School Fees, Health Services, and Distribution of Condoms (School Laws Cases and Concepts pp ) Nicola Moxey MED 6490 January 26,2010

School Fees Nagy v.Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation Supreme Court of Indiana, N.E.2d 481 Does a $20 mandatory student services fee imposed on students enrolled in a school corporation violate Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution?

Facts In , EVSC charged parents a $20 student services fee on all students K-12. EVSC claims it was imposed in an attempt to balance school budget which was in major deficit. A letter was sent home informing parents of non- payment action = matter will be sent to a law firm for collections and possible $100 attorney fees. Two families, Nagy and Brackett refused payment and claimed the charge was in violation of the Indiana Constitutuion.

Decision The Court of Appeals held that the $20 fee violates Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution because it is used to pay for what amounts as tuition. The Indiana Constitution states “tuition shall be without charge”. The framers set a uniform statewide system of public schools that would be supported by taxation. EVSC insisted the fee was deposited into a general fund and used for things such as media specialists, counselors, music and drama programs, and athletic programs….Which are all already determined to be part of a public education and qualify for public funding.

Health Services Berg v. Glen Cove City School District United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, F. Supp. 651 Plaintiffs filed complaint on November 9, 1993 seeking: 1) declaratory judgment, they are entitled to exemption from immunizations for religious beliefs; 2) a permanent injunction preventing defendant from violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and 3) for damages in the amount of $1 million for violating their constitutional rights

Facts April 1993, the Berg’s sought to enroll their twin daughters in the school district and requested exemption from the immunization requirement. Parents claimed they were members of the Jewish faith and their lifestyle followed the Laws of God…NO IMMUNIZATIONS. The court needed to determine whether the Berg’s were following the bona fide belief’s of a recognized religious organization whom opposed immunizations or whether they held genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to immunization practices….BOTH WHICH CONSTITUTE EXEMPTION!

Decision The defendant’s offered testimony regarding Judaism thus showing that the Jewish religion did not oppose immunizations. The Berg’s argued that they interpreted the scripture differently and understood some of the tenets to oppose immunization. They had followed these beliefs for some time and sincerely and genuinely followed them. The court ruled on their sincere and genuine beliefs and granted them the exemption

Distribution of Condoms Mostly in urban areas, school authorities have tried to deal with the high teenage pregnancy rate and to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by distributing condoms. Parents oppose arguing that the distribution of condom promotes sexual permissiveness and encourages sexual relations

Curtis v. School Committee of Falmouth, 652 N.E.2d 580 (Mass 1995) The condom-availability program was upheld allowing junior high school students to request free condoms from the school nurse. Counseling/pamphlets were provided, if requested, on sexually transmitted diseases. The program did not provide for an “opt-out” option for parents to deny access or give permission. The court ruled that the program did not violate parental rights stating “parents have no right to tailor public school programs to meet their individual religious or moral preference”.

Parents United for Better Schools, Inc. v. School District of Philadelphia, 148 F.3d 260 (3 rd Cir. 1998) A condom-distribution program which included an “opt- out” option for parents was challenged in this case by parents. Parents stated their 14 th amendment to bring up their children without governmental interference was violated. The Courts upheld the program and stated that because the program did not demand student participation and gave parents the option to exclude their children from receiving condoms…THE PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD NOT BEEN VIOLATED!