The 14th Amendment Protects the Right to a Public Education
While the U.S. Constitution does not expressly mention education — and the United States Supreme Court has not interpreted it to require the federal government to provide or fund education services — the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has had a significant effect on protecting public education rights.
How Does the 14th Amendment Affect Education?
The 14th Amendment protects public education rights through its Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. These clauses prohibit states from denying equal protection of the laws and from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Other constitutional rights (like freedom of speech) also apply to states and public schools through incorporation under the 14th Amendment.
Clauses That Affect Public Education
Equal Protection Clause: What It Is and Why It Matters
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It also applies to local governments and public schools because they are state actors. In 1954, the Supreme Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause’s requirements in Brown v. Board of Education. In perhaps one of the most famous and important cases issued by the Court, it stated:
“We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs … are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
Brown v. Board of Education Impact
The Court’s decision had a dramatic impact on public education. Schools were required to end the discriminatory practice of segregating students based on race. All public schools in all states that had segregated students were required to desegregate or face claims that they violated the 14th Amendment. Years of desegregation efforts in public schools followed along with numerous court decisions regarding the constitutionality of those desegregation efforts.
Over time, the focus evolved from ending and remedying the vestiges of discriminatory practices to integration efforts that sought to promote the diversity of student populations in public schools. In some instances, schools that had not segregated students in the past voluntarily undertook these efforts. These integration efforts continue to this day, and the predominant legal issues revolve around the extent to which schools can use race as a factor in assigning students to schools to diversify the student body.
The language and logic of the Brown v. Board of Education decision also influenced other types of equal protection claims and landmark education cases. For example, in the mid-1970s, students with disabilities challenged their exclusion from public school on equal protection grounds. Two influential lower court decisions, PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, relied on Brown v. Board of Education and determined that public schools could not exclude students with disabilities because of their disabilities.
Those court decisions led to a federal statute that imposed similar requirements on all public schools that accepted certain federal funds. That law became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which applies to all public schools today. The law requires public schools to provide all students with disabilities with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). It also prohibits schools from expelling or suspending students with disabilities for longer than 10 days when the student’s disability was the cause of their actions.
Similarly, in Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that “a Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not legally admitted into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court stated that while education was not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, it referred to language in Brown v. Board of Education that stated that education was “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” As a result, the Court in Plyler v. Doe said that states could not “deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders” — unless it furthered some substantial state interest, which the state did not have in the case.
Due Process Clause and Its Impact on Schools
Due process is another area of the 14th Amendment that has affected public education rights. The Due Process Clause says states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to have substantive and procedural protections.
With substantive due process, the 14th Amendment protects a parent’s right to direct the educational upbringing of their child. Because of this right, the Supreme Court ruled that a state statute that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages and a state statute that required all students to attend public schools (as opposed to private schools) violated the 14th Amendment. See Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters.
The Court also ruled that a state statute requiring Amish children to attend school past the eighth grade violated the substantive due process rights and the religious freedom rights of Amish parents to direct their children's educational and religious upbringing. See Wisconsin v. Yoder.
Because of these substantive due process protections, all states currently have exceptions in their compulsory attendance statutes that require students of certain ages to attend school. The exceptions allow students to attend private schools, religious schools, or home schools to meet the compulsory attendance requirements.
The procedural due process protections of the 14th Amendment have played an important role in student rights in public education. For example, in the context of student discipline, the Supreme Court has ruled that students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right” (see Goss v. Lopez). As a result, public schools may not deprive students of that right without providing them with due process protections, which generally include notice of the alleged student violation and the opportunity for the student to be heard.
The required amount of notice and opportunity to be heard increases as the severity of the discipline increases. With minor disciplinary actions, an informal discussion with the principal may be sufficient to meet the requirements. More severe discipline, such as expulsion, generally requires a more detailed hearing to provide the student a chance to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. As a result of these constitutional due process protections, all states have enacted statutes and regulations that provide due process protections for students during the discipline process.
A similar due process right applies to tenured public elementary and secondary school teachers. Once a teacher meets tenure requirements, they generally have a property interest in their continued employment. The school must generally provide notice and a hearing before terminating their employment. See Perry v. Sindermann.
Incorporation
Other constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, apply to students at public schools under the 14th Amendment through a concept known as incorporation.
In the area of free speech, the Supreme Court has said that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (see Tinker v. Des Moines). While courts do give some deference to school administrators in making decisions about student speech, the First Amendment requires school administrators to justify their decisions when they infringe on a student’s free speech rights. The level of justification needed depends on the nature of the speech and the nature of the restriction.
For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines, students protested the Vietnam War by wearing armbands, and the school disciplined the students for doing so. The Supreme Court ruled that the discipline violated the First Amendment because the school could not show that the speech could reasonably be expected to cause a substantial disruption to school activities or impinge on the rights of others. By contrast, in Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court deferred to a school administrator’s judgment that a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” promoted drug use and upheld the discipline of the students who displayed the sign at a school event.
These are just a few examples of how the 14th Amendment protects the right to a public education. Many of these issues arise regularly in public schools. The 14th Amendment provides constitutional protections that schools must consider when addressing them.
The Role of State Authority in Education: 10th Amendment Explained
In addition to the discussion of the 14th Amendment and its role in protecting public education rights, it's also important to recognize the role of state authority in education. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves “powers not given to the federal government” to the states or the people. These reserved powers include education. State constitutions provide states with the authority to enact laws regarding education, and some state constitutions require the state to provide students with an adequate education. All fifty states have laws requiring state and local governments to provide public education services to students of certain ages.
Stay in the Know With Purdue Global Law School
Keep up with current legal news and developments in California, Connecticut, Indiana, and the rest of the nation with Purdue Global Law School.
Purdue Global Law School offers full-time and part-time online Juris Doctor programs. Graduates of the JD program are academically eligible to sit for the California or Connecticut bar or, with an approved petition, the Indiana bar. If you wish to advance your legal education but do not intend to become a practicing attorney, you may consider an online Executive Juris Doctor.
Single law courses, including Education Law and Constitutional Law, are also available to help you explore a particular area of law without committing to a full degree program. Request more information today to learn more.