| LEGAL STATUTES/CASE LAW | ||||
| Link | Comment | |||
| Legal Realm | The Constitution of the United States of America | |||
| Purpose |
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
||
| Who Are We? |
Norma T. v. Forney Independent School District Docket No. 040-R5-101 (Comm’r Educ. 2002) |
The Texas Commissioner of Education determined that a Christian parent did indeed have bona fide religious and philosophical objections to the school uniform requirement and was therefore entitled to an exemption from the mandatory uniform policy. | ||
| Definitions | ||||
| Important Links | ||||
| Polls and Petitions | ||||
| Uniform Info |
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
||
| Contact Us |
Kirk B. on behalf of Benjamin B. v. Natalia Independent School District, Docket No. 008-R5-901 (Comm’r Educ. 2002) |
The Texas Commissioner of Education determined that this parent did indeed have bona fide philosophical objections to the school uniform requirement and was therefore entitled to an exemption from the mandatory uniform policy. Despite having received the favorable Proposal for Decision from the Administrative Judge prior to his son returning to school the following year, the Board denied Mr. Bates' next request as well, citing that they were waiting for the final ruling from the Commissioner. Mr. Bates was forced again to appeal to the Texas Education Agency. (See next ruling.) | ||
| Search Site | ||||
| Join APROD | ||||
| What Can You Do? | ||||
| R U Counted | ||||
| UNIFORM MYTHS | ||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Kirk B. on behalf of Benjamin B. v. Natalia Independent School District, Docket No. 005-R5-1002 (Proposal for Decision - The Commissioner has not yet issued his final ruling even though the Proposal for Decision was issued in May of 2003) |
"Since much of Petitioner’s philosophy of life is based on his reading and understanding of the Bible, Petitioner decided to search for a greater understanding of his parental role within the Bible and to determine his own religious beliefs in this regard and as a result of his continued reading, and after receiving this biblical guidance, he came to the understanding that this policy was indeed an infringement upon his religious beliefs as well and therefore he included religious objections..." in his exemption request for the year 2002. Once the Commissioner issued his favorable ruling regarding the 2001 exemption request, Mr. Bates expected the school to honor his exemption request. Initially they did not however. Mr. Bates has received a favorable Proposal for Decision from the Administrative Judge for the 2002 request, but has yet to receive the final ruling from the Commissioner, to our understanding. He was finally forced to hire an attorney and notify the District that he was going to file for injunctive relief under the Texas Religious Freedom Act. They then went to mediation and settled. Mr. Bates' son is now exempt from the uniform requirement and is once again wearing clothing that is respectful of others and is also conducive to his parents' religious and moral beliefs. | |||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Diane C., on behalf of Jack C.,Brian C. and Scott C., Docket v. Natalia ISD, Docket No. 019-R5-1001 (Comm’r Educ. 2003) |
This is a sister case to Mr.
Bates' 2001 case as they were filed at the same time with regard to the
same District. In this case however, the
Texas Commissioner of Education determined that "Because
she and her family wear uniforms, she cannot object to uniforms per se.
Petitioner has not articulated a philosophical objection that
specifically applies to Respondent’s uniform requirement.
Perhaps Petitioner’s argument is that her philosophy is that my
family should not have to wear uniforms that it objects to. However, this is not a philosophical objection.
It is merely an attempt to claim that her family’s preferences
are philosophical objections. A philosophical objection to uniforms must be based on
principles of conduct." This does not mean, as has been claimed by
some, that just because a family has worn a uniform in some other
setting that cannot hold bona fide beliefs. (See next
ruling for an explanation why.) |
|||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Diane C., on behalf of Jack C.,Brian C. and Scott C., Docket v. Natalia ISD , Docket No. 008-R5-1002 (Comm’r Educ. 2004) |
Just
as Mr. Bates had to file again the following year, Ms. Clark did
likewise and she included religious beliefs as well.. In the 2002
exemption request however, she
"explained why allowing her sons to wear sports uniforms does not
contradict her objections."
"Petitioner’s belief that uniforms are appropriate for team sports is rooted in principles of conduct. It is a philosophical belief. An objection to uniforms need not be one’s paramount belief for it to be bona fide....[and] Because the family’s wearing of uniforms is Respondent’s only reason for questioning the sincerity of Petitioner’s objections it must be concluded that Petitioner’s religious and philosophical objections are bona fide objections. " |
|||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Hicks v. The Halifax County Board of Education No. 5:98-CV-981-BR(2). |
The United States District Court Court of Appeal in the Eastern Division of North Carolina overturned the lower court's denial of an injunction and held " constitutional claims, that policy violated right to free exercise and the parental right to direct the religious upbringing of a child, were subject to strict scrutiny standard of hybrid-rights exception." When it learned that the higher standard would apply they school then settled and allowed the exemption. | |||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Bannister v. Paradis, etal. 316 F.Supp. 185 |
A school had instituted a dress code banning jeans and a student was sent home for wearing them. The United States District Court, D. New Hampshire held "A person's right to wear clothes of his own choosing provided that, in the case of a schoolboy, they are neat and clean is a constitutional right protected and guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14." It also said, "Prohibition of high school dress code against wearing of dungarees was unconstitutional and invalid, in absence of showing that wearing of dungarees in any way inhibited or tended to inhibit the educational process." | |||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) |
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. " | |||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) |
This case establishes the difference that exists
between institutions that maintain voluntary attendance and those where
attendance is not optional.
"This issue is not prejudiced by [319 U.S. 624, 632] the Court's previous holding that where a State, without compelling attendance, extends college facilities to pupils who voluntarily enroll, it may prescribe military training as part of the course without offense to the Constitution. It was held that those who take advantage of its opportunities may not on ground of conscience refuse compliance with such conditions. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 , 55 S.Ct. 197. In the present case attendance is not optional." |
|||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
Parents are the senior partner in the partnership
between schools and parents to education children.
“The Congress finds that … parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children, the States, localities, and private institutions, have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role…” |
||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
“‘Fundamental
Rights’ is a term of art for purposes of both equal protection and due
process analysis.
... The Supreme Court has also made clear that personal rights that can be deemed fundamental or that are implied in the concept of ordered liberty are included in the Constitution's guarantee of personal privacy. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965). Those privacy rights include matters relating to the home, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child rearing, and education. See Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977). In these categories, where fundamental rights are at issue, regulation limiting these rights can be justified only by "compelling state interests." See id., at 686. Legislation that attempts to infringe on these rights must be narrowly drawn to express only valid state interests. See id.; see also Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485." |
||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
SECTION 4.001. PUBLIC EDUCATION MISSION AND OBJECTIVES "(a) The mission of the public education system of this state … is further grounded on the conviction that a successful public education system is directly related to a strong, dedicated, and supportive family and that parental involvement in the school is essential for the maximum educational achievement of a child. (b) The objectives of public education are: OBJECTIVE 1: Parents will be full partners with educators in the education of their children." |
||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
| "(c) A parent or guardian of a student assigned to attend a school at which students are required to wear school uniforms may choose for the student to be exempted from the requirement or to transfer to a school at which students are not required to wear uniforms and at which space is available if the parent or guardian provides a written statement that, as determined by the board of trustees, states a bona fide religious or philosophical objection to the requirement." | ||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
§ 11.158. AUTHORITY TO CHARGE FEES.
"(b) The board may not charge fees for: ... (3) any specific form of dress necessary for any required educational program or diplomas; .... (c) Students may be required to furnish personal or consumable items, including pencils, paper, pens, erasers, notebooks, and school uniforms, except that students who are educationally disadvantaged may be required to furnish school uniforms only as provided by Section 11.162." |
||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
§ 26.001. PURPOSE.
"(a) Parents are partners with educators, administrators, and school district boards of trustees in their children's education. ... (b) The rights listed in this chapter are not exclusive. This chapter does not limit a parent's rights under other law. (c) Unless otherwise provided by law, a board of trustees, administrator, educator, or other person may not limit parental rights." |
||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
|
§ 151.001. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT.
"(a) A parent of a child has the following rights and duties: (1) the right to have physical possession, to direct the moral and religious training, and to designate the residence of the child; ... (10) the right to make decisions concerning the child's education;" |
||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||
| ".... may not adopt rules or policies or take any other action that violates the fundamental right and duty of a parent to direct the upbringing of the parent's child." | ||||
|
---------------------- |
---------------------- |
|||