-
Brown V, Board
In 1954 it was decided that public education should be allowed to all students equally. Many students were being denied education because of their race, based on the doctrine separate but equal. In other words African Americans were being denied education because of their skin color which was unconstitutional. African Americans were segregated in public schools. -
Copper V. Aaron
Many southern states didn't want to follow the new law in result of the Brow V. Board Supreme Court of Education decision. It was mostly expected that the southern states wouldn't fully agree. The states have to enforce the law even if they don't agree. This was chaning the way they treating African Americans in public schools. -
Mills V. Board of Education of District of Columbia
Children in the district of Columbia argued that they were expelling and refusing entrance to school fro being disable. They said that that they did not provided a appropriate education for disabled children. The children argued that they didn't have the right funding and resources for a correct education for disabled children.The court found they were violating the equal Protection Clause and ordered the district to provided equal and appropriate education fro disabled children. -
Lau v. Nichols
Students whose native language is Chinese but didn't speak English argued that they were being prohibited equal protection by the school's system. They said the school system failed to provide English language courses for them to learn English. This cases was importing in future cases for bilingual education. The supreme court decided in favor of the students. -
Milliken V. Bradley
Various schools in districts were mandated by the district court to integrate a segregated Detroit school district. The students had to be transported in buses in and out their neighborhoods in schools districts that were segregated. The Supreme court found this unconstitutional. The Court said that the integration could only be practice in in district with segregation. -
Serrano v. Priest
The first cases of Serrano V. Priest in 1971 which took place in Los Angeles where families argued that the California school fiance system disadvantaged students in low come districts. The gap in between funding fro various districts was too big. The Supreme Court of California found them in violation of the law Protection Clause. This cases demonstrates one the struggles low income students face.The cases was later decided over years in 1976. -
Pyler v. Doe
A law in Texas was allowing the sate to deny school funding for undocumented children. The supreme court was in favor of the undocumented children. The state violated the children's fourth teen amendment because they were being discriminated on a situation they had no decision over with. The students were not in control of were they could live or not. -
Force v. Pierce City R-VI School District
A students Enrolled in Missouri, Junior High school wanted to compete in the eight grade football team. Nichole Force argued that they wouldn't let her because she was a female. The districts court decided there was no reason for not letting girls try out for the team.Nichole had argued they were violating her fourteen amendment protection rights. -
Honig v. Doe
The IDEA act which use to know as the EHA states that is a student with disability is taken with disciplinary action he/she cannot be expelled from the Individualized Education Program until the parents have agreed. In this cases the student was threaten to be expelled from his school which violated the IDEA state clause. The supreme court decided the schools should support the state-clause and take other options for disciplinary actions. -
Missouri v. Jenkins
In a district in Missouri the district court is challenged to fund salary increase and to continue to fund the remedial quality education programs. The court rejected the districts plan because it was only affecting one school district. Even the plan would have affected multiple district it didn't reach in the districts courts power. -
Grutter v. Bollinger
Barbara Grutter claimed that the University of Michigan Law School's was violating her equal protection rights. Barbara's reasoning is because she wanted the University to gain a diverse student body which resulted in being denied. The supreme court rejected her claimed saying that universities actually have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity. I think these case is an example of the diversity need and interest in education. -
Forest Grove School Distrcit v. T.A
After a student with learning disabilities switched from a public school to a private school because the school didn't provided with appropriate public education. The Supreme court ordered than the school could compensate the expenses if he wasn't provided with Appropriate public education even if he hadn't received before.
