Underwood is the Susan Engeleiter Professor of Education Law, Policy and Practice, and the former dean of the School of Education.
In this column, she begins by examining the implied balance of federal and state power over curriculum. Underwood notes that the state has the authority to impose limits and obligations on local school districts and parents, but the federal government creates some parameters in which states can do so.
She mentions cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters (U.S. 1925), in which the U.S. Supreme Court found a state law requiring parents to send their children to public rather than private schools to be unconstitutional.
Underwood also delves into the tumultuous area of parental and individual challenges to school districts’ authority. She explains that, so long as the school district is acting within given parameters, children are subject to its reasonable rules and requirements.
For example, Underwood cites cases like State ex rel. Andrew v. Webber (Ind. 1886), which upheld a requirement that students attend music classes over parental objections, and Leebaert v. Harrington (second circuit, 2003), which upheld a requirement of health and family life education classes over a parent’s claim that it was contrary to his right to raise his child as he saw fit.
Underwood closes by noting that although this balancing act can be tricky, the broad parameters are clear: the federal constitution has primacy, while each state has the authority to create and control school districts and define their standards and curriculum.
Read the entire Under the Law column here.