The 10th amendment deals with relationship between curriculum

Federal role in education has a long history

The purpose of the 10th Amendment is to define the establishment and and the relationship between the federal and state government is best President Franklin Roosevelt brought about his New Deal, taking more away. The Tenth Amendment helps to define the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased. Early in our nation's history, lawmakers passed the 10th Amendment to the of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools.

In addition, it was found that the school board had violated their own materials selection and reconsideration policies, which weighed heavily in the judge's decision. Tammany Parish School Board, 64 F. Public school district removed the book Voodoo and Hoodoo, a discussion of the origins, history, and practices of the voodoo and hoodoo religions that included an outline of some specific practices, from all district library shelves. Parents of several students sued and the district court granted summary judgment in their favor.

The court of appeals reversed, finding that there was not enough evidence at that stage to determine that board members had an unconstitutional motivation, such as denying students access to ideas with which board members disagreed; the court remanded the case for a full trial at which all board members could be questioned about their reasons for removing the book.

The court observed that "in light of the special role of the school library as a place where students may freely and voluntarily explore diverse topics, the school board's non-curricular decision to remove a book well after it had been placed in the public school libraries evokes the question whether that action might not be an attempt to 'strangle the free mind at its source.

The parties settled the case before trial by returning the book to the libraries on specially designated reserve shelves. City of Wichita Falls, Texas, F. The City of Wichita Falls City Council voted to restrict access to the books if persons signed a petition asking for the restriction. A separate group of citizens filed suit after the books were removed from the children's section and placed on a locked shelf in the adult area of the library.

Following a trial on the merits, the District Court permanently enjoined the city from enforcing the resolution permitting the removal of the two books.

It held that the City's resolution constituted impermissible content-based and viewpoint based discrimination; was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest; provided no standards or review process; and improperly delegated governmental authority over the selection and removal of the library's books to any private citizens who wish to remove a book from the children's area of the Library.

Cedarville School District, F. The school board of the Cedarville, Arkansas school district voted to restrict students' access to the Harry Potter books, on the grounds that the books promoted disobedience and disrespect for authority and dealt with witchcraft and the occult.

As a result of the vote, students in the Cedarville school district were required to obtain a signed permission slip from their parents or guardians before they would be allowed to borrow any of the Harry Potter books from school libraries. The District Court overturned the Board's decision and ordered the books returned to unrestricted circulation, on the grounds that the restrictions violated students' First Amendment right to read and receive information.

In so doing, the Court noted that while the Board necessarily performed highly discretionary functions related to the operation of the schools, it was still bound by the Bill of Rights and could not abridge students' First Amendment right to read a book on the basis of an undifferentiated fear of disturbance or because the Board disagreed with the ideas contained in the book.

Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Ala. Hawkins County Board of Education, F. School Board of Columbia County, F. American Civil Liberties Union, U. In this seminal case considering the First Amendment rights of students John F.

Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker who were expelled after they wore black armbands to school in symbolic protest of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court held that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that the First Amendment protects public school students' rights to express political and social views.

A student brought suit seeking to reverse school officials' decision to "limit or prohibit the use of certain textbooks, to remove a certain book from the school library, and to delete certain courses from the curriculum. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the school board has the right to establish a curriculum on the basis of its own discretion, but it is forbidden to impose a "pall of orthodoxy.

Inthree school board members sought the removal of several books determined objectionable by a politically conservative organization. The following February, the board gave an "unofficial direction" that the books be removed from the school libraries, so that board members could read them. When the board action attracted press attention, the board described the books as "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.

The board appointed a review committee that recommended that five of the books be returned to the shelves, two be placed on restricted shelves, and two be removed from the library. The full board voted to remove all but one book. After years of appeals, the U. Supreme Court upheld the students' challenge to the board's action. The Court held that school boards do not have unrestricted authority to select library books and that the First Amendment is implicated when books are removed arbitrarily.

Annenberg Classroom - Tenth Amendment

Justice Brennan declared in the plurality opinion: Parents and other citizens brought a lawsuit against the school board, alleging that the school system was teaching the tenets of an anti-religious religion called "secular humanism. After an initial ruling in a federal district court in favor of the plaintiffs, the U.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that as long as the school was motivated by a secular purpose, it didn't matter whether the curriculum and texts shared ideas held by one or more religious groups. The Court found that the texts in question promoted important secular values tolerance, self-respect, logical decision making and thus the use of the textbooks neither unconstitutionally advanced a nontheistic religion nor inhibited theistic religions.

Parents and students brought this action challenging the mandatory use of certain textbooks on the ground that the texts promoted values offensive to their religious beliefs. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the Constitution does not require school curricula to be revised substantially in order to accommodate religious beliefs.

Notable First Amendment Court Cases | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues

Hazelwood School District v. After a school principal removed two pages containing articles, among others, on teenage pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students from a newspaper produced as part of a high school journalism class, the student staff filed suit claiming violation of their First Amendment rights.

The principal defended his action on the grounds that he was protecting the privacy of the pregnant students described, protecting younger students from inappropriate references to sexual activity and birth control, and protecting the school from a potential libel action.

The Supreme Court held that the principal acted reasonably and did not violate the students' First Amendment rights. A school need not tolerate student speech, the Court declared, "that is inconsistent with its 'basic educational mission,' even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.

The school, thus, did not create a public forum for the expression of ideas, but instead maintained the newspaper "as supervised learning experience for journalism students. The Court cautioned, however, that this authority does not justify an educator's attempt "to silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises.

This case presented the question of whether the First Amendment prevents a school board from removing a previously approved textbook from an elective high school class because of objections to the material's vulgarity and sexual explicitness.

Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a school board may, without contravening constitutional limits, take such action when the removal decision was "reasonably related" to the "legitimate pedagogical concern" of denying students access to "potentially sensitive topics.

District Court found in favor of a faculty adviser to a high-school newspaper who claimed a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments when fired following the newspaper's publication of a student's article opposing the federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Court held that educators may exercise greater editorial control over what students write for class than what they voluntarily submit to extracurricular publications. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F. Tenured professor of English was disciplined for violating the college's sexual harassment policy against creating a "hostile learning environment" for his in-class use of profanity, and discussions of sex, pornography, obscenity, cannibalism, and other controversial topics in a confrontational, devil's advocate style.

The court held the policy unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cohen's in-class speech, calling it a "legalistic ambush. Kings County Todd v. Teri Kendrick, et al. Enacted in Julyan Indianapolis, Ind. Only with the permission of an accompanying parent or guardian could children seventeen years old and younger play these types of video games. On March 23,a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's decision stating that "children have First Amendment rights.

Supreme Court denied certiorari. Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. Louis County, Missouri, et al. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority.

In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors. West Virginia State Board of Education v. New York, U. In the "Pentagon Papers" case, the U. Applying the doctrine of prior restraint from Near v. Minnesota, the Court found that the claims that publication of the documents would interfere with foreign policy and prolong the war were too speculative, and could not overcome the strong presumption against prior restraints.

Jerry Falwell described his "first time" as a drunken encounter with his mother in an outhouse. A unanimous Supreme Court held that a public figure had to show actual malice in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of a parody in a magazine.

The Court held that political cartoons and satire such as this parody "have played a prominent role in public and political debate. And although the outrageous caricature in this case "is at best a distant cousin of political cartoons," the Court could see no standard to distinguish among types of parodies that would not harm public discourse, which would be poorer without such satire. The Supreme Court struck down New York's "Son of Sam Law," which required book publishers to turn over to the state, any proceeds from a book written by any person convicted of a crime, related to or about that crime.

The Court said the law impermissibly singled out income only from the prisoner's expressive activity, and then only expressive activity relating to his crime, without necessarily compensating any victims of those crimes.

The Court agreed that many important books--including The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, and works by Martin Luther King--perhaps might not have been published with such a law in place.

The New York Times v. Inthe West Virginia Board of Education issued regulations requiring every schoolchild to participate daily in a salute to the flag of the United States. The Barnette children, all members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to participate in the flag salute, consistent with the tenets of their religious beliefs, and were expelled from school. The Supreme Court struck down the regulation on the grounds that the First Amendment barred any rule compelling an individual to salute the flag or participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In strong language, the Court affirmed the right to dissent: That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. Because the saying went against his conscience, he did not believe the state had a right to force him to advertise something the state believes in, but he does not.

When the state discovered he had covered up the motto on his license plate, they prosecuted him.

Notable First Amendment Court Cases

The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster, in the way New Hampshire commands, an idea they find morally objectionable. In this case the Supreme Court held that burning the United States flag was a protected form of symbolic political speech, concluding that there is no legitimate government interest in protecting the U.

The Supreme Court struck down a federal statute designed to allow the government to punish persons who burn United States flags.

The Court held that the plain intent of the statute was to punish persons for political expression and that burning the flag inextricably carries with it a political message.

When it Comes to Education, the Federal Government is in Charge of ... Um, What?

City of Ladue v. A federal court struck down a local ordinance banning the placement of signs on private property, in a challenge brought by a woman who had posted a sign on her lawn protesting the Persian Gulf War. The Court said lawn signs were a "venerable means of communication that is both unique and important," for which "no adequate substitutes exist. Paul, Minnesota passed an ordinance that banned "hate speech," any expression, such as a burning cross or swastika, that might arouse anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, religion, or gender.

The Supreme Court struck the ordinance down as unconstitutionally discriminating based on the content of expression: The law thus reflected only the city's special hostility towards certain biases and not others, which is what the First Amendment forbids. Lafayette County, F. The County library that had permitted various groups to use its auditorium had created a designated public forum and thus could not deny access to groups whose meetings had political or religious content.

Such a denial would be based on the content of speech and would be permissible only as the least restrictive means to serve a compelling interest.

Preventing disruption or interference with general use of the library could be such an interest; library officials' first step to controlling such disruptions would be to impose reasonable regulations on the time, place, or manner of the auditorium's use, provided the regulations apply regardless of the subject matter of the speech.

The Court held that a school district that opened its classrooms after hours to a range of groups for social, civic, and recreational purposes, including films and lectures about a range of issues such as family values and child-rearing, could not deny access to a religious organization to discuss the same, permissible issues from a religious point of view. Whether or not the classrooms were public fora, the school district could not deny use based on the speaker's point of view on an otherwise permissible topic.

Right to Privacy and Anonymity Stanley v. A man found to possess obscene materials in his home for his private use was convicted of possessing obscene materials in violation of the state laws of Georgia. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy on the grounds that the government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts.

Ohio Election Commission, U. The Supreme Court struck down a state law banning distribution of anonymous campaign literature, emphasizing the long tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous political and literary speech and recognizing the right to exercise First Amendment rights anonymously as an "honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent. City of Thornton, 44 P.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed a court decision that required Denver's Tattered Cover Book Store to turn over information about books purchased by one of its customers. As part of an investigation, officers of the City of Thornton Colo. The officers, seeking to tie the books to the suspect directly, served a Drug Enforcement Agency subpoena on the Tattered Cover.

The subpoena demanded the title of the books corresponding to the order and invoice numbers of the mailer, as well as information about all other books ever ordered by the suspect. The Tattered Cover then brought suit to litigate the validity of the search warrant. And then, in the late s, the first federal Department of Education under President Andrew Johnson was established to track education statistics.

The impetus for the change was twofold. Board of Education decision, which mandated the desegregation of public schools, gave the executive branch a legal precedent for enforcing equal access to education. Those threads came together in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESEA ofa bill designed in part by Francis Keppelthen the commissioner of education the pre-cabinet-level equivalent of secretary of education and a transformative dean at the Ed School.

Rather than mandating direct federal oversight of schools — telling states what to do — ESEA offered states funding for education programs on a conditional basis. In other words, states could receive federal funding provided they met the requirements outlined in certain sections, or titles, of the act. Title I provides funds to schools with a large percentage of low-income students. Title VI provides aid for disabled children.

Title VII allots funds for bilingual education. The incentives-with-caveats formula allowed the federal government to work around the 10th Amendment and have a greater hand in enforcing the 14th. Every major education initiative since has been about recalibrating the balance first struck by esea. Untilthe program was reauthorized every three years, each time with more specific guidelines about how federal funds were to be used Title I money has to add to rather than replace locally provided education funding, for example.

Inthe Education for All Handicapped Children Act now IDEA ensured that students with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education to meet their needs. The Reagan administration briefly rolled back many ESEA provisions, but following the release of the A Nation at Risk report, which pointed out persistent inequalities in the education system and made unfavorable comparisons between U.

Flaws in the law quickly surfaced. NCLB expired inbut there was no Congressional consensus about the terms of its reauthorization. The administration responded by issuing waivers to states that did not meet nclb standards, provided they adopted other policies the administration favored, like the Common Core standards. At the same time, the Race to the Top program offered competitive grants that awarded points to states based on their implementation of policies like performance-based evaluations.

The two programs were seen by many conservatives as executive overreach, and when ESEA was reauthorized in as the Every Student Succeeds Act ESSANCLB standardized testing requirements were kept, but the evaluation and accountability systems meant to respond to the results of those tests became the responsibility of individual states.

When DeVos was testifying before the Senate in Januarythe federal government still had a greater hand in public education than it did at any point before No Child Left Behind, but it had also recently experienced the greatest rollback in its oversight since an era of almost continual expansion that began in For Trump, it means navigating how education policy is shaped by all three branches of government.

Congress has the ability to write statute and distribute funds. If, for example, it releases funds as formula grants, which are distributed to all states on the same basis, it can ensure universal adoption of programs like Title I. Competitive grants like Race to the Top arguably make policy implementation more efficient: And judicial rulings can redefine what qualifies as implementation of policy, as the Supreme Court did in its Endrew F.

Douglas County School Dist.