacy test
to receive their high school diploma?
Pros: The same test is given to all students, regardless of race or
ethnicity. Students are taught the material on the test multiple times
throughout their high school years.
Cons: There is no way to guarantee that all students in all school districts
are being taught the material by competent teachers or in the same way.
Racially disadvantaged students will fail at a disproportionately higher
rate.
Decision: The Court found that the State passed its burden of proof that
the schools were teaching students the material on the test and that there
was no causal link between the disproportionate failure rate and past
school segregation. The Court also stated that a test like the SSAT-II,
with objective standards and goals, would lead to eradication of insidious
racism. The State of FL may deny diplomas to those who fail the test.

Immediato v. Rye
Neck School
District, 73 F.3d
454 (1996)

Facts: Daniel Immediato is a high school student in Rye Neck, NY. The
school requires all students to perform 40 hours of community service
sometime during their 4 years of high school to graduate. Daniels parents
felt that this violated Daniels 13th and 14th amendment rights and their
14th amendment rights.
Question: Can a school district require a mandatory community service
program to graduate?
Pros: Students have 4 years to complete 40 hours of service. They can
chose the nature of the work, for whom they work and when they work.
Cons: A student should be allowed to opt-out of the program if it goes
against the beliefs of the family. Students should not be forced to do
work for others.
Decision: The Court found that the mandatory service program did not
violate neither Daniels nor Daniels parents constitutional rights. The
program is not involuntary servitude and does not violate Daniels
privacy rights.