Religious School Case Summary

Jews, but how does that differ from a small country town in Oklahoma where the

The first part that Howell stated, was that it “created a permanent school fund of two out of ten million as a permanent endowment for the maintenance of common schools.” The second part, was that the “law contained a provision for the immediate organization of common schools.” Last but not least, the “school law contained provisions for the tuition of indigent and orphaned children.” (28)

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

The Court, in its ruling in Yoder, applied the “Sherbert Test” and found that the compulsory education law was a substantial burden on their religious practices and the State’s interests were not compelling enough to disrupt the Amish way of life.

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

In doing so, California is safeguarding concerns of religious groups, and those worried about civil liberties. California is not singling out money for one religious order, instead any student that qualifies for aid is eligible. This shows that the state is not favoring one religion, but rather the state is working in the interest of the students. In addition, the State can show the breadth of the law makes it neutral considering it effectively applies to every individual who requests grant money. The neutrality of the law ensures that it is not endorsing one religion over another, and both Mitchell v Helms and Zelman v Simmons-Harris set a precedent in neutrality. Thus, using the Sherbert Test, Mitchell v. Helms, and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris government assistance is constitutional when offered equitably to students attending both public and private religious schools. However, those were merely counterarguments, and California contends current precedent is dictated using the Smith test established in Employment Division v.

The American education system has, since its inception, been subject to ridicule and disdain on the parts of many. Despite the fact that many scholars believe that the system has flaws, there has been no consensus as to what needs to be changed. Sam Chaltain, the previous National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy and now an active participant in educational reform debates, argues that the system should shift its focus on standardization away from students and instead to teachers and schools. Nikhil Goyal, author of Schools on Trial: How Freedom and Creativity Can Fix Our Educational Malpractice, holds that we should do away with standardization altogether, giving children the opportunity to accomplish what they want with their education and allow them to flourish in a less stifling environment. Peter Gow, the author of a multitude of books about potential changes in school policy, focuses on fourth grade specifically, suggesting that a year in elementary school focused solely on cultivating reading skills would greatly benefit students in the future. Although this is a radical stance, Gow’s point remains valid; teaching

Citation: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 1986 795 F2.d 1368, cert. granted, Supreme Court of the United States, Eighth Circuit, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Edward first filed with the Federal District Court stating that it was unconstitutional for the Bible to read, specifically for his daughter Ellory. The reading he stated was contradicting to their religious beliefs, which were that of Atheists. Due to this issue Schempp wanted to withdraw his children from the school, but he didn’t go through with it. Reasoning for this he believed

Since the state gave aid to the church related school it violated the Establishment Clause.

The case was about a group of students’ families in New York state. They complained about the voluntary prayer written by the state about the Almighty God. They stated that the prayers were contradicted their beliefs. The plaintiff led by Steven Engel, which is a Jewish, and the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the state's prayer in school policy. ("Engel v. Vitale." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 May 2017.) The parents were arguing that the prayer violated the law of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.("Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale." United States Courts. N.p., n.d.

In Walz Ex Rel. Walz v. Egg Harbor Tp. Bd. Of Education (2002), the Supreme Court ruled Walz’s complaint a dismissal because on three separate grade levels involved distribution of proselytizing pencils and evangelical candy with religious messages, but the school board did not allow it to be distributed in class or during school-sponsored or supervised holiday parties; therefore, Walz alleged the