# data[].attributes.body
Only the wealthy had acess to education usually only men had school which was privatly taught or was taught at the church.

# data[].attributes.headline
Latin Grammar Schools 14th-19th century, JL, (Z.P)

# data[].attributes.subject
Latin Grammar Schools 14th-19th century, JL, (Z.P)

# data[].attributes.body
Europe, through the latter term was much more common in England. Emphasis was placed, as the name indicates, on learning to use Latin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

This article was most recently revised and updated by

Boston Latin School, public secondary school in Boston, Massachusetts, the oldest existing school in the United States. Its establishment in 1635 as the Latin Grammar School, open to all boys regardless of social class, set a precedent for tax-supported public education.

Based on the English grammar school, its purpose was to educate young men in the classics as a preparation for university entrance. In 1789 the Latin School curriculum was changed from the English model by reducing the course from seven years to four; it now offers four- and six-year programs. In 1877, 242 years after the start of the boys' school, the strictly college-preparatory Girls' Latin School was established, and in 1972 the Boston Latin School was made coeducational. Notable alumni include the educator Charles William Eliot, philosopher George Santayana, businessman and statesman Joseph P. Kennedy, and composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Amy Tikkanen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boston Latin School | Summary, History, Alumni, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Boston Latin School, public secondary school in Boston, Massachusetts, the oldest existing school in the United States. Its establishment in 1635 as the Latin Grammar School, open to all boys regardless of social class, set a precedent for tax-supported public education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Massachusetts passed the Old Deluder Satan Act in 1647, laying the basis for public schools in America. The Puritans valued literacy highly; they believed all individuals should be able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. In 1642 Massachusetts had required parents to ensure their children's ability to read, and five years later, in this act, the state mandated community schooling. The religious origins of laws providing for education in early America may help explain some of the conflicts that have subsequently developed when courts, enforcing the establishment clause of the First Amendment, have invalidated devotional religious exercises in public schools. This image shows a colonial dame school taught by a woman in her home in 1713. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain)

Massachusetts passed the Old Deluder Satan Act in 1647, laying the basis for public schools in America. The Puritans valued literacy highly; they believed all individuals should be able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. In 1642 Massachusetts had required parents to ensure their children's ability to read, and five years later, in this act, the state mandated community schooling.

Act required towns to support teachers for their children

The religious basis of the act was explicit: the act stated its intention was to thwart "ye old deluder, Satan" in his goal "to keepe men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures." To this end, the law required every town with 50 or more families to hire and maintain a teacher to instruct all children in reading and writing. Towns of 100 or more families were required to support a grammar school to prepare students to attend Harvard College. Similar acts were soon adopted in the other New England colonies, except Rhode Island.

Act established principles of public education

The act established several principles upon which public primary and secondary education continues to rest today: that basic education is a public or community responsibility, that the state can require communities to raise and expend local funds for schools, that day-to-day responsibility for the operation of schools rests at the local level, and that schools are to be organized in levels separating elementary from secondary education.

The religious origins of laws providing for education in early America may help explain some of the conflicts that have subsequently developed when courts, enforcing the establishment clause of the First Amendment, have invalidated devotional religious exercises in public schools.
This article was originally published in 2009. Dr. David Carleton is the chair of the Department of Global Studies and Human Geography at Middle Tennessee State University.
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Massachusetts passed the Old Deluder Satan Act in 1647, laying the basis for public schools in America. The Puritans valued literacy highly; they believed all individuals should be able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. In 1642 Massachusetts had required parents to ensure their children's ability to read, and five years later, in this act, the state mandated community schooling.

# data[].attributes.body
Schools for catholic, quakers,Baptist, and other, wished to train their beliefs. The Dutch German and Sweden settlers also wanted a separate education. Licensed but not protected and financed by the government like public schools so parents paid the teacher directly on a contractual basis. They shared concerns for proper religious training as a primary goal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the 1600s to the 1800s there was no such thing as public education. The 12 years of grade school through high school we are accustomed to in the 20th-century did not exist. Small private schools, not public schools, provided schooling for young people.

The Bible was the focus of learning in colonial times. Most lessons were practical ones learned in the home and in the fields. Robert Peterson's article Education in Colonial America explains how education worked back then.
Colonial education
Education in colonial days was quite stratified. Boys learned core subjects such as reading and math. Girls learned the domestic arts. Only white children received an education until slavery was abolished. Teachers were frequently well-intentioned men who themselves did not have much formal education. Yes, back then, most teachers were men. Colonial Era Education in the United States in K12 Academics offers a detailed look at schools in the late 17th and early 18th-centuries. Once again, it is important to note that there were no public schools or compulsory education in colonial America. Schools sprouted up where there was a need for them in the population centers of the day such as Boston and Philadelphia. Otherwise, education took place in the home.

This video offers an overview of education in colonial America.
Religious schools
Religious missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church established the first private schools in Florida and Louisiana. By all accounts, education in the northeastern colonies was better organized in the 18th century than in the south. The other feature of colonial education is that most learning and teaching followed English models. Gradually other national influences, Dutch, English, Irish, Scottish, and German, added their own educational models and traditions to the mix.
Urban schools
Schools such as Boston Latin School were founded in order to teach the Classical Languages of Latin and Greek. In Manhattan Collegiate School "was established by the Dutch West India Company and the Classis of Amsterdam, the parent ecclesiastical body of the Dutch Reformed Church for the colonists of New Amsterdam." In Washington, DC, Georgetown Preparatory School was "founded in 1789 by America's first Catholic bishop,

Prep is the nation's oldest Jesuit school and the only Jesuit boarding school." In the early part of the 18th-century English grammar schools taught more subjects as the need for a more educated populace grew. The latter part of the 18th century saw the development of the genre known as the Academy. Visionaries such as William Penn guided the educational thinking of the time.

This video looks at the beginnings of education in colonial America.
The birth of public education
In the 19th-century a uniform, organized system of public education did not take shape until the 1840s. Leading the push for better education in the northeastern colonies were leaders such as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard. They were the architects of the concept of public funding for schools at the local level, a model which still flourishes in the 21st- century.

No different back then than in the 21st-century there were parents who wanted a better education for their children. And there were civic-minded leaders who understood how a rigorous academic education was essential to ensuring the solid growth of the new nation. The Phillips family, for example, founded Exeter and Andover Academies with serious, high-minded purposes. The Deed of Gift which established Exeter states that the Academy should teach its students "not only in the English and Latin grammar, writing, arithmetic, and those sciences wherein they are commonly taught, but more especially to learn them the great end and real business of living." Andover's 1778 Constitution charges the Academy to prepare "Youth from every quarter" to understand that "goodness without knowledge is weak...yet knowledge without goodness is dangerous."

This video offers a look at education in 19th-century America.

As we move into the 19th-century philanthropists such as Stephen Girard (1750-1831) play a pivotal role in establishing private schools to educate children from poor families. The altruistic thread permeates the late 18th and 19th centuries as wealthy businessmen understood the social and economic implications of a good education for every quarter of society. Milton Hershey (1857-1945) and Princess Bernice (1831-1884) came from quite different backgrounds but shared a common goal of educating young people at no cost to their families. The schools which they established are some of the grandest examples of educational philanthropy to be found anywhere in the world.

Mathew Lynch's The Surprising Influence of the 18th-century's Educational Influence contains some fascinating glimpses of the state of education in the 1700s. Many educational foundations were laid during those early years. Ted Brackemyre's The Education of the Masses picks up the story as public schools came online in the 19th-century. The patchwork of private and religious schools had served the young nation well, giving it one of the highest literacy rates in the world. As the nation grew, new, more comprehensive, egalitarian approaches to K-12 education gave birth to the public education system with which we are familiar.
Conclusion
Essentially then, private education in the colonies came before public education. As public education took hold, private schools sprang up in order to fill a need not provided for in the public sector. Parents who felt that they wanted more for their children had options even back in the early days of the nation. That concept of options has not changed in the 21st-century. A parent who desires a particular type of education has a wide variety of options available to him. 80% of American children are educated in the public system. The other 20% find what their parents are looking for in a private school.

Questions? Contact us on Facebook @boardingschoolreview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Private Schools Evolved in the United States | BoardingSchoolReview.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the 1600s to the 1800s there was no such thing as public education. The 12 years of grade school through high school we are accustomed to in the 20th-century did not exist. Small private schools, not public schools, provided schooling for young people. The Bible was the focus of learning in colonial times.

# data[].attributes.body
Dame school, small private school for young children run by women; such schools were the precursors of nursery, or infant, schools in England and colonial America. They existed in England possibly before the 16th century in both towns and rural areas and survived into the 19th century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dame school, small private school for young children run by women; such schools were the precursors of nursery, or infant, schools in England and colonial America. They existed in England possibly before the 16th century in both towns and rural areas and survived into the 19th century. The school

# data[].attributes.body
In 1690 an illustrated book composed of religious texts and other readings. All though others did exist, The New England Primer was the most famous.

# data[].attributes.body
1700’s
Provided instruction and acted as a secondary school. Meant for training student if in engineering, navigation, book keeping, and language. For more of the women could take art, dancing, home ec, dancing

# data[].attributes.headline
Public High Schools Kalamazoo Case AL (L.O.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Public High Schools Kalamazoo Case AL (L.O.)

# data[].attributes.body
In 1874, the Michigan courts finally ruled that the school district could tax the public to support both high schools and elementary school, doing this set the precedent for financing public high schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supporting High School Education

Early Education in Kalamazoo

What is a public school education? Most United States citizens today think of kindergarten through 12th grade, provided by the government and funded by taxes. However, that was not always the case. A lawsuit known as the Kalamazoo School Case played a major role in defining public school education in this country.

While educating the children of Kalamazoo began with the earliest settlers, the extent of public school education was originally limited to "common" school, what we now think of as elementary school. The Michigan Legislature passed a law in 1859 that authorized school districts of more than 200 school-age children to elect school boards to govern their districts. These boards had the authority to set up high schools funded by local taxes, if citizens of the district voted in favor of the proposal. In anticipation of the legislature's passage of the law, but without a vote of local citizens, Kalamazoo established its first high school in 1858.

School Board Sued

Kalamazoo Union High School, which many believed to be a necessity for bridging the gap from common school to university, operated with some minor opposition, until 1873. In January of that year, three prominent Kalamazoo property owners filed a suit intended to prevent the school board from funding the high school with tax money. They argued that the 1859 state law had been violated when the high school was established without a vote of the taxpayers. Charles E. Stuart, a former United States Senator from Michigan, along with Theodore P. Sheldon and Henry Brees, initiated the suit. At the time, it was believed to be a "friendly" suit intended to settle the issue legally in favor of the school. However, Stuart's comments to the Kalamazoo Board of Education years after the suit had been settled, suggest that he and his companions sincerely resented the tax burden that the public high school placed on them. Stuart, like many others of his time, believed that a common school education was sufficient for anyone, and anything beyond that should be paid for privately.

Public Support for High Schools

Unfortunately for Stuart, the jurists who decided the case did not support his view. Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Brown found in favor of the school board, and the case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Thomas M. Cooley, internationally known and respected, wrote the court's response. He upheld the decision of the Circuit Court, finally settling the question of public financial support for high schools in Michigan.

Although this issue had been heard by other courts, Justice Cooley's prestige helped to make the Kalamazoo School Case a leading decision that was cited in many courts in surrounding states. In Michigan the effect was profound. The number of high schools in the state increased from 107 in the early 1870's to 278 by 1890. A plaque in front of Old Central High School commemorates the Kalamazoo School Case.

Written by Elizabeth Timmerman, Kalamazoo Public Library Staff, 2000. Updated January 2012.

Sources

Books

The Michigan Search for Educational Standards

Starring, Charles R. and Knauss, James O.
Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1969
H 370.9774 S796, vol. 2, pages 10-11, 39-44, 175-188.

Articles

"The Kalamazoo Case"

Michigan History Magazine, vol.44, pages 91-100

Files

Local History Room Orange Dot File: Kalamazoo School Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kalamazoo School Case - Kalamazoo Public Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a public school education? Most United States citizens today think of kindergarten through 12th grade, provided by the government and funded by taxes. However, that was not always the case. A lawsuit known as the Kalamazoo School Case...

# data[].attributes.body
A public school district is a geographical unit for the local administration of elementary or secondary schools. They are government entities which can be administered independently, or by their local governments

# data[].attributes.body
It’s the ability of all people to have equal opportunity in education no matter their background.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
McGuffey Readers, formally McGuffey's Eclectic Readers, series of elementary school reading books that were widely used in American schools beginning in the 1830s. Compiled by educator William Holmes McGuffey, the McGuffey Readers helped to standardize English language usage in the United States and not only reflected the moral values of the country in the 19th century but also shaped them. With more than 122 million copies reputedly sold by 1925, the McGuffey Readers taught more Americans to read than any other textbook.

Origins and early editions

The initial publication of the McGuffey Readers came at a critical point in the formation of a distinct identity for the United States and coincided with a unique period during which the West was settled, newly arrived immigrants assimilated, and the common-school movement gained momentum. These phenomena created a demand for textbooks that would not only meet the practical need for curriculum in developing schools but also extend prevailing American values both to children new to the frontier and to those new to the country. In the emerging textbook industry, McGuffey Readers reformed the content of America's textbooks and the way that content was presented to students.

The success of the McGuffey Readers owed much to the astute business tactics of Cincinnati, Ohio, publisher Winthrop B. Smith. Although publishers in New England dominated the growing textbook industry, Smith saw the need for a graded series of readers marketed to the burgeoning West and to the South. He first sought the assistance of fellow Cincinnatian Harriet Beecher Stowe, who, in addition to her literary endeavours, was a schoolteacher. Stowe declined Smith's offer but recommended her friend McGuffey, a Presbyterian preacher and member of the faculty of Miami University, in nearby Oxford, Ohio, who had already begun work on a similar project. McGuffey contracted to compile a primer, four readers, and a speller. His compensation was to be 10 percent of the profits-not to exceed $1,000. Although a great sum at the time, it paled next to the vast profits realized by the publishers.

Courtesy of Ohio University, Athens

The first and second readers were published in 1836, with the third and fourth following within the year. McGuffey had compiled and written the material to be age appropriate. To establish which material best suited particular ages, he experimented with his own children and those in his community. Typical in many ways of other graded readers of the time, the primer began with the alphabet and phonetically taught single-syllable words. (Not as successful as the series that followed it, the primer was pulled from publication shortly after it was introduced.) The content of the first reader moved on to more difficult words and introduced simple sentences. The second reader progressed to multisyllabic words, and the stories grew more complex as the book progressed. Comparable to the level of junior high school material, the third and fourth readers taught thinking skills and included selections from authors such as Washington Irving, Lord Byron, Thomas Jefferson, and William Shakespeare.

Although it was common for readers of the time to include selections from various authors, Samuel Worcester, a Bostonian, sued McGuffey and Smith for copyright violation, citing 10 pieces in the McGuffey Readers that had already appeared in Worcester's own reader. The looming lawsuit brought about the first and most sweeping of many revisions to come, a redaction that rid the McGuffey Readers of any selection that could be considered an infringement of copyright. The conflict (which was settled out court for $2,000) reflected the intense rivalry between New England and Cincinnati publishers over the growing market for schoolbooks.

Two particular characteristics made McGuffey's work distinct from other readers of the day. First, it included more illustrations than was common for schoolbooks at the time. Second, it was a complete language-arts curriculum integrating spelling, speech, comprehension, and word studies.

Content and moral tone

In the 1840s McGuffey's younger brother Alexander added a Rhetorical Guide, which was later developed into the fifth and sixth readers. Literary selections in those volumes included portions of the Bible and the works of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Charles Dickens, Joseph Addison, and many others. In addition to the variety of literature, those higher-level readers incorporated elocutionary exercises and lessons on broad topics such as farming, science, history, and biography. The instruction in elocution was deemed necessary because of the increasing number of immigrants learning the English language. Some observers credit the final books of the series with determining, at least for a time, mainstream American taste in literature and with exemplifying themes that were foundational to the American experience.

Although a forerunner to the basal readers of 20th and 21st centuries, the McGuffey Readers were distinctly different. Their selections were much shorter, were intended for oral rather than silent reading, and were more culturally and morally monolithic. Unlike modern basals, which are conceived and produced by publishers, 19th-century readers like McGuffey's were largely written and compiled by a single author-normally a clergyman or a schoolmaster. Although they were not as stern in moralizing as The New-England Primer had been, the McGuffey Readers clearly taught a Calvinistic ethic that both reflected the moral tone of the time and wove it into the fabric of American society. The New-England Primer included a greater degree of religious content and emphasized eternal damnation in hell as punishment for wrongdoing, whereas the McGuffey Readers focused on practical consequences children might experience on earth for lacking in kindness or productivity. Like the modern basals, McGuffey's stories resonated with what children found interesting, such as fables about animals and play.

Other than the first revision in 1838, which was constructed to avoid copyright infringement, all other revisions of McGuffey's Eclectic Readers were completed to make the books more visually and conceptually appealing to a changing society. The flourishing magazine industry of the 1870s, with its improvements in pictorial images, influenced an overhaul in the quality of the McGuffey Readers' illustrations. Religious content was gradually diminished over time, but the high moral tone was retained.

Critical response

Among critics of the McGuffey Readers was educator Horace Mann. While he agreed with McGuffey in promoting the spread of free public schools throughout the country, Mann vociferously argued that much of the content in the McGuffey Readers was inappropriate for children's textbooks. Other critics have pointed out omissions. For instance, though moralistic about many issues, including cruelty to animals, the readers did not address the injustice of slavery as the textbooks of New England had. Also absent are mentions of Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, and such events as the California Gold Rush and the Oregon Trail migration. Only cursory mention is made of the American Civil War. Politically oriented critics have indicated that these oversights reflect an effort not to offend consumers in the South. Other concerns have existed over anti-Semitic references, identification of Native Americans as "savages," and the limitation of women to domestic roles.

Since the first publication in 1836, the McGuffey Readers have continued to be in print and to sell tens of thousands of copies each year. They are mainly popular in the homeschool movement but are also implemented in a few school systems.
Samuel James Smith The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Learn More in these related Britannica articles:

William Holmes McGuffey, U.S. educator who is remembered chiefly for his series of elementary school reading books popularly known as the McGuffey Readers....

English language, West Germanic language of the Indo-European language family that is closely related to the Frisian, German, and Dutch (in Belgium called Flemish) languages. English originated in England and is the dominant language of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and various island nations...

United States, country in North America, a federal republic of 50 states. Besides the 48 conterminous states that occupy the middle latitudes of the continent, the United States includes the state of Alaska, at the northwestern extreme of North...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
McGuffey Readers | elementary school reading books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
McGuffey Readers, series of elementary school reading books that were widely used in American schools beginning in the 1830s. Compiled by educator William Holmes McGuffey, the McGuffey Readers helped to standardize English language usage in the United States and not only reflected the moral values

# data[].attributes.body
"Children’s garden" songs and stories were used to lay a foundation before formal education. Made before the civil war. Johann fried rich stressed that the primary purpose of education was moral development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Songs. Blocks. Snack time. Today it's a staple of childhood for most Americans.

But kindergarten has only been a part of the American experience for a little over 150 years. That's thanks in large part to Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, born on this day in 1804, who opened the first English-language kindergarten in the United States and popularized the concept among English-speaking Americans.

Kindergarten itself is a German invention, and the first kindergartens opened in the United States were by German immigrants. They adopted the ideas of educational theorist Friedrich Froebel, who opened the first kindergarten in the world in 1837 in Blankenburg, Germany.

Froebel and his followers believed that children should be in school from a young age. At the time, it was usual to not educate young children and to take the view that they were "defective or miniature adults" whose behavior needed to be corrected by discipline, writes scholar Stephani Richards-Wilson. But Froebel thought children were "inherently good-natured," she writes, and that they should be encouraged to learn about the world around them "through creative, imaginative, and spontaneous play."

Froebel had a whole theory for how that play should be shaped and encouraged, she writes. The kindergarten day was supposed to start with songs and then continue with play with a series of toys. His lessons were designed for children from 3-6 who weren't yet ready for traditional schoolwork, she writes. Because these children were so young, he thought that women should be the ones to teach them, arguing that early education was an extension of mothering.

Some of Froebel's followers opened the first kindergartens in America, which were German-language schools. But the idea stayed on the fringe until around the time Peabody got interested in it. She had already been teaching for decades when she first learned about kindergartens in an 1856 article about Froebel's methods, writes Patricia Cantor for the National Association for the Education of Young Children. She was immediately drawn to the idea, because it suited the educational philosophy she was already working with, Cantor writes:

In an age when schools relied heavily on memorization and drill, Peabody encouraged children to bring in their favorite texts to read aloud, taught math using manipulatives, created spelling and grammar games, engaged children in physical activity and conversed with them about philosophical questions.

A few years later, in 1860, Peabody opened her own kindergarten. She and another reformer, her sister Mary Mann, began writing in English on the originally German invention, and eventually her sister took over that first kindergarten while Peabody went to Europe to learn more about the "infant gardens," as they were sometimes called.

After training with Froebel and others, Peabody returned to the United States and became a spokesperson for the burgeoning kindergarten movement. Women found that launching schools gave them authority and the ability to advocate for education. The first public-school kindergarten opened in the 1870s in St. Louis, and by 1880, writes Cantor, "there were more than 400 kindergartens in 30 states and [kindergarten teacher] training schools in every major U.S. city."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Little History of American Kindergartens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Songs, blocks and snack time (and don't forget a nap)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evolution Of Women's Education In The United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EVOLUTION OF WOMEN'S EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court case upheld a Louisiana state law that allowed for "equal but segrageted education"

# data[].attributes.body
Early 20th
For grades 1-6 used as text books in America. It teaches spelling, vocab, formal speaking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The editors of the Readers were brothers William Holmes McGuffey and Alexander Hamilton McGuffey. William created the first four readers and Alexander McGuffey created the fifth and sixth reader. About 120 million copies of McGuffey's Readers were sold between 1836 and 1960, placing its sales in a category with the Bible and Webster's Dictionary .

# data[].attributes.body
1900-2000
Basic education read, write, math. Training for trades and predation for college.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comprehensive high schools are the most popular form of public high schools around the world, designed to provide a well-rounded education to its students, as opposed to the practice in some places in which examinations are used to sort students into different high schools for different populations. Other types of high schools specialize in university-preparatory school academic preparation, remedial instruction, or vocational instruction. The typical comprehensive high school offers more than one course program of specialization to its students. Comprehensive high schools generally offer a college preparatory course program and one or more foreign language, scientific or vocational course programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comprehensive high schools are the most popular form of public high schools around the world, designed to provide a well-rounded education to its students, as opposed to the practice in some places in which examinations are used to sort students into different high schools for different populations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Progressive Education Association and John Dewey-E.G. (TJ)

# data[].attributes.subject
Progressive Education Association and John Dewey-E.G. (TJ)

# data[].attributes.body
From 1919 to 1955 there was a group named the Progressive a Education Association dedicated to the spread of progressive education. They have seven main principles.
In 1894, Dewey and his wife started their own school to test his educational theories. After that didn't work out, he joined another group who started a school in 1919 that was built in to model his progressive educational ideals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quick Facts

"If I were asked to name the most needed of all reforms in the spirit of education I should say: 'Cease conceiving of education as mere preparation for later life, and make of it the full meaning of the present life.'"

Johns Hopkins University, University of Vermont

Who Was John Dewey?

John Dewey taught at universities from 1884 to 1930. An academic philosopher and proponent of educational reform, in 1894 Dewey started an experimental elementary school. In 1919 he co-founded The New School for Social Research. Dewey published over 1,000 pieces of writings during his lifetime.

Early Life

Dewey was born on October 20, 1859, to Archibald Dewey and Lucina Artemisia Rich in Burlington, Vermont. He was the third of the couple's four sons, one of whom died as an infant. Dewey's mother, the daughter of a wealthy farmer, was a devout Calvinist. His father, a merchant, left his grocery business to become a Union Army soldier in the Civil War. Dewey's father was known to share his passion for British literature with his offspring. After the war, Archibald became the proprietor of a successful tobacco shop, affording the family a comfortable life and financial stability.

Growing up, Dewey attended Burlington public schools, excelling as a student. When he was just 15 years old, he enrolled at the University of Vermont, where he particularly enjoyed studying philosophy under the tutelage of H.A.P. Torrey. Four years later, Dewey graduated from the University of Vermont second in his class.

Teaching Career

The autumn after Dewey graduated, his cousin landed him a teaching job at a seminary in Oil City, Pennsylvania. Two years later, Dewey lost the position when his cousin resigned as principal of the seminary.

After being laid off, Dewey went back to Vermont and started teaching at a private school in Vermont. During his free time, he read philosophical treatises and discussed them with his former teacher, Torrey. As his fascination with the topic grew, Dewey decided to take a break from teaching in order to study philosophy and psychology at Johns Hopkins. George Sylvester Morris and G. Stanley Hall were among the teachers there who influenced Dewey most.

Upon receiving his doctorate from Johns Hopkins in 1884, Dewey was hired as an assistant professor at the University of Michigan. At Michigan he met Harriet Alice Chipman, and the two married in 1886. Over the course of their marriage, they would give birth to six children and adopt one child.

In 1888 Dewey and his family left Michigan for the University of Minnesota, where he was a professor of philosophy. However, within a year, they chose to return to the University of Michigan, where Dewey taught for the next five years.

By 1894 Dewey was made head of the philosophy department at the University of Chicago. He remained at the University of Chicago until 1904, also serving as director of its School of Education for two years.

Dewey left Chicago in 1904 to join the Ivy League, becoming a professor of philosophy at Columbia University while working at Teachers College on the side.

In 1930, Dewey left Columbia and retired from his teaching career with the title of professor emeritus. His wife, Harriet, had died three years earlier.

Philosophy

Dewey's philosophical treatises were at first inspired by his reading of philosopher and psychologist William James' writing. Dewey's philosophy, known as experimentalism, or instrumentalism, largely centered on human experience. Rejecting the more rigid ideas of Transcendentalism to which Dewey had been exposed in academia, it viewed ideas as tools for experimenting, with the goal of improving the human experience.

Dewey's philosophy also claimed than man behaved out of habit and that change often led to unexpected outcomes. As man struggled to understand the results of change, he was forced to think creatively in order to resume control of his shifting environment. For Dewey, thought was the means through which man came to understand and connect with the world around him. A universal education was the key to teaching people how to abandon their habits and think creatively.

Education Reform

Dewey was a strong proponent for progressive educational reform. He believed that education should be based on the principle of learning through doing.

In 1894 Dewey and his wife Harriet started their own experimental primary school, the University Elementary School, at the University of Chicago. His goal was to test his educational theories, but Dewey resigned when the university president fired Harriet.

In 1919, Dewey, along with his colleagues Charles Beard, Thorstein Veblen, James Harvey Robinson and Wesley Clair Mitchell, founded The New School for Social Research. The New School is a progressive, experimental school that emphasizes the free exchange of intellectual ideas in the arts and social sciences.

During the 1920s, Dewey lectured on educational reform at schools all over the world. He was particularly impressed by experiments in the Russian educational system and shared what he learned with his colleagues when he returned to the States: that education should focus mainly on students' interactions with the present. Dewey did not, however, dismiss the value of also learning about the past.

In the 1930s, after he retired from teaching, Dewey became an active member of numerous educational organizations, including the New York Teachers Guild and the International League for Academic Freedom.

Writing

Dewey wrote his first two books, Psychology (1887) and Leibniz's New Essays Concerning the Human Understanding (1888), when he was working at the University of Michigan. Over the course of his lifetime, Dewey published more than 1,000 works, including essays, articles and books. His writing covered a broad range of topics: psychology, philosophy, educational theory, culture, religion and politics. Through his articles in The New Republic, he established himself as one of the most highly regarded social commentators of his day. Dewey continued to write prolifically up until his death.

Politics

While Dewey thought that a democracy was the best type of government, he believed that America's democracy was strained in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization, he believed, had quickly created great wealth for only a few people, rather than benefiting society as a whole. Viewing the major political parties as servants of big business, Dewey became president of the People's Lobby, an organization that often lobbied their own candidates-in lieu of affiliating themselves with big business - in accordance with everyday people's social interests. In 1946, Dewey even attempted to help labor leaders establish a new political party, the People's Party, for the 1948 presidential elections.

Later Life and Death

In 1946, Dewey, then 87, remarried to a widow named Roberta Grant. Following their marriage, the Deweys lived off of Roberta's inheritance and Dewey's book royalties. On June 1, 1952, Dewey, a lifelong supporter of educational reform and defender of rights for everyman, died of pneumonia at the age of 92 in the couple's New York City apartment.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"If I were asked to name the most needed of all reforms in the spirit of education I should say: 'Cease conceiving of education as mere preparation for later life, and make of it the full meaning of the present life.'" Johns Hopkins University, University of Vermont John Dewey taught at universities from 1884 to 1930.

# data[].attributes.body
Both teachers and youth left the classroom to enlist. Dropouts became common, the school enrollments declined even further. High school enrollments we're down 6.7 million in 1941 to 5.5 million in 1944. Only two thirds of the pre-war teaching force was still teaching.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brown vs. Board of Education In Topeka AL (L.O.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Brown vs. Board of Education In Topeka AL (L.O.)

# data[].attributes.body
1954

The Supreme Court ruled the separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and that laws requiring white and nonwhite students to go to different schools were illegal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional. It signaled the end of legalized racial segregation in the schools of the United States, overruling the “separate but equal” principle set forth in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case. On May 17, 1954, U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
The year 1963 is generally acknowledged as the beginning of the modern middle school movement. During these early years from 1963-1979, scholars in the field exchanged ideas that they used to propose the name middle school and promote emergence...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Middle School Standards (2017 Version)

Over the past year, the need for Middle School standards was made very apparent. As a result, a team of teachers worked throughout the year to examine current practice and develop standards for middle school implementation.

Courses will appear as FACS 6, FACS 7, and FACS 8. Teachers can teach any of the courses to any grade level. The number simply denotes what most FACS teachers in Nebraska believe it is the appropriate age at which to teach that set of standards. These courses will appear as coded courses in the Course Codes and Clearing Endorsements (Appendix D). If you have questions about these standards or implementation, please contact the FACS Career Field Specialist, Tracy Way.

Through the standards writing process the team also contributed suggested teaching activities to assist with ideas for how to teach the standard. Strategies will continue to be added to this list throughout next year and beyond. This is a separate document from the official standards listing so that updates can be made independently of the standards.
MS Standards MS Standards with Teaching Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past year, the need for Middle School standards was made very apparent. As a result, a team of teachers worked throughout the year to examine current practice and develop standards for middle school implementation. Courses will appear as FACS 6, FACS 7, and FACS 8.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uncovering the Devastating Impact of World War II on American Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spread the loveWar may be good for a nation's economy, but it's horrible for a nation's education. In the United States, World War II, like the Great Depression, had a devastating effect on education. Much united effort was directed toward war resources and away from social programming.

# data[].attributes.body
1969 AB
Students were suspended for wearing anti-war wrist bands but were suspended so they took it to court. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor claiming it was a violation of their freedom of expression.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education for Asian Americans. Lau v. Nichols (1973-74) A.D. (L.O.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Education for Asian Americans. Lau v. Nichols (1973-74) A.D. (L.O.)

# data[].attributes.body
This was a case based around a San Francisco school that would not offer English Language instruction to approximately 1800 students of Chinese origin who do not speak English. They would not provide these students with any other instructional procedure either.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LAU ET AL. v. NICHOLS ET AL.
No. 72-6520
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
414 U.S. 563
December 10, 1973, Argued
January 21, 1974, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY:

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

DISPOSITION:

483 F.2d 791, reversed and remanded.

SYLLABUS:

The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and the implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 565-569.

Douglas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Marshall, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 569. White, J., concurred in the result. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 571.

Opinions

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The San Francisco, California, school system was integrated in 1971 as a result of a federal court decree, 339 F.Supp. 1315. See Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215. The District Court found that there are 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the school system who do not speak English. Of those who have that language deficiency, about 1,000 are given supplemental courses in the English language. n1 About 1,800, however, do not receive that instruction.

note1 A report adopted by the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco and submitted to the Court by respondents after oral argument shows that, as of April 1973, there were 3,457 Chinese students in the school system who spoke little or no English. The document further showed 2,136 students enrolled in Chinese special instruction classes, but at least 429 of the enrollees were not Chinese but were included for ethnic balance. Thus, as of April 1973, no more than 1,707 of the 3,457 Chinese students needing special English instruction were receiving it.

This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District seeks relief against the unequal educational opportunities, which are alleged to violate, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment. No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation. The District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, which excludes from participation in federal financial assistance, recipients of aid which discriminate against racial groups, 483 F.2d 791. One judge dissented. A hearing en banc was denied, two judges dissenting. Id., at 805. We granted the petition for certiorari because of the public importance of the question presented, 412 U.S. 938.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that "every student brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background, created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system," 483 F.2d, at 797. Yet in our view the case may not be so easily decided. This is a public school system of California and ï¿½ 71 of the California Education Code states that "English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools." That section permits a school district to determine "when and under what circumstances instruction may be given bilingually." That section also states as "the policy of the state" to insure "the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools." And bilingual instruction is authorized "to the extent that it does not interfere with the systematic, sequential, and regular instruction of all pupils in the English language."

Moreover, ï¿½ 8573 of the Education Code provides that no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from grade 12 who has not met the standards of proficiency in "English," as well as other prescribed subjects. Moreover, by ï¿½ 12101 of the Education Code (Supp. 1973) children between the ages of six and 16 years are (with exceptions not material here) "subject to compulsory full-time education."

Under these state-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.

Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. We do not reach the Equal Protection Clause argument which has been advanced but rely solely on ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.

That section bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The school district involved in this litigation receives large amounts of federal financial assistance. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which has authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination in federally assisted school systems, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1, in 1968 issued one guideline that "school systems are responsible for assuring that students of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the opportunity to obtain the education generally obtained by other students in the system." 33 Fed. Reg. 4956. In 1970 HEW made the guidelines more specific, requiring school districts that were federally funded "to rectify the language deficiency in order to open" the instruction to students who had "linguistic deficiencies," 35 Fed. Reg. 11595.

By ï¿½ 602 of the Act HEW is authorized to issue rules, regulations, and orders n2 to make sure that recipients of federal aid under its jurisdiction conduct any federally financed projects consistently with ï¿½ 601. HEW's regulations, 45 CFR ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(1), specify that the recipients may not

"(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
. . . .
"(iv) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program."

note2 Section 602 provides:
"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . ." 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1.

Discrimination among students on account of race or national origin that is prohibited includes "discrimination . . . in the availability or use of any academic . . . or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient." Id., ï¿½ 80.5 (b).

Discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present: a recipient "may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination" or have "the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin." Id., ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(2).

It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program -- all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the regulations. n3 In 1970 HEW issued clarifying guidelines, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, which include the following:

note3 And see Report of the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco, Bilingual Education in the San Francisco Public Schools, Aug. 9, 1973.

"Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students."

"Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin-minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational deadend or permanent track." Respondent school district contractually agreed to "comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation" of HEW (45 CFR pt. 80) which are "issued pursuant to that title . . ." and also immediately to "take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement." The Federal Government has power to fix the terms on which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed. Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U.S. 127, 142-143. Whatever may be the limits of that power, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 et seq., they have not been reached here. Senator Humphrey, during the floor debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, said: n4

note4 110 Cong. Rec. 6543 (Sen. Humphrey, quoting from President Kennedy's message to Congress, June 19, 1963).

"Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination." We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE concurs in the result.

Concurring Opinions

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in the result.

It is uncontested that more than 2,800 schoolchildren of Chinese ancestry attend school in the San Francisco Unified School District system even though they do not speak, understand, read, or write the English language, and that as to some 1,800 of these pupils the respondent school authorities have taken no significant steps to deal with this language deficiency. The petitioners do not contend, however, that the respondents have affirmatively or intentionally contributed to this inadequacy, but only that they have failed to act in the face of changing social and linguistic patterns. Because of this laissez-faire attitude on the part of the school administrators, it is not entirely clear that ï¿½ 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d, standing alone, would render illegal the expenditure of federal funds on these schools. For that section provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

On the other hand, the interpretive guidelines published by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, clearly indicate that affirmative efforts to give special training for non-English-speaking pupils are required by Tit. VI as a condition to receipt of federal aid to public schools:

"Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students." n1

note1 These guidelines were issued in further clarification of the Department's position as stated in its regulations issued to implement Tit. VI, 45 CFR pt. 80. The regulations provide in part that no recipient of federal financial assistance administered by HEW may "Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program; [or] "Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program." 45 CFR ï¿½ 80.3 (b)(1)(ii), (iv).

The critical question is, therefore, whether the regulations and guidelines promulgated by HEW go beyond the authority of ï¿½ 601. n2 Last Term, in Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369, we held that the validity of a regulation promulgated under a general authorization provision such as ï¿½ 602 of Tit. VI n3 "will be sustained so long as it is 'reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.' Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 280-281 (1969)." I think the guidelines here fairly meet that test. Moreover, in assessing the purposes of remedial legislation we have found that departmental regulations and "consistent administrative construction" are "entitled to great weight." Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205, 210; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 433-434; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1. The Department has reasonably and consistently interpreted ï¿½ 601 to require affirmative remedial efforts to give special attention to linguistically deprived children.

note2 The respondents do not contest the standing of the petitioners to sue as beneficiaries of the federal funding contract between the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare and the San Francisco Unified School District.

note3 Section 602, 42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 2000d-1, provides in pertinent part:
"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . ."

The United States as amicus curiae asserts in its brief, and the respondents appear to concede, that the guidelines were issued pursuant to ï¿½ 602.

For these reasons I concur in the result reached by the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the result.

I join MR. JUSTICE STEWART'S opinion and thus I, too, concur in the result. Against the possibility that the Court's judgment may be interpreted too broadly, I stress the fact that the children with whom we are concerned here number about 1,800. This is a very substantial group that is being deprived of any meaningful schooling because the children cannot understand the language of the classroom. We may only guess as to why they have had no exposure to English in their preschool years. Earlier generations of American ethnic groups have overcome the language barrier by earnest parental endeavor or by the hard fact of being pushed out of the family or community nest and into the realities of broader experience.

I merely wish to make plain that when, in another case, we are concerned with a very few youngsters, or with just a single child who speaks only German or Polish or Spanish or any language other than English, I would not regard today's decision, or the separate concurrence, as conclusive upon the issue whether the statute and the guidelines require the funded school district to provide special instruction. For me, numbers are at the heart of this case and my concurrence is to be understood accordingly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview of Lau v. Nichols decision of the United States Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1974, this amendment released to protect the privacy of student records. Disclosure of information from student records has since become more limited.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1975, due process provides a property right for students in their education, so a hearing is required before they are deprived of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A case in which the Court ruled that Ohio violated students’ Due Process rights guaranteed by the First Amendment when it imposed suspensions without preliminary hearings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act-MR (Z.P)

# data[].attributes.subject
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act-MR (Z.P)

# data[].attributes.body
November 29, 1975

This is a legislation in history that made it so students with disabilities have the right to free pubic education. That also fits their individual needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act website brings together department and grantee IDEA information and resources. The IDEA makes available a free appropriate public education to and ensures special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education for American Indians - A.L (J.D)

# data[].attributes.subject
Education for American Indians - A.L (J.D)

# data[].attributes.body
1969- "A National Tragedy-- A National Challenge"

American Indians have never been treated fairly and this doesn't stop with schooling. The federal government failed to provide its' side of the treaties and these tribes never had a fair chance at education. When the schools were funded, indigenous cultures were lost and there was a failure to appropriately acknowledge and support the tribes.

It mobilized and supported local communities and it improved the educator pipeline so that all schools have diverse educators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The horrific treatment of Native peoples is a stain on our nation's history-and on our present and future. The legacy of oppression, combined with current widespread lack of knowledge about Native peoples, contributes to vast inequities today. Fortunately, where ignorance is core to this problem, excellent teaching is essential to its remedy. Here, I answer four key questions about the education of Native students and the challenges that remain.

Older students at Carlisle Indian Industrial School taking a class in government in 1901.

How Has Federal Indian Education Policy Been Shaped?

Throughout the history of the United States, a number of different eras have defined the federal government's policies toward American Indian peoples, which in turn has shaped the ways in which the federal government approaches Indian education. From the late 1700s until the early 1800s, the federal government established treaties with Indian tribes. In most of these treaties, tribes ceded land to the federal government in exchange for the provision of health, education, and welfare for American Indian peoples. Unfortunately, the federal government has repeatedly failed to honor the provisions outlined in many of these treaties, including the provision of educational supports and services. A prime example of this is evidenced in the operation of off-reservation boarding schools during the 1800s.

Although many of these schools were rightly characterized by some as "oppressive, harshly abusive, and rigid," ¹ it has also been argued ² that Colonel Richard Henry Pratt, founder of one of the most well-known off-reservation boarding schools, Carlisle Indian Industrial School, viewed these institutions as a means of preventing the wide-scale killing of Native peoples at the hands of the US government and its military forces. Regardless of the intent of boarding schools, there is evidence to suggest that such an approach not only resulted in forced acculturation and assimilation of many Native children but also resulted in the physical separation of Native children from their families and, in many cases, death.

Unfortunately, it was not until the 1960s that tribes began to reclaim some degree of control over the education of Native children and youth.

In 1969, the US Senate issued a report titled Indian Education: A National Tragedy-A National Challenge (also known as the Kennedy Report). ³ Citing the failure of public schools, as well as schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to adequately educate American Indian children, this report found high dropout rates, academic achievement significantly lagging behind that of white students, a lack of American Indian teachers and principals, and a low sense of academic ability among some Native children.

Such problems were documented long before the Senate's report. Dating back to the federally commissioned Meriam Report of 1928, there were calls to immediately address a number of concerns across Indian country. The Meriam Report found that, "The most fundamental need in Indian education is a change in point of view. Whatever may have been the official government attitude, education for the Indian in the past has proceeded largely on the theory that it is necessary to remove the Indian child as far as possible from his home environment." ⁴ This report went on to argue that, "The Indian educational program cannot simply take over the traditional type of school; it must set up its own objectives, finding out in general and for each reservation or tribal group the things that need to be done. It cannot too positively be stated that mere schooling, of the unrelated academic type, is not the educational answer to the Indian problem." ⁵

Findings of the Meriam Report were echoed in a 1974 report by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education, which argued, "There are no quick and easy solutions in this tragic state of affairs; but clearly, effective education lies at the heart of any lasting solution." ⁶ This council went on to argue "that education should no longer be one which assumes that cultural differences mean cultural inferiority." ⁷

To redress "this tragic state of affairs," federal laws were passed in the 1970s that provided guidance on the education of Native children and that called for increased tribal control, including oversight and direction of Indian education. ⁸ In spite of the passage of such landmark legislation, the federal government and its agents failed to meet the federal trust responsibility for the education of Native children. In 1991, the Indian Nations at Risk report ⁹ cited the (1) failure of public schools to educate many Native children, (2) loss of Indigenous languages and cultures, (3) attacks on Native lands, and (4) failure to appropriately acknowledge and support tribes' right to exist as fully self-determined individuals and groups.

Who Are American Indian Children and Youth Today?

There are approximately 640,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students living in all 50 states, with more than 100,000 residing in the state of Oklahoma alone. Many live in geographically isolated areas, making it difficult to access needed educational supports and services. ¹⁰ Providing these supports and services to Native students is complicated not only by geographic isolation and dispersion, but by the wide array of tribal, cultural, and linguistic diversity represented among this nation's Native peoples. This is evidenced by the fact that there are more than 600 state and federally recognized tribes, with approximately 170 different Indigenous languages, in addition to English, spoken. ¹¹

Younger students at Carlisle taking a cooking class in 1901.

Where Are Native Students Educated Today?

The majority of Native children (approximately 90 percent) attend public schools. The remainder attend schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), located within the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the US Department of the Interior, or private schools. ¹² There are approximately 180 schools, including boarding schools, operated or funded by the BIE and tribes.* Of these, approximately 130 schools are contracted out to tribes to support the enactment of "tribal self-determination," ¹³ which is a move toward increased tribal self-government (including the right to determine and control the priorities and future directions of tribal nations and their citizens). Similar to public schools and school districts, curriculum and instruction-and the extent to which Native languages, cultures, and histories are taught-varies from one tribally operated school to the next. Although the BIE is tasked with fiscal oversight of many of these schools, a recent report by the US Government Accountability Office ¹⁴ found problems with financial management, facilities, and staffing. The lack of adequate financial management often causes delays in the hiring of teachers and other personnel, resulting in students not receiving timely or adequate educational supports or services. Similarly, the lack of fiscal resources and oversight results in many school buildings that are in need of repair.

How Can We Ensure Native Children Have Access to Culturally Relevant Teaching and Learning Practices in Schools?

Unfortunately, longstanding issues persist, as evidenced by a lack of fiscal and physical resources in BIE-operated and -funded schools, tribal schools, and public schools. As a result, many Native children and youth continue to attend schools where there are few Native teachers and administrators, there is a lack of culturally responsive and relevant curricula and related instructional practices, education programs are underfunded, and facilities are inadequately resourced and maintained. ¹⁵

In recent years, however, state and federal agencies have come together to identify and work to address persistent inequalities in the education of Native students. An example of this collaboration is the federally funded National Indian Education Study, ¹⁶ conducted in conjunction with the National Assessment of Educational Progress. This study provides a unique opportunity for tribes, states, governmental agencies, and others to explore and better understand the ways in which Native languages and cultures are incorporated into the teaching and learning environment. As the members of the Technical Review Panel for the National Indian Education Study point out, "One of the greatest challenges [for educators] is ensuring that Native students are able to perform well academically while maintaining their Native cultures and languages." ¹⁷ In order to meet this challenge, it is imperative that educators, parents, and community members have a sense of how Native languages, cultures, traditions, and funds of knowledge are being incorporated into the teaching and learning process within multiple types of schools. This is critical if we are to ensure that Native children have access to and benefit from culturally relevant teaching and learning practices in school.

Susan C. Faircloth, an enrolled member of the Coharie Tribe, is a professor in and the director of the School of Education at Colorado State University, where her scholarship focuses on the education of Indigenous students. She currently chairs the Technical Review Panel for the National Indian Education Study funded by the Office of Indian Education within the US Department of Education.

*For more information on BIE schools, visit bie.edu/schools. ( return to article)

†For more on the importance of building on students' cultures, see How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. ( return to article)

Endnotes

1. K. Lomawaima and J. Ostler, "Reconsidering Richard Henry Pratt: Cultural Genocide and Native Liberation in an Era of Racial Oppression," Journal of American Indian Education 57, no. 1 (2018): 82.
2. See, for example, Lomawaima and Ostler, "Reconsidering Richard Henry Pratt."
3. Indian Education: A National Tragedy-A National Challenge, 1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, US Senate, Made by Its Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Report No. 91-501 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969).
4. L. Meriam, The Problem of Indian Administration: Report of a Survey Made at the Request of Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and Submitted to Him (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1928), 346.
5. Meriam, The Problem of Indian Administration, 349.
6. National Advisory Council on Indian Education, First Annual Report to the Congress of the United States from the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1974), 92.
7. National Advisory Council on Indian Education, First Annual Report, 92.
8. For additional information on landmark legislation, see J. Tippeconnic, "A Survey: Attitudes Toward the Education of American Indians," Journal of American Indian Education 28, no. 1 (1988).
9. Indian Nations at Risk: An Educational Strategy for Action, Final Report of the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force (Washington, DC: US Department of Education, 1991).
10. National Congress of American Indians, Tribal Nations and the United States: An Introduction (Washington, DC: 2015).
11. US Census Bureau, "Native North American Languages Spoken at Home in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2006-2010," US Department of Commerce, December 2011, www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/acs/acsbr10-10.pdf.
12. National Congress of American Indians, Tribal Leaders Toolkit: Education Choice for Indian Country; Supporting Tribal Decision Making for Schools and Students (Washington, DC: 2018).
13. For more on self-determination, see, for example, S. Cornell and J. Kalt, "American Indian Self-Determination: The Political Economy of a Successful Policy," JOPNA Working Paper No. 1, Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy et al., 2010.
14. US Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education Needs to Improve Oversight of School Spending, GAO-15-121 (Washington, DC: November 2014).
15. National Congress of American Indians, Tribal Leaders Toolkit.
16. For results of the 2015 National Indian Education Study, see National Center for Education Statistics, National Indian Education Study 2015: American Indian and Alaska Native Students at Grades 4 and 8, NCES 2017-161 (Washington, DC: US Department of Education, 2017); and National Center for Education Statistics, National Indian Education Study 2015: A Closer Look, NCES 2019-048 (Washington, DC: US Department of Education, 2019).
17. Technical Review Panel for the National Indian Education Study, National Indian Education Study 2015: Setting the Context (Sault Ste. Marie, MI: Sault Printing Co., 2015), 4.

[photos from top: Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-55423; Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-26783)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Education of American Indian Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The horrific treatment of Native peoples is a stain on our nation's history-and on our present and future. The legacy of oppression, combined with current widespread lack of knowledge about Native peoples, contributes to vast inequities today. Fortunately, where ignorance is core to this problem, excellent teaching is essential to its remedy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bethel School Distric No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) A.D.

# data[].attributes.subject
Bethel School Distric No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) A.D.

# data[].attributes.body
The case has to do with a student who used a sexual reference in his speech in front of 600 high school students to promote his friend for an elective office position. The courts found that it as appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language.

# data[].attributes.body
1985

Two girls were found smoking, and one was know as T.L.O and she would not admit to smoking, so the teacher who found the girls smoking had the principle search T.L.O’s bag only to find that she was selling marijuana.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and Case Summary - New Jersey v. T.L.O.

# data[].attributes.body
21st century AB

Hispanics for the better half of American history weren't really in the picture. As time goes on and we continue to grow in population, education has not been prioritized for Hispanic Americans. They have the lowest percentage of bachelors degrees, however this is starting to fade as more ELL and bilingual programs come into play.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hazel wood school district v. Kuhlmeier - A.L (J.D)

# data[].attributes.subject
Hazel wood school district v. Kuhlmeier - A.L (J.D)

# data[].attributes.body
1988

The court reversed the appellate court, and said that schools do not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools education mission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Decision Date: January 13, 1988

Background

Students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri wrote stories about their peers' experiences with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. When they published the articles in the school-sponsored and funded newspaper The Spectrum, the principal deleted the pages that contained the stories prior to publication without telling the students.

Claiming that the school violated their First Amendment rights, the students took their case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis. The trial court ruled that the school had the authority to remove articles that were written as part of a class.

The students appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed the lower court, finding that the paper was a "public forum" that extended beyond the walls of the school. It decided that school officials could censor the content only under extreme circumstances. The school appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Decision and Reasoning

In a 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's actions did not violate the students' free speech rights. The Court noted that the paper was sponsored by the school and, as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of articles that it deemed inappropriate and that might appear to have the imprimatur of the school.

Specifically, the Court noted that the paper was not intended as a public forum in which everyone could share views; rather, it was a limited forum for journalism students to write articles, subject to school editing, that met the requirements of their Journalism II class.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decision Date: January 13, 1988 Background Students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri wrote stories about their peers' experiences with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce.

# data[].attributes.headline
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (E.G.) (J.D)

# data[].attributes.subject
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (E.G.) (J.D)

# data[].attributes.body
On May 24, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments (1972), school boards are liable for failing to stop student-on-student sexual harassment (Britannica, 2022, p. 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DAVIS, as next friend of LaSHONDA D. v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 97—843. Argued January 12, 1999–Decided May 24, 1999

Petitioner filed suit against respondents, a county school board (Board) and school officials, seeking damages for the sexual harassment of her daughter LaShonda by G. F., a fifth-grade classmate at a public elementary school. Among other things, petitioner alleged that respondents' deliberate indifference to G. F.'s persistent sexual advances toward LaShonda created an intimidating, hostile, offensive, and abusive school environment that violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which, in relevant part, prohibits a student from being "excluded from participation in, be[ing] denied the benefits of, or be[ing] subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). In granting respondents' motion to dismiss, the Federal District Court found that "student-on-student," or peer, harassment provides no ground for a Title IX private cause of action for damages. The en banc Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Held:

1. A private Title IX damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the recipient has actual knowledge, and that harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. Pp. 7—22.

(a) An implied private right of action for money damages exists under Title IX, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, where funding recipients had adequate notice that they could be liable for the conduct at issue, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, but a recipient is liable only for its own misconduct. Here, petitioner attempts to hold the Board liable for its own decision to remain idle in the face of known student-on-student harassment in its schools. The standard set out in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274–that a school district may be liable for damages under Title IX where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of teacher-student sexual harassment–also applies in cases of student-on-student harassment. Initially, in Gebser, this Court expressly rejected the use of agency principles to impute liability to the district for the acts of its teachers. Id., at 283. Additionally, Title IX's regulatory scheme has long provided funding recipients with notice that they may be liable for their failure to respond to non-agents' discriminatory acts. The common law has also put schools on notice that they may be held responsible under state law for failing to protect students from third parties' tortious acts. Of course, the harasser's identity is not irrelevant. Deliberate indifference makes sense as a direct liability theory only where the recipient has the authority to take remedial action, and Title IX's language itself narrowly circumscribes the circumstances giving rise to damages liability under the statute. If a recipient does not engage in harassment directly, it may not be liable for damages unless its deliberate indifference "subject[s]" its students to harassment, i.e., at a minimum, causes students to undergo harassment or makes them liable or vulnerable to it. Moreover, because the harassment must occur "under" "the operations of" a recipient, 20 U.S.C. §§1681(a), 1687, the harassment must take place in a context subject to the school district's control. These factors combine to limit a recipient's damages liability to circumstances wherein the recipient exercises substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs. Where, as here, the misconduct occurs during school hours on school grounds, misconduct is taking place "under" an "operation" of the recipient. In these circumstances, the recipient retains substantial control over the context in which the harassment occurs. More importantly, in this setting, the Board exercises significant control over the harasser, for it has disciplinary authority over its students. At the time of the events here, a publication for school attorneys and administrators indicated that student-on-student harassment could trigger Title IX liability, and subsequent Department of Education policy guidelines provide that such harassment falls within Title IX's scope. Contrary to contentions of respondents and the dissent, school administrators will continue to enjoy the flexibility they require in making disciplinary decisions so long as funding recipients are deemed "deliberately indifferent" to acts of student-on-student harassment only where the recipient's response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. Pp. 8—18.

(b) The requirement that recipients receive adequate notice of Title IX's proscriptions also bears on the proper definition of "discrimination" in a private damages action. Title IX proscribes sexual harassment with sufficient clarity to satisfy Pennhurst's notice requirement and serve as a basis for a damages action. See Gebser, supra, at 281. Having previously held that such harassment is "discrimination" in the school context under Title IX, this Court is constrained to conclude that student-on-student sexual harassment, if sufficiently severe, can likewise rise to the level of "discrimination" actionable under the statute. The statute's other prohibitions help to give content to "discrimination" in this context. The statute not only protects students from discrimination but also shields them from being "excluded from participation in" or "denied the benefits of" a recipient's "education program or activity" on the basis of gender. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). It is not necessary to show an overt, physical deprivation of access to school resources to make out a damages claim for sexual harassment under Title IX, but a plaintiff must show harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities. Cf. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67. Whether gender-oriented conduct is harassment depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 82, including, but not limited to, the harasser's and victim's ages and the number of persons involved. Courts must also bear in mind that schoolchildren may regularly interact in ways that would be unacceptable among adults. Moreover, that the discrimination must occur "under any education program or activity" suggests that the behavior must be serious enough to have the systemic effect of denying the victim equal access to an education program or activity. A single instance of severe one-on-one peer harassment could, in theory, be said to have such a systemic effect, but it is unlikely that Congress would have thought so. The fact that it was a teacher who engaged in harassment in Franklin and Gebser is relevant. Peer harassment is less likely to satisfy the requirements that the misconduct breach Title IX's guarantee of equal access to educational benefits and have a systemic effect on a program or activity. Pp. 19—22.

2. Applying this standard to the facts at issue, the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing petitioner's complaint. This Court cannot say beyond doubt that she can prove no set of facts that would entitle her to relief. She alleges that LaShonda was the victim of repeated acts of harassment by G. F. over a 5-month period, and allegations support the conclusion that his misconduct was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. Moreover, the complaint alleges that multiple victims of G. F.'s misconduct sought an audience with the school principal and that the harassment had a concrete, negative effect on LaShonda's ability to receive an education. The complaint also suggests that petitioner may be able to show both actual knowledge and deliberate indifference on the part of the Board, which made no effort either to investigate or to put an end to the harassment. Pp. 22—23.

120 F.3d 1390, reversed and remanded.

O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v.

# data[].attributes.body
held schools accountable for how kids learned and achieved- started measuring kids by standerdized testing during the Buch administration, lots of teachers were fired for not having the students meet the mark along with it didn't take into consideration lower-income education

# data[].attributes.headline
No Child Left Behind Act (2002) A.D. (N.T)

# data[].attributes.subject
No Child Left Behind Act (2002) A.D. (N.T)

# data[].attributes.body
This ACT has to do with holding schools accountable for how kids learned and achieved. This law was mainly for k-12 general education in the U.S. from 2002-2015. This law was controversial in part because it enclosed schools that did not show improvement. This law, however, is no longer implemented. It was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At a glance

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was the main law for K-12 general education in the United States from 2002-2015.

The law held schools accountable for how kids learned and achieved.

The law was controversial in part because it penalized schools that didn't show improvement.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was in effect from 2002-2015. It updated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The law applied to all K-12 public schools in the United States.

Before NCLB, many schools didn't focus on the progress of disadvantaged students. For example, kids who got special education services were often shut out of general education. They were also left out of state tests.

The goal of NCLB was to provide more education opportunities for students. It focused on four key groups:

Students in poverty

Students of color

Students receiving special education services

Those who speak and understand limited or no English

Unlike previous versions of ESEA, NCLB held schools accountable for how kids learn and achieve. It did this through annual testing, reporting, improvement targets, and penalties for schools. These changes made NCLB controversial, but they also forced schools to focus on disadvantaged kids.

About the author

About the author

Andrew M.I. Lee, JD is an editor and attorney who strives to help people understand complex legal, education, and parenting issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was an education law in effect from 2002-2015. Learn what NCLB covered, like school accountability, and why NCLB was controversial.

# data[].attributes.body
This specific case has to do with school authorities stopping students from expressing views that may be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use. This case goes through how schools do not violate the first amendment when stopping their students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Decision Date: June 25, 2007

Background

Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, held up a banner saying: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during the Olympic Torch Relay through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002. Frederick's attendance at the event was part of a school-supervised activity.

School principal Deborah Morse told Frederick to put away the banner because it could be interpreted as advocating illegal drug activity. When Frederick refused, she took the banner. Frederick was suspended for 10 days for violating a school policy forbidding advocacy for the use of illegal drugs.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in Juneau ruled for the principal, saying that Frederick's action was not protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that Frederick's banner was constitutionally protected. The principal appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case).

Decision and Reasoning

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent school administrators from restricting student expression that reasonably is viewed as promoting the use of illegal drugs. The majority opinion cited Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), in which the Court stated that the anti-Vietnam War armbands that students wore at school were considered political speech that could only be prohibited if it "substantially disrupts" the educational process.

The majority cited two other cases - Bethel v. Fraser (1986) in which the Supreme Court ruled that students do not have a First Amendment right to make provocatively obscene speeches at school; and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) in which the Supreme Court ruled that administrators can restrict student speech in school-sponsored newspapers.

In Morse v. Frederick, the majority acknowledged that the Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events. It found that Frederick message was, by his own admission, not political, as was the case in Tinker. The Court said the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" reasonably could be viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

As such, the state had an "important" if not "compelling" interest in prohibiting/punishing such student speech. The Court held that schools may "take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use" without violating a student's First Amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and Case Summary - Morse v. Frederick

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decision Date: June 25, 2007 Background Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, held up a banner saying: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during the Olympic Torch Relay through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002. Frederick's attendance at the event was part of a school-supervised activity.

# data[].attributes.body
Race to the top refers to a historic moment in American education. It is an initiative that’s offers bold incentives to the states willing to spur systematic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the top has ushered for significant change. This has raised education standards around America in order to acheive a higher level of college readiness and career goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
// Manually activate correct menu tab $(”.blocky-nav div:nth-child(3)”).addClass(“blocky-active”); Race to the Top marks a historic moment in American education. This initiative offers bold incentives to states willing to spur systemic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools.

# data[].attributes.body
2015 AB

Promises opportunities and funding for Native American Students and also working on adding more indigenous language and culture into our public schools.

# data[].attributes.body
FACT SHEET: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces Public and Private Sector Actions to Strengthen Teaching Profession and Help Schools Fill Vacancies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Public and Private Sector Actions to Strengthen Teaching Profession and Help Schools Fill Vacancies - The White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our nation’s teachers prepare and inspire the next generation of leaders that are critical to our future. Yet for years, our education system has faced

# data[].attributes.headline
The Biden Plan for Educators, Students, and our Future - MH

# data[].attributes.subject
The Biden Plan for Educators, Students, and our Future - MH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As president, Joe Biden will provide educators the support and respect they need and deserve and invest in all children from birth, so that regardless of their zip code, parents' income, race, or disability, they are prepared to succeed in tomorrow's economy. He will:

Support our educators by giving them the pay and dignity they deserve.

Invest in resources for our schools so students grow into physically and emotionally healthy adults, and educators can focus on teaching.

Ensure that no child's future is determined by their zip code, parents' income, race, or disability.

Provide every middle and high school student a path to a successful career.

Start investing in our children at birth.

Providing Educators the Support and Respect They Need and Deserve

Educators deserve a partner in the White House. With President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden, they'll get two. Dr. Biden has worked as an educator for more than 30 years. She and Joe understand that, for educators, their profession isn't just what they do; it is who they are.

Educators - teachers, teachers' aides, and everyone who supports our kids at school, from the bus drivers to the secretaries to the school nurses - answer a call to service. They help our children learn and grow into successful adults. For so many young people, knowing they have a teacher and school community believing in and fighting for them can make all the difference.

But while educating is rewarding, it is also challenging. Many educators across the country are experiencing stagnant wages, slashed benefits, growing class sizes, and fewer resources for their students. Too many teachers have to work second jobs to make ends meet for their families. And, far too often, teachers and school personnel have to take on additional responsibilities that go far beyond the classroom. Educators end up spending their own money on school supplies, mentoring and coaching new teachers, trying to fill in as social workers, and so much more. Teachers should be supported with resources and shouldn't have to take on all of these responsibilities on their own.

We have witnessed educators around the country - in states from West Virginia to Arizona to Kentucky - heroically organize walk-outs and other actions to stand up not just for their own wages and benefits, but also for the resources they need to serve their students. Educators shouldn't have to fight so hard for resources and respect.
President Biden will support our educators by giving them the pay and dignity they deserve.

Make sure teachers receive a competitive wage and benefits. In 2018, public school teachers made 21.4 percent less than workers with similar education and experience. And public school teachers' average weekly wage hasn't increased since 1996 . Teachers and school personnel do some of the most important and hardest work, but too often they aren't rewarded. As President, Biden will correct this wrong. Biden will triple funding for Title I, the federal program funding schools with a high percentage of students from low-income families, and require districts to use these funds to offer educators competitive salaries and make other critical investments prior to directing the funds to other purposes. Dramatically increasing Title I funding in order to give teachers a raise will allow school districts and educators to decide what the biggest need is for their communities instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach. And, it will ensure that states which have been treating their teachers fairly but still have unmet needs for Title I schools can benefit from these funds.

Invest in teacher mentoring, leadership, and additional education. We need more opportunities for highly effective teachers to remain in the classroom and advance in their careers. The Biden Administration will help school districts create opportunities for teachers to lead beyond the classroom. Teachers will be able to serve as mentors and coaches to other teachers and as leaders of professional learning communities, and will be compensated for that additional work they take on. These funds will also be used to help teachers who choose to earn an additional certification in a high-demand area - like special education or bilingual education - while they are still teaching do so without accumulating debt.

Help teachers and other educators pay off their student loans. Teachers shouldn't have to worry about how they are going to make their student loan payments while they are busy educating the next generation. Biden will see to it that the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program is fixed, simplified, and actually helps teachers.

President Biden will invest in resources for our schools so students grow into physically and emotionally healthy adults, and educators can focus on teaching.

Double the number of psychologists, counselors, nurses, social workers, and other health professionals in our schools so our kids get the mental health care they need. One in five children in the U.S. experience mental health problems. Yet, too many of our children are not getting the mental health care they need from a trained professional. We need mental health professionals in our schools to help provide quality mental health care, but we don't have nearly enough. The current school psychologist to student ratio in this country is roughly 1,400 to 1, while experts say it should be at most 700 to 1. That's a gap of about 35,000 to 60,000 school psychologists. Teachers too often end up having to fill the gap, taking away from their time focusing on teaching. President Biden will make an unprecedented investment in school mental health professionals in order to double the number of psychologists, counselors, nurses, social workers, and other health professionals employed in our schools, and partner with colleges to expand the pipeline of these professionals.

Bring needed support for students and parents into our public schools. When parents are working hard to make ends meet, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for them to navigate various family needs like after-school care, health and social services, and adult education courses. When students are habitually sick because they don't have access to preventive care, or can't see the board at the front of the room because they haven't been to the eye doctor, learning becomes exponentially more difficult. But in many neighborhoods, educators, parents, and community members have come up with a solution: community schools. Community schools work with families, students, teachers and community organizations to identify families' unmet needs and then develop a plan to leverage community resources to address these needs in the school building, turning schools into community hubs. Biden will expand this model, providing this wraparound support for an additional 300,000 students and their families.

Make sure teachers and students can work and learn in safe and healthy environments. Public school facilities received a grade of D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers . In fact, each year the U.S. underfunds school infrastructure by , resulting in thousands of schools that are outdated, unsafe, unfit, and - in some cases - making kids and educators sick. President Biden will include in federal infrastructure legislation funding specifically for improving public school buildings. First and foremost, these funds will be used to address health risks. Additional funds will be used to build cutting-edge, energy-efficient, innovative schools with technology and labs to prepare our students for the jobs of the future.

Defeat the National Rifle Association - again - in order to make our schools safer. Parents shouldn't have to worry about whether their kids will come home from school, and students shouldn't have to sacrifice themselves for their friends days before graduation. We cannot let gun violence become an acceptable part of American life. Biden knows that arming teachers isn't the answer; instead, we need rational gun laws. As President, he will secure passage of gun legislation to make our students safer, and he knows he can do it because he's defeated the National Rifle Association twice before. He'll begin by again championing legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines - bans he authored in 1994 - and require universal background checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands. And, he'll invest in healing the trauma that impacts survivors of gun violence and their communities. Read Biden's full plan to end our gun violence epidemic at joebiden.com/gunsafety/.

Investing in All Children from Birth, so That Regardless of Their Zip Code, Parents' Income, Race, or Disability, They Are Prepared to Succeed in Tomorrow's Economy

As Dr. Biden says, any country that out-educates us will out-compete us. In order to maintain our competitiveness, our current system of kindergarten through 12th grade education is essential but no longer sufficient. Roughly 6 out of 10 jobs in the United States require education beyond a high school diploma. And, too many parents don't have access to the resources and support they need to support and ensure their children are developing healthily. As a result, there's an achievement gap in this country before our children even enter kindergarten.

As President, Biden will build an education system that starts investing in our children at birth and helps every student get some education beyond a high school diploma, whether a certification, associate's degree, or bachelor's degree. Systemic racism is persistent across our institutions today - including in our schools - and must be addressed. President Biden will make sure that no child's education opportunity is determined by their zip code, parents' income, race, or disability.
President Biden will ensure that no child's future is determined by their zip code, parents' income, race, or disability.

Invest in our schools to eliminate the funding gap between white and non-white districts, and rich and poor districts. There's an estimated annual funding gap between white and non-white school districts today, and gaps persist between high- and low-income districts as well. Biden will work to close this gap by nearly tripling Title I funding, which goes to schools serving a high number of children from low-income families. This new funding will first be used to ensure teachers at Title I schools are paid competitively, three- and four-year-olds have access to pre-school, and districts provide access to rigorous coursework across all their schools, not just a few. Once these conditions are met, districts will have the flexibility to use these funds to meet other local priorities. States without a sufficient and equitable finance system will be required to match a share of federal funds.

Research shows us the substantial and unique impact that teachers of color have on students of color. For example, for black students, having Improve teacher diversity. just one black teacher in elementary school reduces the probability of dropping out. Biden will support more innovative approaches to recruiting teachers of color, including supporting high school students in accessing dual-enrollment classes that give them an edge in teacher preparation programs, helping paraprofessionals work towards their teaching certificate, and working with historically black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions to recruit and prepare teachers.

Build the best, most innovative schools in the country in low-income communities and communities of color. Preparing our students for the workforce increasingly entails not only rigorous academics, but also problem-solving, collaboration, and technical skills. Biden will create a new competitive program challenging local communities to reinvent high school to meet these changing demands of work. This funding will be targeted first toward building the best schools in the country in low-income communities and communities of color.

Reinstate the Obama-Biden Administration's actions to diversify our schools. As President, Biden will reinstate Department of Education guidance that supported schools in legally pursuing desegregation strategies and recognized institutions of higher education's interests in creating diverse student bodies. And, he will provide grants to school districts to create plans and implement strategies to diversify their schools.

Make sure children with disabilities have the support to succeed. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, signed into law in 1990, promised to provide 40% of the extra cost of special education required by the bill. Currently, the federal government only covers roughly 14% of this cost, failing to live up to our commitment. The Biden Administration will fully fund this obligation within ten years. We must ensure that children with disabilities get the education and training they need to succeed.

President Biden will provide every middle and high school student a path to a successful career.

Ensure middle and high schools prepare students for good jobs. Students who participate in high-quality career and technical education are more likely to graduate, earn industry credentials, enroll in college, and have higher rates of employment and higher earnings. Like the arts and music, vocational training can often engage students in school, encourage pride for creativity and making, and teach entrepreneurial skills. Yet, American high schools have largely given up on "shop classes" in order to meet measures of accountability. The Biden Administration will invest in school vocational training and partnerships between high schools, community colleges, and employers. These partnerships will create programs that allow students to earn an industry credential upon high school graduation, a credential that readies them for a good-paying career. Career and technical education can also be used to increase access to middle- and high- school courses in computer science so that students learn computational thinking and are prepared to lead in fields such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence.

Create more opportunities for high school students to take practical classes that lead to credentials. Biden will invest in and allow Pell grants to be used for dual enrollment programs, so high school students can take classes at a community college and earn college credits or a credential prior to graduating from high school.

President Biden will start investing in our children at birth.

Provide high-quality, universal pre-kindergarten for all three- and four -year-olds. For families with young children, finding highly quality pre-K is a major financial, logistical, and emotional burden, with potentially life-long consequences for their children. As President, Biden will work with states to offer pre-K for all three- and four-year-olds. This investment will ease the burden on our families, help close the achievement gap, promote the labor participation of parents who want to work, and lift our critical early childhood education workforce out of poverty.

Provide early childhood development support to families where they are most likely to access it - the pediatrician's office. For many families with young children, the pediatrician's office is the one place where they interact with service providers before their child enters school. President Biden will provide funds to ensure that there is an early childhood development expert in every community health center. He will also provide grants to help cities place early childhood development experts in other pediatrician offices with a high percentage of Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program patients. These experts, as part of the primary care team, will help identify whether children are reaching development milestones, help connect families to additional services like home visiting when needed, and answer parents' questions regarding child development so every child in the U.S. is placed on the path to succeed once they start kindergarten.

Expand home visiting. Through the Affordable Care Act, President Obama and Vice President Biden funded voluntary home visiting programs, under which health and child development specialists make consistent, scheduled visits to help parents through the critical early stage of parenting. Families may receive coaching on preventive health and prenatal practices, learn how to care for their babies and about important child development milestones and behaviors, receive breastfeeding support, get connected to employment and child care, and receive general support in navigating the often-stressful early stages of parenthood. Home visiting has been found to improve school readiness, maternal, and child health, and reduce child maltreatment. President Biden will double funding for home visiting so more families benefit from this program every year.

Sound good to you? Join our campaign or make a donation to show your support!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plan for Educators, Students, and our Future | Joe Biden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As president, Joe Biden will provide educators the support and respect they need and deserve and invest in all children from birth, so that regardless of their zip code, parents' income, race, or disability, they are prepared to succeed in tomorrow's economy. He will: Support our educators by giving them the pay and dignity they deserve.

# data[].attributes.headline
Secondary Education Today- How does it look differently than early America

# data[].attributes.subject
Secondary Education Today- How does it look differently than early America