# data[].attributes.body
The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.

# data[].attributes.body
On April 23, 1635, the first public school was established in Boston, Massachusetts. The Boston Latin School was strictly for college preparation. The English school taught Latin and Greek and was centered on the humanities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

Media

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service.

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

# data[].attributes.body
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment has been the basis of many important court cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 14th Amendment: The best idea in humanity’s 10,000-year history | Van Jones | Big Think

# data[].attributes.body
Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plessy v. Ferguson: Background and Context

After the Compromise of 1877 led to the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, Democrats consolidated control of state legislatures throughout the region, effectively marking the end of Reconstruction.

Southern Black people saw the promise of equality under the law embodied by the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment to the Constitution receding quickly, and a return to disenfranchisement and other disadvantages as white supremacy reasserted itself across the South.

As historian C. Vann Woodward pointed out in a 1964 article about Plessy v. Ferguson, white and Black Southerners mixed relatively freely until the 1880s, when state legislatures passed the first laws requiring railroads to provide separate cars for "Negro" or "colored" passengers.

Florida became the first state to mandate segregated railroad cars in 1887, followed in quick succession by Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and other states by the end of the century.

Black Resistance to Segregation

As Southern Black people witnessed with horror the dawn of the Jim Crow era, members of the Black community in New Orleans decided to mount a resistance.

At the heart of the case that became Plessy v. Ferguson was a law passed in Louisiana in 1890 "providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races." It stipulated that all passenger railways had to provide these separate cars, which should be equal in facilities.

Homer Adolph Plessy, who agreed to be the plaintiff in the case aimed at testing the law's constitutionality, was of mixed race; he described himself as "seven-eighths Caucasian and one-eighth African blood."

On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a ticket on a train from New Orleans bound for Covington, Louisiana, and took a vacant seat in a whites-only car. After refusing to leave the car at the conductor's insistence, he was arrested and jailed.

Convicted by a New Orleans court of violating the 1890 law, Plessy filed a petition against the presiding judge, Hon. John H. Ferguson, claiming that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Supreme Court Ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson

Over the next few years, segregation and Black disenfranchisement picked up pace in the South, and was more than tolerated by the North. Congress defeated a bill that would have given federal protection to elections in 1892, and nullified a number of Reconstruction laws on the books.

Then, on May 18, 1896, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in Plessy v. Ferguson. In declaring separate-but-equal facilities constitutional on intrastate railroads, the Court ruled that the protections of 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights (like voting and jury service), not "social rights" (sitting in the railroad car of your choice).

In its ruling, the Court denied that segregated railroad cars for Black people were necessarily inferior. "We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy's] argument," Justice Henry Brown wrote, "to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

John Marshall Harlan's Dissent

Alone in the minority was Justice John Marshall Harlan, a former slaveholder from Kentucky. Harlan had opposed emancipation and civil rights for freed slaves during the Reconstruction era-but changed his position due to his outrage over the actions of white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

Harlan argued in his dissent that segregation ran counter to the constitutional principle of equality under the law: "The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race while they are on a public highway is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution," he wrote. "It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

Plessy v. Ferguson Significance

The Plessy v. Ferguson verdict enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal" as a constitutional justification for segregation, ensuring the survival of the Jim Crow South for the next half-century.

Intrastate railroads were among many segregated public facilities the verdict sanctioned; others included buses, hotels, theaters, swimming pools and schools. By the time of the 1899 case Cummings v. Board of Education, even Harlan appeared to agree that segregated public schools did not violate the Constitution.

It would not be until the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, at the dawn of the civil rights movement, that the majority of the Supreme Court would essentially concur with Harlan's opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson..

Writing the majority opinion in that 1954 case, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place" in public education, calling segregated schools "inherently unequal," and declaring that the plaintiffs in the Brown case were being "deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

Sources

C. Vann Woodward, " Plessy v. Ferguson: The Birth of Jim Crow," American Heritage (Volume 15, Issue 3: April 1964).
Landmark Cases: Plessy v. Ferguson, PBS: The Supreme Court - The First Hundred Years.
Louis Menand, "Brown v. Board of Education and the Limits of Law," The New Yorker (February 12, 2001).
Today in History - May 18: Plessy v. Ferguson, Library of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate But Equal Doctrine | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

# data[].attributes.headline
1918 Every US state requires completion of elementary school

# data[].attributes.subject
1918 Every US state requires completion of elementary school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hundreds of years ago, most learning happened at home. Parents taught their children or, if their families could afford it, private tutors did the job. The Puritans were the first in this country to point out the need for some kind of public education. They established schools to teach not just the essentials-reading, writing and math- but also to reinforce their core values.

After the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson argued that the newly independent nation needed an educational system, and he suggested that tax dollars be used to fund it. His pleas were ignored, however, and the idea for a public school system languished for nearly a century.

By the 1840s, a few public schools had popped up around the country in the communities that could afford them. However, that smattering of schools wasn't good enough for education crusaders Horace Mann of Massachusetts and Henry Barnard of Connecticut. They began calling for free, compulsory school for every child in the nation.

Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school laws in 1852. New York followed the next year, and by 1918, all American children were required to attend at least elementary school.

Next came the movement to create equal schooling for all American children, no matter what their race. At the turn of the 20th century, schools in the South, and many in the North, were segregated. The 1896 Supreme Court ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the legality of segregation. Finally, in 1954, the Supreme Court overturned its ruling with the landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education, and public schools became open to people of all races.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public schools educate about 50 million students a year. A look at costs, challenges, magnet and charter schools and teacher quality.

# data[].attributes.body
A high-school teacher was charged with violating state law by teaching the theory of evolution. This trial started a national debate that continues to the present day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Butler Act

The theory of evolution, as developed by Charles Darwin and others, was a controversial concept in many quarters, even into the 20th century.

Concerted anti-evolutionist efforts in Tennessee succeeded when in 1925, the Tennessee House of Representatives was offered a bill by John W. Butler that made teaching evolution a misdemeanor. The so-called Butler Act was passed six days later almost unanimously with no amendments.

When the ACLU received news of the bill's passage, it immediately sent out a press release offering to challenge the Butler Act.

John Scopes

What became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial began as a publicity stunt for the town of Dayton, Tennessee.

A local businessman met with the school superintendent and a lawyer to discuss using the ACLU offer to get newspapers to write about the town. The group asked if high school science teacher John Scopes would admit to teaching evolution for the purposes of prosecution.

Scopes wasn't clear on whether he had precisely taught the subject, but was sure he'd used materials that included evolution. Scopes taught physics and math, and while he said he accepted evolution, he didn't teach biology.

It was announced to newspapers the next day that Scopes had been charged with violating the Butler Act, and the town wired the ACLU to procure its services. The Tennessee press roundly criticized the town, accusing it of staging a trial for publicity.

William Jennings Bryan

A preliminary hearing on May 9, 1925, officially held Scopes for trial by the grand jury, though released him and didn't require him to post bond.

Three-time presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan volunteered to present for the prosecution. The politician was already well known as an anti-evolution activist who almost single handedly creating the national controversy over the teaching of evolution and making his name inseparable from the issue.

Clarence Darrow

Author H.G. Wells was approached early on to present the case for evolution, but he turned down the offer.

Clarence Darrow - a famous attorney who had recently acted for the defense in the notorious Leopold and Loeb murder trial - found out about the Scopes trial through journalist H.L. Mencken, who suggested Darrow should defend Scopes.

Darrow declined since he was preparing to retire, but news of Bryan's involvement caused Darrow - who was also a leading member of the ACLU - to change his mind.

Darrow and Bryan already had a history of butting heads over evolution and the concept of taking the Bible literally, sparring in the press and public debates.

Darrow's goal in getting involved was to debunk fundamentalist Christianity and raise awareness of a narrow, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. It was the only time in his career he offered to give free legal aid.

Bryan and Darrow set the tone by immediately attacking each other in the press. The ACLU attempted to remove Darrow from the case, fearing they would lose control, but none of these efforts worked.

William Jennings Bryan Arrives

The grand jury met on May 9, 1925. In preparation, Scopes recruited and coached students to testify against him. Three of the seven students attending were called to testify, each showing a sketchy understanding of evolution. The case was pushed forward and a trial set for July 10.

Bryan arrived in Dayton three days before the trial, stepping off a train to the spectacle of half the town greeting him. He posed for photo opportunities and gave two public speeches, stating his intention to not only defend the anti-evolution law but to use the trial to debunk evolution entirely.

Darrow, meanwhile, arrived into Dayton the day before the trial to little fanfare.

Scopes Monkey Trial Begins

The trial day started with crowds pouring into the courthouse two hours before it was scheduled to begin, filling up the room and causing onlookers to spill into the hallways. There was applause when Bryan entered the court and further when he and Darrow shook hands.

The trial began - somewhat ironically - with a lengthy prayer. The first day saw the grand jury being reconvened and repeating testimony from Scopes' students who had appeared in that trial and jury selection.

Outside the courthouse a circus-like atmosphere reigned, with barbecues, concessions and carnival games, though that died down as the trial was adjourned for the weekend, during which Bryan and Darrow sparred through the press as tensions mounted.

Clarence Darrow's Speech

It was to a packed courthouse on Monday that arguments began by the defense working to establish the scientific validity of evolution, while the prosecution focused on the Butler Act as an education standard for Tennessee citizens, citing precedents.

Darrow responded by laying out the case in an aggressive way, part of a strategy related to the defense planning to waive their closing argument and preventing Bryan's own carefully prepared closing argument.

The statement Darrow made is considered an example of his best passionate public speaking. Darrow's chief argument was that the Butler Act promoted one particular religious view and was therefore illegal. He spoke for over two hours.

Clarence Darrow's Plan

The trial itself began on Wednesday with opening statements. Witnesses followed, establishing that Scopes had taught evolution and zoologist Maynard M. Metcalf gave expert testimony about the science of evolution, a signal that Scopes himself would not take the stand during the trial.

Subsequent days saw prosecutors argue about the validity of using expert witnesses. This provided Bryan with the opportunity for an extended speech on the subject. Defense attorney Dudley Field Malone then countered with a speech of his own and received a thunderous standing ovation.

The next day, the judge ruled that any experts on the stands could be cross-examined. That night, Darrow quietly prepared to call Bryan as an expert witness on the Bible.

William Jennings Bryan on the Stand

Calling Bryan to the stand was a shock for the court. Darrow interrogated him on interpreting the Bible literally, which undercut his earlier sweeping religious speeches. It also cornered him into admitting that he didn't know much about science since the Bible didn't provide any answers.

When the judge ruled Bryan's testimony be taken from the record, Darrow suggested that to save time his client should be found guilty. This prevented Bryan from making a closing statement.

The jury took nine minutes to pronounce Scopes guilty. He was fined $100.

After the Scopes Trial

After the trial, Bryan immediately began to prepare his unused closing statement as a speech for his rallies. He never got to use that speech, since he died in his sleep in Dayton the following Sunday.

Scopes was offered a new teaching contract but chose to leave Dayton and study geology at the University of Chicago graduate school. He eventually became a petroleum engineer in the oil industry.

Intelligent Design

Supporters of both sides claimed victory following the trial, but the Butler Act was upheld, and the anti-evolution movement continued.

Mississippi passed a similar law months later, and in 1925 Texas banned the theory of evolution from high school textbooks. Twenty-two other states made similar efforts but were defeated.

The controversy over the teaching of science and evolution has continued into the 21st century. In 2005, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District battled over the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in Pennsylvania schools alongside evolution.

The court ruled in that case against intelligent design - now largely discredited as a pseudoscience - as a legitimate topic suitable for education. Nonetheless, educators remain wary of teaching evolution in public schools when parents and politicians object to the topic.

In 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed three bills into law that targeted the teaching of "critical race theory," so-called "woke" political views and other subjects. The state laws had a chilling effect on educators in the state, including university professors and grade-school teachers who include evolution in their curricula.

Inherit the Wind

In 1955, a play written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee about the Scopes trial called Inherit the Wind debuted in Dallas, Texas. The well-reviewed play has had many revivals worldwide.

A film based on the play, starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March, premiered in 1960. Inherit the Wind has been remade for television several times since, each time rekindling the controversy over an issue that has yet to be resolved.

Sources

Summer For The Gods. Edward J. Larson.
The Legend of the Scopes Trial. Slate.
A Witness To The Scopes Trial. Scientific American.
The Scopes Trial (1925). University of Minnesota Law Library.
State of Tennessee v. Scopes. ACLU.
Professors in Florida are feeling the chill from DeSantis' education legislation. Miami Herald.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scopes Trial: Inherit the Wind & Butler Act - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scopes Trial, or the Scopes Monkey Trial, was a 1925 trial in which Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan debated the teaching of evolution in schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
1931 Alvarez v the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District

# data[].attributes.subject
1931 Alvarez v the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District

# data[].attributes.body
The first successful school desegregation court case in the United States. Placing Mexican-American children in a separate "Americanization" school was found to be illegal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
San Diego History Center | San Diego, CA | Our City, Our Story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Journal of San Diego History
SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY
Spring 1986, Volume 32, Number 2
Thomas L. Scharf, Editor

by Robert R. Alvarez, Jr.
First Prize, Weinberger Award
San Diego History Center 1984 Institute of History
Images from this article
The history of school desegregation legislation in the United States is not often associated with the Mexican Community in Southern California and is usually thought to have begun with the 1954 landmark Supreme Court case of Brown vs. the Topeka schoolboard. It has recently come to light that the earliest court cases concerning school desegregation occurred in the Southwest and California in the 1930s. In these cases Mexican immigrants and their communities were the targeted groups of segregation by school officials. A case of particular importance, which has begun to take its place in the social history of civil rights, occurred in San Diego County during the 1930s, in the then rural community of Lemon Grove. This case: Roberto Alvarez vs. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, was the first successful school desegregation court decision in the history of the United States. It is important in San Diego and U.S. history, not solely because it occurred but because the community took court action and won the case they established the rights of their children to equal education, despite local, regional and national sentiment that favored not only segregation, but the actual deportation of the Mexican population in the United States. The case is a testimony of the San Diego Mexican community's rights and their actions towards equality in education not only for their own children, but for the Mexican population in California and the United States.

In 1930 Lemon Grove boasted a number of attractive businesses centered around productive agricultural fields. The La Mesa Scout (1926) described Lemon Grove as "one of the prettiest spots in the San Diego suburban district...the hills surrounding the town are covered with fine lemon and orange groves that are producing hundreds of thousands of dollars...each year."

Among the advantages of Lemon Grove are an "excellent women's club", one of the finest golf courses in Southern California, paved road, churches and a..."live wire chamber of commerce that will gladly assist anyone who desires to locate here..." In addition to the civic and business opportunities described, Lemon Grove was served by its own grammar school. "A fine new building has recently been completed that offers every facility of the well equipped schools."

In describing the residents, the article states that within . . . "the Lemon Grove district will be found many of the better class of people who have selected San Diego County as their home. Among these people are professional and businessmen of San Diego...it would be hard to find a better class of people anyplace." This blissful view of Lemon Grove and its prominent residents was overshadowed in 1931 when the Mexican community challenged the school board for the educational rights of their children.

For the Californio, as for other Mexicanos, Lemon Grove provided jobs in agriculture, a local mining quarry, a railroad packing house and relatively easy access to the growing City of San Diego. It was a geographically confined community and very similar to the hometowns from which people had come. Some fifty families settled here, most of which were of Baja California heritage. These families included Cesena, Alvarez, Castellanos, Smith, Blackwells, Arce, Mesa and others who bonded together and formed a community of Baja Californios in Lemon Grove.

Their unity and perseverance were tested as never before during the early part of 1931. Most of these families had been in Lemon Grove for a number of years and had offspring who were first generation American citizens by birth. Seventy-five of these children attended the Lemon Grove Grammar School where a total of 169 students were enrolled.

On January 5, 1931, Jerome T. Green, principal of the Lemon Grove Grammar School, acting under instructions from the school trustees, stood at the door and admitted all pupils except the Mexican students. Principal Green announced that the Mexican children did not belong at the school, could not enter, and instructed them to attend a two room building constructed to house Mexican children.

Dejected, embarrassed and angry, the Mexican children left the school and returned home. Instructed by their parents, they refused to attend the so-called new school that had been built for them. In the words of students of the time "It wasn't a school. It was an old building. Everyone called it 'La Caballeriza" ' (the barnyard).

This was a turn of events that the school board had not counted upon. The board expected the Mexican children and families to act docile, follow orders and attend the new school. The Mexican parents rallied together and through the Mexican Consulate, acquired legal counsel and support. The school incident became a test case of the power of the District Attorney and the school board to create a separate school for Mexican children.

These actions by the school board were not isolated events and had been sanctioned to a great degree by the Great Depression and a resulting anti-Mexican sentiment not solely in San Diego, but throughout California and the entire U.S. In order to grasp the social forces that set this action in motion, it is important to understand the larger socio-economic and historic events that conditioned the events in 1930 San Diego and Lemon Grove.

Prior to any planning or decisions by the Lemon Grove school board concerning the Mexican separation, there had been several public and officially sanctioned antecedents that set the tone for the actions at local community levels throughout the State of California. Among these were: (1) national changes in immigration policy specifically aimed at curtailing Mexican Immigration to the U.S.; (2) a national repatriation plan geared to alleviate the Mexican alien problem that was viewed as a major cause of unemployment and public welfare costs; (3) in California, official reports and measures that heightened latent prejudices and fears concerning the growing Mexican population. The events of the times are important here because they illustrate the social environment within which the school board took action and also illustrate the barriers faced by the Mexican community of Lemon Grove in their attempt at justice.

In 1924, government action to control the unrestricted influx was taken. Along the U.S. Mexican Border a 1917 immigration head tax was enforced for the first time. And Congress created the Border Patrol as a force to com-bat the entry of Mexicans into the U.S.

In addition to government action, the press focused attention on the growing Mexican population. In 1928 when the U.S. Senate opened hearings on the Restriction of Western Hemisphere Immigration and through 1929, the Saturday Evening Post, with a circulation of over 2.7 million, published a series of articles in strong support of a restrictionist policy limiting Mexican immigration. In an editorial of January 7, 1928, the Post stated: "Every consideration of prudence and sound policy indicated that Mexican immigration must be put under quota restrictions".

Kenneth L. Roberts who had written a series of articles in favor of European Immigration restriction turned his pen towards Mexicans during this period. Writing in the Post he stated "The brown flood of Mexican peon immigration - the immigration of Mexican Indians and Mexican Mestizos, or half breeds - has risen from year to year." Roberts reporting from California reported that "In Los Angeles...one can see the endless streets crowded with the shacks of illiterate, diseased, pauperized Mexicans . . . bringing countless numbers of American citizens into the world with the reckless prodigality of rabbits..."

In addition to the press, the growing prejudice against Mexican nationals was also mirrored in state reports. In 1930, the Governor of California received a report that he had commissioned entitled "Mexicans in California." The report considers all people of Mexican descent as Mexican nationals and does not differentiate between Mexicans born in Mexico, or U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. Divided into four major parts the report provides detailed statistics, future predictions and alarming rates of growth of the Mexican population in the United States.

Focusing on Southern California, the authors report that between 1910-1920 the increase in Mexicans for the state at large was 159% and for twelve Southern California cities, the increase was 215%. The increase for the decade in San Diego was 124%. The report supported the restrictionist's stereotyped views of the docile, unassimilable Mexican who has no desire to become a permanent U.S. citizen.

By January, 1931 the Los Angeles press which was distributed in San Diego was focusing on articles concerning the alien problem. The Illustrated Daily News of January 26,1931, stated, "Aliens who are deportable will save themselves trouble and expense by arranging their departure at once." The Examiner announced that "Deportable aliens include Mexicans, Japanese and others without any qualifying details." During the following year city and county law enforcement officials made public raids arresting Mexicans. One such raid included the Los Angeles city park. The overall result in the United States was the deportation and voluntary repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

The economic problems of the Depression created a great schism between those in favor of restricting Mexican immigration particularly in the Southwestern United States, and acti-restrictionists fighting for Mexican and other immigrant rights. Economic insecurity coupled with public attitudes led to the legalized expulsion of Mexicans from the country and targeted people of Mexican descent - regardless of nationality - as the scapegoats in the Southwest. The climate was not as blatant in San Diego County, but it would be difficult to believe that the national sentiment expressed in both dominant newspapers and magazines of the time, and stressed by state and federal leaders did not go unnoticed in San Diego and Lemon Grove.

...No Southwestern state upheld legally the segregation of Mexican American children, yet the practice was widespread. Separate schools were built and maintained, in theory, simply because of residential segregation or to benefit the Mexican child. He had a "language handicap" and needed to be "Americanized" before mixing with Anglo children. His presence in an integrated school would hinder the progress of white American children.

Such schools had been built without much opposition in California but the Lemon Grove board was not prepared for the ensuing contest which reached the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego in the following month.

On the 8th of January, 1931, the San Diego Evening Tribune published an article, "75 Mexican students go on strike." It discussed the action taken by Principal Green sending the children to the new Americanization school and the response of the community charging the school board with segregation. The following day the San Diego Sun published a response. "Pupils back at Desks in Lemon Grove," by the supervisor of attendance, L.H. Lovelace, stating the "...matter was amicably settled as far as the school authorities are concerned." According to the article, Miss Ada York, superintendent of County schools stated that the seventy-five pupils would return to the Americanization school...and H.L. Owens, school board member, said "...the difficulties between authorities and Mexican children had been 'entirely ironed out'."

Although the school authorities felt the school separation had been settled, during the following month the community went to court and under a writ of mandate from the Superior Court of California in San Diego, they challenged the school board's right to build and maintain a separate and segregated school for Mexican American children. Prior to the school separation, Mexican children had attended special English classes at the school but the building of a separate school and the segregation was viewed as a threat to the community.

The Mexican parents organized themselves into the Comite de Vecinos de Lemon Grove (The Lemon Grove Neighbors Committee) and sought help in the Mexican community at large. The community went first to Enrique Ferreira who had been the Mexican consul in San Diego for ten years. Ferreira responded with strong support and arranged for San Diego attorneys, Fred C. Noon and A.C. Brinkely, to act as legal counsel for the Lemon Grove Community. Fred C. Noon spoke Spanish fluently and worked in San Diego since 1928. In 1930, he had been named California attorney for the Northern District of Baja California and was considered an expert in legal affairs concerning border relations. As a result of Counsel Ferreirs support, and the conviction of the community, a suit was filed against the Lemon Grove School Board. The community chose my father, Roberto Alvarez, as representative of the segregated children. He was chosen because he was an exemplary student and spoke English well.

In addition to seeking help from Consul Ferreira, the Lemon Grove parents appealed to the Mexican Community at large. The parents sought help in the Spanish language media and reports in both Los Angeles and Tijuana newspapers appeared. On January 25, 1931 La Opinion the leading Spanish language newspaper in the state featured a page one article on the Lemon Grove incident entitled: "No admiten a los Ninos Mexicanos" (Mexican children refused admission). Within the article an open letter from the Lemon Grove Neighbors Committee appealed for the rights of all Mexicans in the United States. "We are not in agreement, which is very natural, nor do we consider just, the separation of our children, without any reason, to send them to another establishment that distinguishes Mexican Children from children of other nationalities..." The community made a plea for both moral and material support in order to do "the work necessary to convince the school authorities that they should not continue the segregation..." As a result of this request and support from La Opinion, the Lemon Grove Committee was able to cover the costs incurred by the court case.

As the case approached the hearing, school board members appealed to nationalistic sentiment in support of their attempt to separate the children. H. A. Anderson, president of the school board responding to the article in La Opinion stated that "The strike is being carried on by an intense Mexican national organization which is organized among the Spanish-American elements along the coast." The school board was quoted as welcoming the test suit to determine the county board's powers to build the separate school for Mexican children. The district attorney's office had already ruled in favor of the board and had chosen to defend the school board's actions as the legal defense for the school.

The local attempt at segregation was also supported at the state level. On January 19, 1931, California Assemblyman George R. Bliss of Carpinteria introduced a bill to the California legislature that would have legalized the segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students. Bliss, as a school board member, had been successful in establishing a segregated school for Mexicans in Carpinteria under the rubric of an "Indian School". California School Code of the period provided: "The power to establish separate school for Indian children and children of Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian ancestry." Bliss wanted to extend the clause on Indian children to read "Indian children whether born in the United States or not" thus allowing schools to separate Mexican and Mexican American children on the basis that they were Indians." The Bliss Bill was defeated, but interestingly Balderrama attributes the introduction of the Bill to the Lemon Grove controversy. Lillian Hill, Chief of the Division of Migratory Schools in California states in 1931 that a Lemon Grove supporter of school segregation had announced: "If this (the attempt to segregate Lemon Grove) fails, we will slip a bill through the state legislature so we can segregate these greasers."

In addition, the community showed their concern for residents and citizens of Mexican parentage throughout Southern California: "...a speedy determination of the matter is necessary to prevent serious embarrassment and to determine the legal right under the laws of California, of children of Mexican parentage, nationality and or descent to attend the public schools of California on a basis of equality with other Americans."

Based on this petition (Writ of Mandate) the court indicted each of the school board members for illegal segregation and commanded the admittance of all pupils of Mexican parentage and nationality to the main school.

In their answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate the Board of Trustees denied all allegations concerning segregation or isolation of the pupils of Mexican parentage. The school board's action was rationalized under the pretentions for the betterment of the Mexican children's education. The new school was to be an "Americanization school" in which the deficiencies of the children of Mexican descent could be corrected, avoiding the deterioration of American students as a result of contact with the Mexicans in the main school. English and American customs would be provided to bring the Mexican students up to standards of the American children. The primary arguments submitted to the court were:

(1) That the new school house was large enough to accommodate 85 or more pupils and that a playground was set aside and fully equipped.

(2) That the school was built in the northerly section of town (in the main Mexican area) for the safety of the children as they could attend the school without traveling over the main boulevard to the main school.

(3) That with one or two exceptions the children assigned to this new school are deficient in their knowledge of the English language, and are older than the other children in corresponding grades and require special attention from the instructors.

(4) That the new school was built for the purpose of establishing an Americanization school wherein backward and deficient children could be given better instruction than they could be given in the larger school.

(5) That the Americanization school was not intended to be a segregation of Mexican children.

On Tuesday the 24th of February, the case went to court and was heard by San Diego's Judge Claude Chambers. Judge Chambers was well known in San Diego. He arrived in 1906 and served as a city justice and in the late thirties ran for City Councilman and Mayor of San Diego. Although he lost both bids, Judge Chambers had filed an impressive record in the courts of San Diego. He was a civic leader establishing the San Diego Tourist Magazine in 1908 and in 1913 was cofounder of the San Diego Advertising Club. He served as president of the San Diego Merchant's Association and formed the San Diego Hotel Association. In 1934 he expressed his views as a Judge. His campaign slogan was "Justice tempered with Mercy." "I believe a court should uphold the dignity of the law and respect the rights of all equally, irrespective of whether they be rich or poor, and irrespective of what race, nationality or religion they may belong to..." These beliefs were carried into court.

The court case focused around a rebuttal of the school board's claims concerning the backwardness and deficiencies of the Mexican American children. In addition to the plaintiff representing the children at large, ten principal witnesses took the stand to illustrate the inaccurate generalizations concerning the scholastic achievements of the Mexican children. But the major questions were levied at the school board and school staff.

Judge Chambers: When there are American children who are behind (in grade level), what do you do with them?

Answer: They are kept in a lower grade.

Judge: You don't segregate them? Why not do the same with the other
children?

Wouldn't the association of American and Mexican children be favorable to the learning of English for these (Mexican) children?

Silence is the answer.

Lawyer Noon: All the Mexican children were behind (in their work)?

Answer: Many of them from the Lemon Grove School counsel.

Noon: How did they behave in school?

Answer: The older ones behaved themselves; the younger ones gave us a lot
of work.

Noon: What was the reason for separating them?

Answer: To provide them with more personal attention.

In concluding Judge Chambers stated:

"I understand that you can separate a few children, to improve their education they need special instruction; but to separate all the Mexicans in one group can only be done by infringing the laws of the State of California. And I do not blame the Mexican children because a few of them are behind (in school work) for this segregation. On the contrary, this is a fact in their favor. I believe that this separation denies the Mexican children the presence of the American children, which is so necessary to learn the English language."

On March 30, 1931 a judgement was passed in favor of the Mexican community. The conclusion of law refuted each claim made by the school board and the court demanded an immediate reinstatement of the children. The separation was indeed deemed a segregation and the court ruled that the school board had no legal basis on which to segregate the children. California law did not authorize or permit the maintenance of separate schools for the instruction of pupils of Mexican parentage, nationality and or descent. The children were legally entitled to enter the regular school building and receive instruction on the basis of equality with all other children.

The Lemon Grove case may appear to be an isolated event of the 1930s, but the segregation of Mexican and Mexican American children became commonplace throughout the southwest during this time. In some cases it reappeared and was fought as defacto segregation in our major cities as late as the 1970s.

Prior to the Lemon Grove case, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) selected the Del Rio Texas school district as a test case to outlaw similar segregation policy. The case-Salvatierra vs. Independent School District challenged the legality of the "complete segregation" of school children of Mexican and Spanish descent..." The District court of Val Verde County granted an injunction restraining the district from segregating Mexican children, but the injunction was appealed by the school board. In early 1930 the Texas Court of Appeals agreed in part with the district court on the school's lack of power to arbitrarily segregate Mexican children but the court upheld the school district's rights to separate children on the basis of English language handicaps. LULAC appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Lemon Grove school case was isolated as a local event and had no precedent-setting ruling affecting either the State of California or other situations of school segregation in the Southwest. Unlike the Texas case, the school board did not appeal the district court's decision and complied with the court's ruling. Given the climate of the period, it is surprising that the case was not appealed. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that other communities in the state did not use the case as a precedent in desegregating Americanization schools and classes that were created for Mexican and Mexican-American children. The case stands as a credit to the Mexican community of Lemon Grove who as immigrants used the public system of justice to test their children's rights as U.S. citizens.

NOTES

1. The Brown Case was the culmination of a long series of tested court actions toward Black equality in the United States that began with Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896. This case, related directly to railroad car travel and only indirectly to schooling, set a precedent for setting the "separate but equal" or Jim Crow laws that remained until the 1954 Brown ruling. A series of cases directly related to equal education were heard throughout the States after the turn of the century. In 1927 the Supreme Court approved of Mississippi's sending a Chinese child to a school maintained for Blacks. See Daniel M. Berman, It Is So Ordered: The Supreme Court Rules on School Segregation (New York: W.W. North and Company, 1966); Carlos Manuel Haro, Mexicano/Chicano Concerns and School Desegregation in Los Angeles (Los Angeles: Chicano Studies Center Publications, University of California, 1977); Hubert H. Humphrey, ed., School Desegregation: Documents and Commentaries (New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell Co., 1964); Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, United States Senate, "1972 Selected Court Decisions Relating to Equal Educational Opportunity" (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office) and D. Shoemaker, With All Deliberate Speed: Segregation-Desegregation in Southern Schools (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957).

In the 1930s a variety of cases concerning the rights of Blacks to attend state colleges were heard throughout the nation including Maryland (1936), Missouri (1938), Oklahoma 1948 and Texas (1948) (Haro 1977). In 1954 there were 17 U.S. States all in the South or bordering the South, plus the District of Columbia which by law made segregated school mandatory. Four states (Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico and Wyoming) allowed varieties of local option in segregating and sixteen states prohibited segregation but enforcement was random. The eleven remaining states had no laws on segregation aimed at Blacks or Chicanos and most had no reported cases in the courts (Ibid). California however, did by law exclude Native Americans making it legal to segregate people of Indian descent.

2. Robert R. Alvarez, Jr., "School Segregation in the 1930s: A Mexican American Case," Paper presented to the 82nd American Anthropological Association in Los Angeles; Francisco E. Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza: The Los Angeles Mexican Consulate and the Mexican Community, 1929 to 1936 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1982); Meyer Weinberg, A Chance to Learn (Boston: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

3. I discovered this case while doing field research on the migration and adaptation of Mexican families from Baja California. My own family had come from the South and in interviews with my father and other key actors in the case discovered that court action had been taken by the Mexican community. A grant from the Spencer Foundation for educational research permitted the actual focus on the case. I am also in great debt to my sister, Guadalupe Alvarez Cooper who conducted interviews and discovered the aging microfilm containing the court records.

4. Other versions of this paper that relate the school case to immigration reform have been presented elsewhere, see Robert Alvarez, Jr., "Public Sentiment and Public Policy Towards Immigration Reform: A Lesson From a 1930 Mexican Desegregation Case," Paper presented at the symposium: Mexican Migration and the U.S. Border Region: Anthropological Perspectives. Society for Applied Anthropology, San Diego, 1983, and Alvarez, "School Segregation in the 1930s." The case presented here is the basis for a Public Broadcasting documentary produced by KPBS-TV San Diego. This documentary is the second in a series on the San Diego Lemon Grove families from Baja California. The first "The Trail North" was broadcast in 1983.

5. La Mesa Scout, 1926. This copy was obtained from the Lemon Grove Historical Society. No month or day was given.

6. The settlement and development of this community is described in Robert Alvarez, "Familia: Migration and Adaptation in Alta and Baja California 1800-1975," Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, 1979.

8. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Petition for Writ of Mandate No. 66625, February 13, 1931. This is the only official record of the court case that is in existence. A prolonged search in both city and county records led to the discovery of the school case in the microfilm collection of the Superior Court. The microfilm had deteriorated badly, but was still legible.

9. Interviews with Roberto Alvarez, Sr. and Mary Smith Alvarez, February 1981, San Diego, California.

10. San Diego Sun, February 10-11, 1931.

11. Lemon Grove School Board Minutes, July 23, 1930. Copies of the board minutes had been saved by my grandmother Ramona Castellanos, along with old San Diego County newspaper accounts of the case. These proved to be the primary documents that led to the investigation and understanding presented here.

13. In addition to their current fear of immigration Ricardo Romo states that "...During the period 1915-1917 hysteria similar to, and at times even more extreme than that aimed at communists elsewhere was directed at Mexicans living in the United States who allegedly stood on the verge of revolution which would reclaim the entire Southwest for Mexico. Ricardo Romo, "Mexican Workers in the City: Los Angeles 1915-1930," Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1975, pp. 104-132.

14. Abraham Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican-Americans in the Great Depression (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1974), p. 12.

15. See Alvarez, "Familia;" Gilberto Cardenas, "United States Immigration Policy Toward Mexico: An Historical Perspective," Chicano Law Review, II (Summer, 1975); Lawrence Cardoso, "Mexican Emigration to the United States, 1900-1930: An Analysis of Socio-Economic Causes," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, 1970 and Manuel Garcia, The Desert Immigrants (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).

16. Robert A. Divine, American Immigration Policy 1924-1952 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), pp. 52-76.

17. Ibid.,Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican-Americans; Romo, "Mexican Workers"; and Robin F. Scott, "The Mexican in the Los Angeles Area, 1920-1950: From Acquiescence to Activity," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, 1971.

18. Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican-Americans, p. 23.

19. Divine, American Immigration Po, p. 56.

20. Romo, "Mexican Workers," p. 74.

22. Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza; Emory Bogardus, Mexicans in the United States (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1934); Cardoso, "Mexican Emigration;" Divine, American Immigration Policy; Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican-Americans; Romo, "Mexican Workers" and Scott, "The Mexican in Los Angeles."

23. Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican-Americans, p. 39.

24. R and E Research Associates, "Mexicans in California," A Report to Governor Clement C. Young, 1931.

26. Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican-Americans, p. 47.

27. Meyer Weinberg states that in 1928, San Bernadino had sixteen such schools, Orange County fourteen, Los Angeles County ten, Imperial eight, Kern eight, Ventura four, Riverside two and Santa Barbara two. Meyer Weinberg, A Chance to Learn (Boston: Cambridge University Press, 1977). pp. 155-165.

Paul Taylor writing in 1927 states that in the Imperial Valley, California, Mexican children made up one-third of the population and were separated into Americanization and opportunity classes. "Segregation" he stated "occurs in every town of the Imperial Valley, California," University of California Publications in Economics, Volume VI, No. 1, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1928), p. 83.

Thomas Carter in reviewing the 1930 situation for Mexican children states "...segregation especially in the early grades was regularly recommended and commonly established..." Thomas Carter, "Mexican Americans in School: A History of Educational Neglect" (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1970), p. 11.

28. Ibid., p. 155.

29. Joan Moore, The Mexican Americans (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1970), p. 77.

30. San Diego Union, January 9, 1931.

31. Alvarez, "School Segregation in the 1930s;" Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza.

32. San Diego Union, February 19, 1930 San Diego Union, November 4, 1961.

33. Roberto Alvarez interview, February, 1981.

34. La Opinion, January 25, 1931.

35. Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, p. 60.

36. San Diego Sun, February 10, 1931 and February 11, 1931.

38. Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, p. 61.

41. Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, Writ of Mandate, February 13, 1931.

44. Alternate Writ of Mandate, February 14, 1931.

45. San Diego Union, 1934. No date given.

46. Secretaria de Relation's Exteriores. Tomo I-II, 1930-31 pp. 1786-1787. Translation by author.

48. Conclusions of Law: March 1, 1931.

49. Lemon Grove School Board Minutes. March 12, 1931.

50. Byron L. Netzley, "A Personal History of the Lemon Grove School District," Un-published Manuscript, Lemon Grove Historical Society, 1966.

51. Haro, Mexicano/Chicano Concerns; U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, 1971. Mexican American Education Study (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).

52. Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, p. 59; Weinberg, A Chanceto Learn, p. 165.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS on pages 117 and 124 are courtesy of the Lemon Grove Historical Society. The view of Lemon Grove on pages 122-123, and Lemon Grove School on page 128, are from the San Diego History Center's Title Insurance and Trust Collection. Communion photos on pages 126-127 are courtesy Justa Smith. The portrait of Jerome Green on page 119 is courtesy of Pearl Holaday. Special thanks to KPBS Public Television.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Lemon Grove Incident - San Diego History Center | San Diego, CA | Our City, Our Story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Journal of San Diego History SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY Spring 1986, Volume 32, Number 2 Thomas L. Scharf, Editor by Robert R. Alvarez, Jr.

# data[].attributes.headline
1946 Mendez v Westminster and the California Board of Ed

# data[].attributes.subject
1946 Mendez v Westminster and the California Board of Ed

# data[].attributes.body
Educating children of Mexican descent in separate facilities is unconstitutional. Segregation in California schools was prohibited. This case was an important precedent for Brown v. Board.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Background - Mendez v. Westminster Re-Enactment

# data[].attributes.body
On May 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court decides Brown v Board, ruling that "separate education facilities are inherently unequal". This case overturned Plessy v Ferguson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thurgood Marshall and Brown v. Board of Education

# data[].attributes.body
In 1957, the launch of Sputnik marked the beginning of the Cold War and anxiety that American schools were falling behind.

# data[].attributes.body
The Civil Rights Act becomes law. It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, 🤬, religion or national origin.

# data[].attributes.headline
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.subject
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.body
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is passed on April 9. Part of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty," it provides federal funds to help low-income students, which results in the initiation of educational programs such as Title I and bilingual education.

Titles in the original act:

Title I – Financial Assistance To Local Educational Agencies For The Education Of Children Of Low-Income Families

Title II – School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials

Title III – Supplementary Educational Centers and Services

Title IV – Educational Research And Training

Title V – Grants To Strengthen State Departments Of Education

Title VI – General Provisions

Amendments:

Title VI – Aid to Handicapped Children (1965 title VI becomes Title VII)

Title VII – Bilingual Education Programs (1966 title VII becomes Title VIII)

# data[].attributes.body
The Bilingual Education Act, also know as Title VII, becomes law. After many years of controversy, the law is repealed in 2002 and replaced by the No Child Left Behind Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968  l  NHD Documentary

# data[].attributes.headline
1971 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.subject
1971 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, the federal court rules that students with mental retardation are entitled to a free public education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Storytelling: PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.body
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 becomes law. Though many people associate this law only with girl's and women's participation in sports, Title IX prohibits discrimination based on 🤬 in all aspects of education.

What does Title IX do?

Title IX: 37 words that changed everything

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equality, sports, and Title IX - Erin Buzuvis and Kristine Newhall

# data[].attributes.body
The Marland Report to Congress on gifted and talented education is issued. It recommends a broader definition of giftedness that is still widely accepted today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Marland report, officially Education of the Gifted and Talented: Report to Congress , is a 1972 report to the Congress of the United States by S. P. Marland, which contains a widely known definition of giftedness of children. It is the first national report on gifted education.

# data[].attributes.headline
1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

# data[].attributes.subject
1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

# data[].attributes.body
The Rehabilitation Act becomes law. Section 504 of this act guarantees civil rights for people with disabilities in the context of federally funded institutions and requires accommodations in schools including participation in programs and activities as well as access to buildings. Today, "504 Plans" are used to provide accommodations for students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education or an IEP.

# data[].attributes.body
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) becomes federal law. It requires that a free, appropriate public education, suited to the student's individual needs, and offered in the least restrictive setting be provided for all "handicapped" children. States are given until 1978 (later extended to 1981) to fully implement the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
S. 6 (94th) was a bill in the United States Congress.

A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the President to become law.

Bills numbers restart every two years. That means there are other bills with the number S. 6. This is the one from the 94 th Congress.

This bill was introduced in the 94 th Congress, which met from Jan 14, 1975 to Oct 1, 1976. Legislation not enacted by the end of a Congress is cleared from the books.

How to cite this information.

We recommend the following MLA-formatted citation when using the information you see here in academic work:

"S. 6 - 94th Congress: Education For All Handicapped Children Act." www.GovTrack.us. 1975. January 25, 2021 <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s6>

Where is this information from?

GovTrack automatically collects legislative information from a variety of governmental and non-governmental sources. This page is sourced primarily from Congress.gov, the official portal of the United States Congress. Congress.gov is generally updated one day after events occur, and so legislative activity shown here may be one day behind. Data via the congress project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education For All Handicapped Children Act (1975 - S. 6)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the President to become law. Bills numbers restart every two years. That means there are other bills with the number S. 6. This is the one from the 94 th Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Department of Education is established as a separate, cabinet-level government agency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The U.S. Department of Education: What does it do?

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates Louisiana's "Creationism Act," which requires the teaching of creationism whenever evolution is taught, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana's creation-science law was in conflict with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. Donald Aguillard Shown on June 19, 1987 in Lafayette, assistant principal of Acadiana High School in Scott, La., sued the state over the law in 1981. (AP Photo. Used with permission from The Associated Press.)

In Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the Supreme Court held that a Louisiana law mandating instruction in " creation science" whenever evolution was taught in public schools violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The 7-2 ruling did not outlaw the teaching of creation science; it held only that states could not require science teachers to teach it.

Louisiana forbade teaching of evolution without teaching creation science

Creationists had successfully prevented the teaching of evolution in several states until Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), when the Supreme Court overturned a statute prohibiting the teaching of the theory. In 1981 Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards signed the Balanced Treatment Act into law, which forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools unless students were also taught creation science.

Donald Aguillard, a high school biology teacher, joined by other public school teachers, parents, and religious leaders, charged that the law endorsed religious beliefs and lacked a secular purpose. The federal district and appeals courts agreed.

Supreme Court said law violated the First Amendment

In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. observed that the law served no clear secular purpose and promoted a particular religious belief, thus violating the establishment clause.

Brennan found the statute's professed goal of protecting academic freedom deceptive because teachers were granted no more flexibility than they already had; the legislative history and the discriminatory preference for creation science over all other challenges to the theory of evolution revealed the real purpose of the law to be to promote a specific religious belief.

Law had no secular purpose

Moreover, the statute's author repeatedly expressed his religious objections to evolution during legislative hearings. Brennan stressed that because attendance in public schools is mandatory, and schoolchildren are especially impressionable, the Court had to be especially vigilant when the schools become entangled with religious beliefs.

Applying the three-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), used to determine if a law falls under the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion," Brennan found that the statute failed the "secular purpose" prong.

Scalia dissents, finds secular purpose in fostering balanced understanding

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia accepted Louisiana's assertion that its motives were not solely religious, finding a sincere secular purpose in its desire to foster a balanced understanding of the origins of life. Scalia then urged the Court to discard Lemon's secular purpose test. It was futile, he argued, to try to determine subjective legislative intent given the multiple and often conflicting motivations behind a vote for any law.

The issue arose again, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa. 2005), when a Pennsylvania school district required that a statement endorsing " intelligent design," a form of creationism stripped of its religious references, be read to children in biology classes. A federal district judge held that the statement violated the establishment clause.
This article was originally published in 2009. Timothy J. O'Neill is Emeritus Professor and Holder of the Tower-Hester Chair in Politics at Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas. He is the author of several articles on the First Amendment, concentrating on religious liberty and church/state relations, as well as teaching constitutional liberty courses for 40 years.
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana's creation-science law was in conflict with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. Donald Aguillard Shown on June 19, 1987 in Lafayette, assistant principal of Acadiana High School in Scott, La., sued the state over the law in 1981.

# data[].attributes.body
Public Law 105-332, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, is passed with the goal of increasing the quality of vocational-technical education in the U.S. It is reauthorized in 1998 and again in 2006 as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (PL 109-270).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act | Advance CTE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purpose: Perkins is dedicated to increasing learner access to high-quality Career Technical Education (CTE) programs of study. With a focus on systems alignment and program improvement, Perkins is critical to ensuring that programs are prepared to meet the ever-changing needs of learners and employers.

# data[].attributes.body
Public Law 101-476, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), renames and amends Public Law 94-142. In addition to changing terminology from handicap to disability, it mandates transition services and adds autism and traumatic brain injury to the eligibility list.

# data[].attributes.body
The Massachusetts Education Reform Act requires a common curriculum and statewide tests (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System). As has often been the case, other states follow Massachusetts' lead and implement similar, high-stakes testing programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ACHIEVEMENT SCORES AND educational attainment levels for Massachusetts students of all backgrounds have improved since the early 2000s, but large gaps remain and those for college graduation rates have grown wider, a troubling trend in a state already plagued by significant income inequality, according to a new study.

At a time of heightened focus on college completion being crucial to securing a place in the middle class, huge demographic disparities in higher education graduation rates exist even among students who appear similarly well prepared academically for college studies.

The report by researchers at Brown University , which examined 10th grade MCAS scores and later student outcomes, also found that scores are highly correlated with high school and college completion and later earnings in the labor market, but the strength of this association varied widely depending on students' demographic background.

"I think it's both good news and bad news," said John Papay, an associate professor of education and economics at Brown and the lead author of the report. "We see that educational attainment has been increasing for all groups of students, but we see that gaps in four-year college completion are also increasing."

The report comes nearly three decades after the state's 1993 education reform law paired a big infusion of new state spending on schools, especially in lower-income communities, with rigorous new academic standards and assessments. The researchers sought to understand a critical question that underpins the reform effort: Do achievement results in high school have long-term implications for educational and earnings outcomes?

The researchers found that 10th grade MCAS scores were powerful predictors of college enrollment and completion as well as later earnings. For students taking the 10th grade math MCAS in 2003-2005, those scoring at the 75th percentile earned $22,342 more than students scoring at the 25th percentile in 2019 - when they were roughly 30 years old, the report found.

The researchers say the relationship of MCAS scores to earnings is hardly surprising, given the known correlation of scores to family income and other factors likely to give students advantages as they enter the workforce. That makes it hard to know on that basis alone whether the math and English skills captured by the tests themselves "pay off" later in the labor market or are just markers for other factors at play.

But additional analyses at least suggest that they do, as higher scores were correlated with higher subsequent earnings when comparing students from similar demographic backgrounds. The connection between MCAS scores and later earnings held true even among those with similar high school GPAs and college graduate rates. What's more, when the researchers compared students of similar backgrounds who had similar 8th grade MCAS scores, they found that those who had big test scores gains by 10th grade had 22 percent higher earnings at age 30 ($10,903, on average) than those whose scores had not improved. That suggests that gains in skills during high school, not just background factors that students arrive with in 9th grade, may translate to greater earnings in adulthood.

While Horace Mann, the state's first secretary of education, famously declared that education was "the great equalizer of the conditions of men," the study found that it has yet to live up to that vaunted promise. Even when students had comparable 10th grade MCAS scores, their college competition rates differed substantially based on family income.

Among those scoring at the state MCAS average in 2011, for example, about half of students from higher-income households had a four-year college degree within seven years compared with only about 25 percent of those from low-income homes. Stated another way, the researchers said, "low-income students scoring at the 90th percentile on the MCAS test graduate from a four-year college at the same rate as higher-income students who score at the 57th percentile."

"The equity implications of this finding are particularly troubling: students with similar academic skills in high school, as measured by the MCAS, have quite different educational attainments depending on their family income," write the researchers.

Overall college graduation rates have improved in the state, with 42 percent of 10th grade MCAS takers in 2011 earning a four-year degree within seven years compared with 32 percent of their peers in 2003.

Gains occurred among all demographic groups but were much larger among students from higher-income homes, where college completion rates increased from 38 percent in 2003 to 52 percent in 2011. For lower-income students, the rate went from 10 percent to 18 percent, so the gap in college graduation rates actually grew from 28 to 34 percentage points. The gap also widened between white students and their black and Hispanic counterparts, with the white/black graduation gap increasing from 23 percentage points in 2003 to 26 in 2011. The white/Hispanic college graduation gap increased over that period from 28 percentage points to 33 points.

Educators have increasingly turned their attention to not just equalizing college enrollment rates among students of diverse backgrounds, but reaching parity in completion rates. On that front, the report delivers sobering news. Researchers found a 20 percentage point graduation rate gap between lower-income students and higher income students who enroll in four-year colleges with similar MCAS scores. The researchers say this likely reflects a mix of factors, including high school quality, family financial resources, social supports while in college, and disparities in financial and academic support available at the higher education institutions they attend.

Among all students taking the 10th grade MCAS in 2003-2005, those from higher-income backgrounds earned, on average, 30 percent more than their peers from low-income households by the time they reached their early 30s. Among those with similar MCAS scores, that gap shrank to 16 percent, and among students with similar scores and college completion rates, the gap narrowed further to 10 percent. Thus, about two-thirds of the overall earnings gap could be explained by differences in MCAS scores and college graduation rates.

"Closing the existing gaps in high-school performance and postsecondary educational attainments could dramatically reduce current levels of income inequality," the report says.

For racial subgroups, the earnings gap essentially disappeared for Hispanic and Asian students who matched their white counterparts on 10th grade scores and college graduation rates. However, a gap of 12 percent persisted for black students, a finding that comes amidst national protests spurred by police brutality against blacks that are also spotlighting broader racial disparities faced by blacks.

About Michael Jonas

Michael Jonas has worked in journalism in Massachusetts since the early 1980s. Before joining the CommonWealth staff in early 2001, he was a contributing writer for the magazine for two years. His cover story in CommonWealth's Fall 1999 issue on Boston youth outreach workers was selected for a PASS (Prevention for a Safer Society) Award from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Michael got his start in journalism at the Dorchester Community News, a community newspaper serving Boston's largest neighborhood, where he covered a range of urban issues. Since the late 1980s, he has been a regular contributor to the Boston Globe. For 15 years he wrote a weekly column on local politics for the Boston Sunday Globe's City Weekly section.

Michael has also worked in broadcast journalism. In 1989, he was a co-producer for "The AIDS Quarterly," a national PBS series produced by WGBH-TV in Boston, and in the early 1990s, he worked as a producer for "Our Times," a weekly magazine program on WHDH-TV (Ch. 7) in Boston.

Michael lives in Dorchester with his wife and their two daughters.

About Michael Jonas

Michael Jonas has worked in journalism in Massachusetts since the early 1980s. Before joining the CommonWealth staff in early 2001, he was a contributing writer for the magazine for two years. His cover story in CommonWealth's Fall 1999 issue on Boston youth outreach workers was selected for a PASS (Prevention for a Safer Society) Award from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Michael got his start in journalism at the Dorchester Community News, a community newspaper serving Boston's largest neighborhood, where he covered a range of urban issues. Since the late 1980s, he has been a regular contributor to the Boston Globe. For 15 years he wrote a weekly column on local politics for the Boston Sunday Globe's City Weekly section.

Michael has also worked in broadcast journalism. In 1989, he was a co-producer for "The AIDS Quarterly," a national PBS series produced by WGBH-TV in Boston, and in the early 1990s, he worked as a producer for "Our Times," a weekly magazine program on WHDH-TV (Ch. 7) in Boston.

Michael lives in Dorchester with his wife and their two daughters.

While state leaders regularly boast about top rankings in student achievement, the researchers say learning gains appear to have largely plateaued since 2008, with any increases since then largely due to test score inflation or other factors not reflecting true learning gains.

The changes have taken place during a time when the share of the state's public school population with higher needs has grown substantially. The percentage of students from low-income households rose from 23 percent in 2003 to 37 percent in 2014, while the percentage of English language learners more than doubled from 6 percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growing race, class gaps in college graduation rates - CommonWealth Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ACHIEVEMENT SCORES AND educational attainment levels for Massachusetts students of all backgrounds have improved since the early 2000s, but large gaps remain and those for college graduation rates have grown wider, a troubling trend in a state already plagued by significant income inequality, according to a new study.

# data[].attributes.body
- The Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It. reauthorizes the ESEA of 1965 and includes reforms for Title I; increased funding for bilingual and immigrant education; and provisions for public charter schools, drop-out prevention, and educational technology.

# data[].attributes.body
The controversial No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is approved by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law, which reauthorizes the ESEA of 1965 and replaces the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, mandates high-stakes student testing, holds schools accountable for student achievement levels, and provides penalties for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress toward meeting the goals of NCLB.

# data[].attributes.headline
2005 Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District

# data[].attributes.subject
2005 Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania rules in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The importance of the Dover Intelligent Design trial explained

# data[].attributes.headline
2007 Parents involved in community schools v Seattle school district No. 1

# data[].attributes.subject
2007 Parents involved in community schools v Seattle school district No. 1

# data[].attributes.body
In the cases of Parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that race cannot be a factor in assigning students to high schools.

# data[].attributes.body
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 provides more than 90-billion dollars for education, nearly half of which goes to local school districts to prevent layoffs and for school modernization and repair. It includes the Race to the Top initiative, a 4.35-billion-dollar program designed to induce reform in K-12 education. For more information on the impact of the Recovery Act on education, go to ED.gov.

# data[].attributes.body
The Common Core State Standards Initiative, "a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers," is launched.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the Common Core? The Controversial Standards Explained

# data[].attributes.body
By December, 33 states and Washington DC have been granted NCLB waivers.

# data[].attributes.body
The Civil Rights Project report, Brown at 60: Great Progress, a Long Retreat, and an Uncertain Future, is published. It shows a decline in non-Hispanic Caucasian students, a large increase in Latino students, and the growth of segregation, both by race and poverty, particularly among Latinos in central cities and suburbs of the largest metropolitan areas.

# data[].attributes.body
The Minnesota State High School League votes on December 4 to adopt a policy allowing transgender students to join female sports teams. Minnesota is the 33rd state to have a formal transgender student policy.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. Senate votes 85-12 to approve the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is signed by President Obama. This latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) replaces No Child  Left Behind and allows more state control in judging school quality.

There are 9 titles in ESSA:

Title I: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Education Agencies

Title II: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders

Title III: Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students

Title IV: 21st-Century Schools

Title V: State Innovation and Local Flexibility

Title VI: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education

Title VII: Impact Aid

Title VIII: General Provisions

Title IX: Education for the Homeless and Other Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESSA Explained: Inside the New Federal K-12 Law

# data[].attributes.headline
2016 Transgender students and school bathrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
2016 Transgender students and school bathrooms

# data[].attributes.body
On May 13, the federal government tells school districts "to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity." Though the directive is not a law, districts that do not comply could face lawsuits or lose federal aid.

# data[].attributes.body
President-elect Donald Trump names billionaire and school-choice advocate Betsy DeVos Secretary of Education.

# data[].attributes.headline
2017 Transgender students and school bathrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
2017 Transgender students and school bathrooms

# data[].attributes.body
February 22: President Donald Trump rescinds the Obama administration's controversial transgender bathroom directive. The issue may eventually be decided by the courts.

# data[].attributes.body
On November 4, Chicago teachers end an 11-day strike. In May, Los Angeles teachers ended a six-day strike. In 2018, teachers in Arizona and Oklahoma strike.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Is Why Teachers In Los Angeles Are On Strike (HBO)

# data[].attributes.body
In a high profile 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the state of Montana cannot exclude religious schools from receiving tax credit-funded scholarships under its school choice program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a high profile 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the state of Montana cannot exclude religious schools from receiving tax credit-funded scholarships under its school choice program.

What do legislators need to know, and what does this decision mean for states?
Background
In 2015, the Montana Legislature created a scholarship tax credit program. Such programs-present in at least 18 states -provide tax credits to individuals and businesses who donate to scholarship-granting organizations. Families can apply to use funds from these organizations to send their children to private schools.

Montana is one of at least 37 states with a "no-aid provision" in its constitution prohibiting public support for religious or sectarian institutions. To reconcile this provision with the scholarship program, the Montana Department of Revenue promulgated a rule prohibiting families from using the scholarships to send their children to religious schools.

In 2018 the Montana Supreme Court ruled that under the no-aid provision, the state could not operate its scholarship tax credit program, as some recipients would use the scholarships-funded by public tax credits-to attend religious schools.

Montana parents sued, arguing that the scholarship program discriminated against them based on their religion by prohibiting them from using the scholarships to send their children to schools aligned with their religious values.
Legal and Historical Precedent
In the late 1800s, more than 30 states passed Blaine Amendments, also called no-aid provisions, which prohibit public aid to religious organizations. In modern times, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that religious organizations can receive neutrally distributed government benefits. In 2017, the court established in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer that the exclusion of religious institutions from a state grant program "solely because of...religious character" discriminates based on religious status and is unlawful.

Private school choice programs have been subject to litigation since their inception. Supreme Court decisions in 1983 and 2002 upheld state programs that provided tax deductions for private school tuition expenses and that funded vouchers for students to attend private schools, including religious schools. In a 2010 case concerning scholarship tax credits, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment question at hand.

In Espinoza, the court was asked to rule not only on whether religious schools could receive state funding through school choice programs, but whether states could exclude such schools from school choice funding.
The Espinoza Decision
In last week's case, the court built on its decision in Trinity Lutheran, holding that Montana's application of its no-aid provision to its scholarship tax credit program discriminates against religious schools and parents who wish to send their children to religious schools. Such discrimination would need to withstand strict scrutiny to be upheld-that is, it would need to be narrowly tailored to achieve a government interest "of the highest order." The court found that Montana did not meet that standard.

The Espinoza case addressed two important clauses of the First Amendment: the establishment clause, prohibiting state and federal laws "respecting an establishment of religion," and the free exercise clause, barring laws "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." With this decision, the court upheld previous findings that school choice programs supporting religious schools do not violate the establishment clause. Furthermore, the court found that programs that exclude religious schools do violate the free exercise clause.
What Does This Mean for States?
This decision establishes a uniform standard of interpretation for state no-aid provisions, prohibiting most states from excluding religious schools in their school choice programs. Based on a review of state constitutions and jurisprudence, the Institute for Justice found that all but six states will be required to include religious schools in school choice programs.

While the decision is written to apply to Montana's scholarship tax credit program, it establishes a precedent that is likely to strike down school voucher programs and other state programs that exclude religious schools and institutions. The decision weakens state no-aid provisions that have been broadly applied - an initial review indicates that at least 18 states will be affected.

School choice advocates have hailed Espinoza as a victory for religious freedom and parental choice. Critics have expressed alarm that the decision may expand the public role in funding religious schools or further segregate schools. As legislators continue to innovate and experiment with school choice policies, last week's decision has changed the landscape for religious schools' place in the network of education providers.
Benjamin Olneck-Brown is a research analyst in NCSL's Education Program. Email Benjamin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Means for States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a high profile 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the state of Montana cannot exclude religious schools from receiving tax credit-funded scholarships under its school choice program. What do legislators need to know, and what does this decision mean for states?

# data[].attributes.headline
2020 Gavin Grimm v Gloucester County School Board

# data[].attributes.subject
2020 Gavin Grimm v Gloucester County School Board

# data[].attributes.body
September 2020: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in a 2-to-1 decision, found in favor of Mr. Grimm in his five-year-long battle with the Gloucester County School Board, a case that has become a flash point in the battle over the rights of LGBTQ students.