Documentary on Scopes

Watching
the History Channel tonight, I saw a documentary on the Scopes
trail. It was part of a series called: Ten Days that Unexpectedly Changed
America.

  

Darrow (left) and Bryan in Dayton, TN
during the trial.

Scopes
is often the forgotten education law case, as it has been overshadowed by
Brown. But it is just as integral to American history and the history of
education law. The Monkey Trial, as it was called, pitted two of America’s
greatest lawyers of the time against each other. William Jennings
Bryan, who represented the anti-evolution cause, had run for president
several times. Clarence
Darrow who represented the ACLU, is widely considered one of the greatest
lawyers in American history. It was, like Brown, a battle over the heart
of America
waged in the context of the public schools. Ultimately, Darrow, the ACLU, and
evolution won out, but it was a moment in history that truly changed America.

It
is not too surprising that we are still considering this issue and others under
the Establishment Clause. Certainly the Dover, Penn.
case did not get the publicity of the Scopes trial, but it shows just
how important these public education issues are in American life.

"Tuition shall be without charge" Means something Less Than Free in Indiana

An Indiana school corporation was charging an
extra $20.00 for every enrolled student to help pay for some of the costs
associated with the school. The Indiana Constitution guarantees "tuition
shall be without charge, and equally open to all.” The two met head to head in
the Indiana Supreme Court and the additional $20 charge was declared
unconstitutional.



The case is Nagy
v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp. It is an interesting case to read and
the nature of free tuition in Indiana
is fully examined. I implore any readers who live and deal with Indiana schools to read
it. The history of Indiana's
schools is quite fascinating. The court concluded that "shall be without
charge" means something other than "free." However, the activity
charge did violate the "without charge" provision. The court found:

However, absent specific
statutory authority, fees or charges for what are otherwise public education
cost items cannot be levied directly or indirectly against students or their parents.
Only programs, activities, projects, services or curricula that are outside of
or expand upon those identified by the legislature—what we understand to be
“extracurricular”—may be considered as not a part of a publicly-funded
education. And thus a reasonable fee may be assessed, but only against those
students who participate in or take advantage of them.

It seems then, that charges for anything that is provided
for as part of the public education curriculum, shall be publicly provided. I
would assume this includes fees for textbook charges and science supplies and
drafting equipment and so on. However charges can be assessed for
extracurricular activities.



Look for schools, then, to shift the money after this case from that which is
presently being provided for any extracurriculars to the general education
funds. Then, the schools will charge fees for every extracurricular activity
from football to scholar bowl to yearbook to everything else.



It seems there are still some issues for the legislature to address. If schools
are going to start charging high prices for extracurriculars, then will
everyone still have access to participation? Isn't after school activities just
part of the school experience? It is hard to imagine elementary school without
thinking of the times I spent having fun with friends in after school
activities. The Indiana Court has weighed in, now it is up to the Indiana
Legislature and legislatures around the country to provide for extracurricular
funding as well.

AERA Wrap

Well, another edition of AERA is in the books - rather,
online at ERIC. Here are a few comments and notes:

                                      
 

1. The Moscone Center was a great venue for the event. It housed a vast
majority of the sessions and meetings. Surrounding hotels did have to pick up
some of the slack, but when they did, their facilities were excellent as well.
If you are in San Francisco
anytime soon be sure to check out the 2nd floor lobby of the Marriott. It was
stunning.



2. As the law is concerned, there were not too many sessions, and I hope for
more next year. There were good presentations on Title IX, the Fourth
Amendment, Affirmative Action, and especially on religion. There were at least
3 presentations on religion that are worth checking out from the law SIG
sessions. All the presenters seemed to conclude this years shakeup in the
Supreme Court will lead to significant changes in the tests being applied to
issues under the Establishment Clause.



3. The Law and Education SIG
business meeting was especially informative. Not only were there great
presentations (although this Edjurist wishes Gary Orfield would have spoke more
as his wisdom and penchant toward action was clearly visible), but the content
of the business meeting itself was interesting. First, there are significant
numbers in the SIG, 135 paid members. Further, because of the new AERA system
for dolling out sessions, a high number of law proposals will lead to a higher
number of sessions. So Edjurists of the world need to get their proposals in on
time and think about multiple proposals.



4. For the current graduate and law students out there, there will be an annual
award, the Emerging Scholar
Award, for the best student proposal. This year it went to Joseph Oluwole,
a student a Penn State. Congrats. For all others, get the
submissions in next year. You can only win if you are accepted and write the
paper.



5. Next year, I would love to see the Edjurist population challenged more. I
missed the Christopher Edley presentation (if any readers saw it please
trackback with some comments), but the law SIG presentations, while very
informative, did not challenge the Edjurist population to examine any problems
and propose legal solutions. Having attended ELA and UCEA this is something
we generally need to do more of across all these presentation opportunities.



Well, that is it for now. Comments are welcome.

Blogging from AERA

AERA is in San Francisco
this year at the Moscone
Center. The amount of
legal related presentations is shockingly low. This, Sunday, morning offered a
professional development seminar on the use of legal research. The session was
devoted to introducing non-legal researchers to the use of legal techniques to
add a dimension to their otherwise existing research. This was an admirable
idea and after looking at the materials, I am sure the session went well.



It made this Edjurist wonder, however, why we do not have sessions on how to
meld legal and traditional academic research for lawyers and traditionally
legal oriented scholars. There is only one book I know of on the subject, Dave
Schimmel's Research that Makes a Difference: Complementary Methods for
Examining Legal Issues in Education.



Assumedly, there is traditionally legal orientated researchers engaging in
academic (quantitative, qualitative, historical,...) research. However, this
is, as of yet, not compiled and analyzed. For new researchers entering the
field, this is an inexcusable oversight. This Edjurst is advocating, rather
begging, for a presentation at the Education Law Association, AERA, or the
University Council for Educational Administration on such a topic.