Jeanette Wardlow

Legal History Analysis

Facts:
● The Compulsory Education Act in Oregon was being amended to
Pierce v. Society of exclude private schools from being an acceptable schooling
the Sisters, 268 U.S. method
510 (1925) ● Society of Sisters ran a private school
● Society of Sisters sued the governor of Oregon, saying that this
amendment was in violation of the parent’s right to decide how
their children were educated
● First heard in the Oregon District Court where the Society of the
Sister won their case, then brought to the US Supreme Court
Legal Question: Did the Act violate the liberty of parents to direct the
education of their children?
Arguments on Each Side:
● Pierce’s side argued that the state had a right to control the
education of the children of Oregon
● Society of the Sisters argued that this Act interfered with parent’s
right to choose how their child is educated.
Court Decision: Unanimous decision that the governor must accept
private schools as an acceptable form of education
Facts:
Wisconsin v. Yoder, ● Wisconsin Law required students to attend school until they were
406 U.S. 205 (1972) 16
● Students had attended school in New Glarus
● Three families refused to send their children after they had
completed 8th grade
● Each family was fined $5
● Amish deemed high education was unnecessary for their life
Legal Question: Does the requirement to have students in school until
they are 16 interfere with their First Amendment right of freedom of
religion?
Arguments on Each Side:
● Yoder argued that the Amish religion did not require education
beyond 8th grade and that it could be harmful to the students
● Wisconsin argued that they were obligated to educate students
through the age of 16
Court Decision: This did interfere with the student’s freedom of religion.
Facts:
Plyler v. Doe, 457 ● Texas passed a law that withdrew funds from schools educating
U.S. 202 (1982) children of illegal aliens
● This law also allowed Texas schools to deny access to students
who were not legally in the US
● Texas schools then began charging tuition to students who are
 illegally in the US
● Decision made by the district court
● This case and another similar one went to the Supreme Court
Legal Question: Did this law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment?
Arguments on Each Side:
● The schools argued that the students didn’t fall under the 14th
Amendment since they were not legally in Texas
● The students argued that since they had little to no choice in
where they were located, they were protected under the 14th
Amendment under the Equal Protection clause
Court Decision: The court shot down the law and the illegal students
must be allowed to go to public schools without paying tuition
Facts:
Murphy v. State of ● Dr. and Mrs. Murphy believe that as evangelical Christians, they
Arkansas, 852 F.2d must be responsible for all aspects of their children’s education
1039 (1988) ● Arkansas monitors home-schooled students by requiring these
students to take a standardized test every year
● The parents get to choose the test from a list of approved national
tests
● There must be a proctor for the test in the room with the parent
and student while the test is being taken
● The student must score within 8 months of grade level or they
would be required to attend a public or private school
Legal Question: Does the state have interest in the education of all
children? Is the testing system that Arkansas has in place the least
restrictive means of monitoring the education of home schooled
children?
Arguments on Each Side:
● The Murphy’s argued that the proctor interfered with their sole
control of their children’s education
● The state argued that this was a reasonable system of monitoring
the progress of home-schooled students
Court Decision: The court sided with the state, saying this is a
reasonable way to ensure the progress of home-schooled students
Facts:
In re Interest of ● Tim and Rhonda chose to home school their children in
Rebekah T., 654 accordance to their christian values
N.W.2d 244 (2002) ● Tim and Rhonda had 8 minor children, the 5 oldest were
involved in this case
● Tim and Rhonda filed proper paperwork with the school some
years to exempt them to be home schooled
● Tim and Rhonda both had some college education
● Tim owed his own construction business and Rhonda did not
work so she could educate the children
 ● Rhonda had been educating the children until she ran out of
money to purchase curriculum
Legal Question: Did home-school parents neglect their children by not
providing a proper education
Arguments on Each Side:
● Tim and Rhonda argued that there was no evidence that their
children’s lack of education had an impact on the children and
that the children were at grade level in most of the subjects
● There was no evidence to support that the children were
performing at grade level
Court Decision: The court decided that Tim and Rhonda had neglected
to provide their children with a proper education