This week we are looking at Circuit Court decisions that involve a clash between parent rights and the school’s duty to serve all students. Today’s case deals with parents of a homeschooled child who wanted to attend a few classes at the public school.
What Happened? Annie Swanson attended home school until 7th grade when her parents asked if she could take a few classes in the public middle school. The superintendent agreed to this for the final nine weeks of the school year. This worked well. Annie was a good student and there were no problems with serving her as a part-timer. It’s understandable that the parents would expect this arrangement to continue the next year when Annie was in 8th grade. But the district hired a new superintendent and he nixed the arrangement. The matter then went to the school board. The board turned down Annie’s request by adopting a policy that required all students to attend full time. There were two exceptions: fifth year seniors, and students with an IEP that required a shorter day. Annie’s parents lawyered up and brought the matter back to the school board. The board stuck to its guns but added an explanation: “In the event the State Department of Education advises us that part-time students can be counted for state aid purposes, the Board will reconsider this policy.”
What Did the Court Do? The Circuit Court held that the school’s policy did not infringe on the parents’ rights to direct their child’s upbringing, or on the free exercise of religion. The court characterized the school policy as neutral and of general applicability. When governmental entities adopt policies that are “neutral and of general applicability” they do not have to show a “compelling interest” to justify the policy, even when it creates something of a burden on the exercise of religion. Annie’s parents home schooled her for religious reasons, and so the inability to attend public school parttime burdened them to a degree. But the court pointed out that the policy “applies to students who are homeschooled for secular reasons as well as those home-schooled for religious reasons, and it applies to students attending private schools whether or not those private schools are religious or secular in nature.”
What Can We Learn? The board was wise to offer the explanation for its policy. If board members had expressed hostility toward home schoolers, the court might have taken that into account. Instead the board wisely cited financial reasons for its decision. If the state would pay for students to attend parttime, the board promised to reconsider the policy. But as long as the student generated no state revenue, the school would not serve the student. That’s a “neutral and generally applicable” policy that anyone can understand.
This one is Swanson v. Guthrie ISD, decided by the 10th Circuit on January 29, 1998. It’s cited at 135 F.3d 694.
DAWG BONE: NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ATTEND SCHOOL PARTTIME WHEN THE STATE PROVIDES NO $$$ FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE.
Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.
Tomorrow: the 1st Circuit weighs in…