Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Date: 1985  Issue: Did New York City's decision to use Title I funds to pay salaries of parochial school teachers violate.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Date: 1985  Issue: Did New York City's decision to use Title I funds to pay salaries of parochial school teachers violate."— Presentation transcript:

1  Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Date: 1985  Issue: Did New York City's decision to use Title I funds to pay salaries of parochial school teachers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? 1

2 Facts of the Case:  Part of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 authorized local institutions to receive funds to assist educationally deprived children from low-income families. Since 1966, New York City had used portions of its Title I funding to pay salaries of employees who teach in parochial schools. Conclusion:  Yes. Even though the Court acknowledged that the efforts of the City of New York were well-intentioned, it found that the funding practices violated the Constitution. As part of New York's program, teachers were directed to avoid involvement in religious materials and activities in their classrooms. This, as well as the actions of school administrators and field supervisors who monitored classroom activities for religious content, posed constitutional problems for the majority. Involving agents of the city in extensive monitoring increased the potential for "divisiveness along religious lines" and violated the intent of the Establishment Clause which is to prevent the intrusion of church and state on each other's respective domain.

3  Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Date: 1997  Issue: Whether a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1985 barring a public school system from sending public school teachers to parochial schools to provide Title I services is still good law 3

4  Facts:  Title I of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act is a federal statute enacted to provide remedial education, guidance and job counseling to all eligible children, including those in private schools.  When a LEA provides such aid to eligible private school children, it has to: ◦ retain complete control over Title I funds; ◦ retain ownership of all materials used to provide Title I services; ◦ provide services through public employees or other persons who are not employees of the private school ◦ ensure that the services are secular, neutral and non- ideological ◦ ensure that the services supplement, but do not supplant, the level of services already provided by the private school 4

5  Facts:  The city of New York provided title I services: ◦ on private school premises ◦ during school hours ◦ all instructors and counselors were public employees assigned on a voluntary basis without regard to their religious affiliation ◦ all employees were given detailed written and oral instructions emphasizing the secular purpose of the services and rules to be followed  Six federal taxpayers sued the school board in 1978 challenging the constitutionality of the means the board chose to implement the Title I program on parochial school premises. (Aquilar v. Felton) 5

6  Facts:  In 1985 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause barred a public school system from sending public school teachers to parochial schools to provide Title I services to disadvantaged children (Aguilar v. Felton)  An injunction was issued prohibiting the public school system from sending public school teachers to the parochial schools to provide those services  The New York City School Board changed the way it provided Title I services by offering services on school grounds, at leased sites, in mobile instructional units (vans) parked near the parochial school, or through computer instruction. 6

7  Facts:  12 years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the public school system asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction and find that its earlier decision in Aguilar v. Felton was no longer good law. 7

8 Aguilar For  Brennan  Marshall  Blackmun  Powell  Stevens 1985 Against  Burger  White  Rehnquist  O’Connor Agostini For  Rehnquist  O,Connor  Scalia  Kennedy  Thomas 1997 Against  Stevens  Soutar  Ginsburg  Breyer Aguilar was the last Berger Court 1986 Berger Retired, Rehnquist became C.J. Scalia appointed by Regan 1987 Powell retired and Regan appointed Kennedy in 1988 1990 Brennan retired and Bush 1 appointed Souter 1991 Marshall retired and Thomas appointed by Bush 1 1993 White retired and Clinton appointed Ginsburg 1994 Blackmun retired Clinton appointed Breyer


Download ppt " Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Date: 1985  Issue: Did New York City's decision to use Title I funds to pay salaries of parochial school teachers violate."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google