Engel v. Vitale Case and McKenzie v. Jefferson Case - Assignment Example

1. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In (Engel v. Vitale, 1962) the court ruled that using the public school system to encourage recitation of the Regent’s prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. The Constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government. 2.1 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 specifically provides that “no qualified individual with disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under” any program or activity that either receives Federal financial assistance or is conducted by any Executive Agency or the United States Postal Service. For purposes of receiving education, qualified individual with disability is a person who meet normal and essential eligibility requirements. On the other hand, the IDEA is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth-2) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth (ages 3-21) receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B. Hence, there are students with disabilities which are covered by section 504 only and not the IDEA. 2.2 A school board is required to provide students with disabilities the best possible education regardless of cost. The Section 504 regulation requires a school district to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to each qualified student with a disability who is in the school’s district jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. FAPE consists of the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services designed to meet the student’s individual needs. 2.3 The implementing regulations of IDEA define medical services as services provided by a licensed physician (34 C.F.R. 300.13(b)(4). In (McKenzie v. Jefferson, 1983) the services at issue is clearly medical in nature and do not fall within the related services category as set forth in the act. The hospitalization services are not something a layman with training can provide – here, there must be doctors. The only type of medical service a school is obligated to provide a handicapped student are those that are for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. (20 U.S.C. 1401(12)0. 2.4 By law, the IEP must include certain information about the child and the educational program designed to meet his or her unique needs. This information includes: 1. Current performance; 2. Annual goals; 3. Special education and related services; 4. Participation with non-disabled children; 5. Participation in state and district-wide tests; 6. Dates and places; 7. Transition service needs; 8. Needed transition services; 9. Age of majority; 10. Measuring progress. 3. Ms. Smith handled her concerns rather inappropriately. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in (Tinker et.al v.Des Moines Independent Community School District et.al, 1969) that the First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, the prohibition cannot be sustained. 4. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District Court and the Court of Appeals in (Goss et.al v. Board of Education of Knoxville, Tennessee.al, 1963). It was held that insofar as they approve such transfer provisions, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed, since such transfer plans are based on racial factors which inevitably would lead toward segregation of students by race, contrary to this Court’s admonition in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S 294. Pp. 684-689. The negro school children seeking desegregation of the public school systems of Knoxville, Tennessee are deprived of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Denial of opportunity for an adequate education would often be a denial of the opportunity to succeed in life, the equal protection clause was violated by such separation. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. 5. Judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court in (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District, 1968) was reversed contending that absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teacher’s exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment. The independent review of the record convinces the honorable court that many of appellant’s statements which were found by the Board to be false were in fact substantially correct. Probable jurisdiction of appellant’s claim that the Illinois statute permitting his dismissal on the facts of this case was unconstitutional as applied under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Agreeably the appellant’s rights to freedom of speech were violated, thus, the reversal. 6. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985) to examine the appropriateness of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for searches carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment by public school authorities. A school official may properly conduct a search of the student’s person if the official has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies. A warrantless search by a school official does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the official has “reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that would interfere with school discipline and order. Bibliography Engel v. Vitale, 468 (U.S. Supreme Court June 25, 1962). Goss et.al v. Board of Education of Knoxville, Tennesseeet.al, 217 (Supreme Court June 3, 1963). Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 104 (S.Ct. 1984). McKenzie v. Jefferson, 566 (F.Supp. 1983). New Jersey v. T.L.O., 83-712 (U.S. Supreme Court January 15, 1985). Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District, 510 (U.S. Supreme Court June 3, 1968). Tinker et.al v.Des Moines Independent Community School District et.al, 21 (Supreme Court February 24, 1969). Read More