14th Amendment In Schools

Chapter three does a good job pointing out that compulsory attendance laws served as an impetus for challenging schools over both their segregationist and exclusionary policies toward students of differing race and ability (Yell, 2016, p. 36). At the time our government was sending a very ambiguous message to students and their families. On one hand, the law of the land dictated that students must attend school, conversely schools continued to exclude students with disabilities. This inherent contradiction let to parent advocacy groups challenging schools for the fair and equal treatment of their children.

The fourteenth amendment states…”nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Mount, 2010, sec. 14th amendment).

Gathercoal (2001) reminds school leaders that the Supreme Court has upheld schools may limit an individual’s right to an education if they violate one of four underlying responsibilities. Students right to an education can be limited if they willfully cause property loss or damage. They must follow rules which have a legitimate educational purpose. Students rights can also be limited if they pose a health and safety risk to themselves or others. Finally students may not cause a serious disruption to the educational process.

It is imperative that school administrators understand the underlying argument of property rights in relation to student’s school attendance. The school administrator represents the government, and as such must provide equal protection to all students to take advantage of this right. They also must understand the relevance of taking away an individual’s right without due process of the law, which is particularly relevant to suspensions and