Instructional Methods, the
Curriculum, and School Law
Chapter #2
Introduction
The relationship of the legal system to
teaching methods and the school curriculum
will be considered here.
Topics of Discussion
Several specific topics will be discussed.
Can parents determine the instructional
methods to be used in schools?
Can parents determine the curricular content?
What control do schools boards and school
administrators have over instructional methods?
What control do school boards and school
administrators have over the school curriculum?
The Concept of In Loco Parentis
Historically, the children became a type of “ward”
of the school the minute he entered it, and a
teacher generally had the same right as a parent
has in relation to students.
The concept gradually has been eroded by court
decisions and statutory action.
The Tinker case clearly states that students do no
loose their fundamental constitutional rights on
entering the school house.
The Concept of In Loco Parentis
(continued)
Teachers and administrators must therefore
follow certain constitutional and legal
principles in relation to the students they
teach.
These principles form a significant part of
the course.
Historical View of the Courts
Historically, the courts saw the schools as a robust
place where different ideas were presented and
exchanged.
Liberal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court
therefore tended to provide considerable latitude to
students, teachers, and the schools with regard to
what might be included n the curriculum and how
it might be taught.
Historical View of the Courts
(continued)
The view of the courts was that judges are not
educational specialists.
Increasingly, though, the courts are restricting
students.while more and more they are deferring to
the judgment of local school officials regarding
instruction and the curriculum.
Courts almost invariably will not “second guess”
school authorities with regard to the school
curriculum.
The Law and the School
Curriculum
When not contrary to state law and
regulations, a school board has wide latitude
in determining the school curriculum and
requiring students to follow it.
A student may be required to take music
regardless of his/her parental wishes. (State
ex rel. Andrews v. Webber).
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
A school can require a student to achieve a
specific reading level for promotion. (Sandlin v.
Johnson)
Students may be required to complete a reasonable
amount of community service as a condition to
graduation (Steirer by Steirer v. Bethlehem Area
School District) Such a requirement does not
constitution involuntary servitude. (Bohlin v.
Board of Education)
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
In Pico, the U.S. Supreme Court restrained the
school board from removing certain library books
from the school library. (Board of Education,
Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v.
Pico)
Courts generally have encouraged the flow of
ideas and have opposed what they considered to be
an attempt by the schools to enforce orthodoxy.
(Pratt v. Independent School District No. 831,
Forest Lake, Minnesota)
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
The current trend now is to consider that the
above cases do not have “precedential”
value. (Muir v. Alabama Educational
television Commission and Campbell v. St.
Tammany Parish School Board)
Courts have held that it is one thing for a book
to be found in the school library and another to
serve as required content in class instruction.
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
Use of the library is voluntary. (Is it?}
Books that are “vulgar” or “educationally
unsuitable” apparently may be removed from
the school or class library (Cambell v. St.
Tammany Parish School Board)
If a school board can demonstrate a “legitimate
educational interest” in the removal of books
from a class curriculum, then the removal will
stand. (Virgil v. School Board of Columbia
County, Florida)
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
Books with which a school board disagrees
ideologically apparently may not be removed.
(Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free
School District No. 26 v. Pico)
Parents may not have their children to opt from
basic school subjects just because they disagree
with the content of the texts. (Mozert v.
Hawkins County Board of Education and Smith
v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County)
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
Parents may not chose to have their children opt
out of a curriculum with which they disagree on
religious grounds (Brown v. Woodland Joint
Unified School District) Courts tend to be even
more sympathetic to the schools if the children are
permitted to opt out of the part of the curriculum
with which the parents disagree. However, such
opting out may be difficult or impossible. (Mozert
v. Hawkins County Board of Education
The Law and the School
Curriculum (continued)
Teachers may be required to follow the course of
study set by a state or school system (Milikan v.
Board of Directors of Everett School District
No. 2)
Obscenity and Sexual Content
Obscenity is not protected.
Content to stand a chance under judicial review
must be suitable for the maturity level of the
students for which it is intended.
The content must have a legitimate educational
purpose.
The use of “obscene words” by a teacher has been
protected by a court if such use has a demonstrable
education purpose and if its use is in keeping with
the maturity level of the students. (Keefe v.
Geanakos)
Obscenity and Sexual Content
(continued)
A teacher may be called upon to prove that their
practice in the use of such words is in keeping to
the preponderance of the profession.
School systems tend to have wide discretion in
determining what is or is not suitable. Courts will
ordinarily intervene only is there is a “flagrant
abuse of [such] discretion. (Zykan v. Warsaw
Community School Corporation)
Obscenity and Sexual Content
(continued)
A teacher’s employment may be terminated
if s/he shows an inappropriate sexually
explicit film (Fowler v. Board of Education
of Lincoln County, Kentucky). In this case
the film was totally unrelated to the work of
the classroom.
Obscenity and Sexual Content
(continued)
A state may require students to take a sex
education course (Cornwell v. State Board
of Education) However, the chance of a
successful challenge to such a curriculum
by a parent apparently is significantly
lessened if the child can opt out of it.
Summary
The school is a “marketplace of ideas.”
Courts will support “reasonable” approaches to
prescribing the curriculum.
Courts will not “second guess” educators in
academic matters.
Education is not a “fundamental right.”
There is a constitutional right of freedom to teach
and learn – liberty and property interests.
Summary (Continued)
Sex education can be taught in the schools.
Student maturity and sound educational
purpose determines whether a topic is
appropriate.
Religious objection to curricular material is
usually not supported by the courts (i.e.,
secular humanism complaints).
Summary (Continued)
Courts will not support removal of the
teaching of evolution in the schools.
Courts will not support the inclusion of
creationism in the schools.
A student’s property interest in a diploma
does not surpass the state’s interest in
assuring high equality education.
Summary (Continued)
Bilingual education has been approved by
courts under the civil rights act of 1964.
The courts have never ruled on its
appropriateness under the equal protection
clause of the constitution.
Criteria reviewed by the courts regarding
bilingualism are: (1) soundness; (2)
effectiveness; and (3) results.