What are the legal boundaries of a parent&#39;s right to direct their children&#39;s education in terms of a private school or homeschooling curriculum? All states in the US have some form of compulsory education law with allowances for private schools and homeschooling for children roughly between the ages of 5 and 17. There are some existing exemptions from compulsory education for special situations, but let's set aside those exemptions and assume we're talking about a child without special physical, mental, religious or geographical considerations when it comes to education. In many states the curriculum for the non-public education must cover a number of specific topics, like language arts, math, history etc. Sometimes the law requires the schooling offer an &quot;equivalent&quot; education to the public school education. How comprehensive and/or specific can the government's dictates be with regard to specific topics? For example, some states have banned teaching certain concepts like &quot;That the United States of America and the state of Iowa are fundamentally or systemically racist or sexist. Currently, the law only applies to &quot;governmental agencies and entities, school districts, and public postsecondary educational institutions&quot;, but what if the state refused to recognize a parent's proposed curriculum as equivalent or failed to certify them as a home school teacher because they knew a parent was going to teach the banned concepts? What prevents a state from requiring certain topics that some parents might object to on non-religious grounds? Can the state insist on a particular version of history for example? If the state requires that the curriculum include teaching that &quot;Jimmy Carter was widely regarded as the handsomest US president.&quot; do parents that believe that is not true have any recourse? I realize that state law varies widely on how a parent can go about homeschooling their child, and I'm not trying to express an opinion on what children should or should not be taught. I'm interested in how far the government can go with compulsory education to ensure that its populace receives an education that is reality-based (we don't have winter because Persephone is in the underworld), and what safeguards are in place to prevent the government from using public education to teach things in its own self-interest like &quot;only bad people need a lawyer when being questioned by the police&quot;.
The state has wide discretion on what to require that a school teach to children, particularly in the K-12 grade range. There is little case law where a parent or private school has challenged such requirements. However, for a state to forbid that certain things be taught would probably run into a first amendment problem, because the school has free speech rights. In addition, if the school is a religious one, forbidding teaching its dogmas and views might also impact the free exercise clause. Note that a state need not permit homeschooling at all, and some states do not. When a state requires that a school teach something that it disagrees with, it can often follow a line such as &quot;Many people think X {Standard state supported concept} but we believe Y instead. Then it has taught X, but not endorsed it. Some religious schools have handles the teaching of evolution in this sort of way. If a state mandated teaching matters of opinion as fact, such as &quot;CARTER WAS THE MOST HANDSOME president EVER&quot; there might well be a challenge, and I am not at all sure how it would be resolved.
This question mixes up two separate although related issues: Does a student have a first amendment right to perform &quot;sacred&quot; music during school time? Is a public school allowed to include such in its curriculum, or does the First Amendment's Establishment Clause forbid that? The answer hinted at in the question applies only to issue 2, while the title of the question goes to issue 1. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) held that school officials may not compose an official prayer, and mandate or encourage its recitation. (mandatory recitation would probably have been prohibited by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) much earlier.) The ruling of Engel v. Vitale, would also have applied to sung prayers. Later rulings, consistent with Engle prohibited &quot;one minute for prayer or meditation&quot; ( Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)), clergy-led prayer at middle school graduation ceremonies (Lee v. Weisman (1992)), and school-organized student-led prayer at high school football games (Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)). But none of these prohibited religious music as part of an instructional music program that was not a form of worship. All the above cases prohibited school-organized prayers intended as prayer or worship. As to issue #1, it is settled that students have the right to pray privately, in ways that do not disrupt school activities. It is hard to see how performing religious music could be done privately and non-disruptively. Neither students nor their parents have a right to insist that certain topics be included in the school curriculum. The students have a right to pray, but not to insist that the school organize prayers or include religious music in its music program.
Ultimately the answer (in the US) is the US Constitution. The courts pretty much have the unlimited power to interpret the law, and the limits on power mainly pertain to what the state can do. The length of the leash on the government depends on what kind of rights are at stake. The weakest and default limit is known as "rational basis", and comes down to asking whether a government action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest (such as stopping terrorist attacks) plus whether there was due process and equal protection. There are more rigorous standards (intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny) in case a law involves a "suspect classification", or in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed. In the case of strict scrutiny, the government would have to show that it had a compelling interest in the action, the law would have to be "narrowly tailored" (i.e. does that thing and only that thing), and should be the least restrictive way to achieve that result. Roe v. Wade is probably the best-know example of that kind of review, which held that abortion laws "violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy". A court would not order a party to do an impossible act. A court could order a party to do something which the party had argued was impossible, but you can interpret a court's decision to indicate that it rejected the argument. The defendant would not shoulder the burden of proving that the action was impossible, though they would have to counter the government's argument that the act could be performed if they believe it is not possible. (In the Apple case, the argument would probably be some Apple-internal document that says "Yeah, we can do it, but do we want to?"). There is probably an expense-related limit in that the courts would not order Apple to liquidate all of their assets to comply. But: if a case were to end up at the Supreme Court, the court is stricken with mass insanity and arbitrarily orders a defendant to do the impossible, there is only the option of impeachment and Senate trial to remove the offending justices, and that is just not going to happen. There is no higher authority that overturns SCOTUS.
Parents have very wide latitude to make their children do what they are told, especially when the action is mandated by law. Vaccinations for school children are mandatory, and that could include covid vaccinations. A child is not eligible for an exemption on their own (only the parent can request a non-medical exemption). Force can be used on the child to get them to comply with a mandatory vaccination, per RCW 9A.16.100. It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. However, that does not mean that the shot-provider is willing to tie the child down on parental say-so, so it is reasonably likely that a court order would be necessary. If the child has been legally emancipated, they are the ones who would have to consent to a vaccination, so their parents can't make them get shots.
Students too have freedom of information and expression. The school has no right to interfere with the student's activities outside of school. But is this activity outside of school? If the newspaper is created as part of a student council or a school-supported project group, supervision by a teacher might be appropriate. If the newspaper wants to distribute copies on school grounds, it will need the school's consent. If the name of the newspaper suggests an affiliation with the school, this could affect the reputation of the school which could lead to legal problems down the line (e.g. claims of defamation). Private schools are likely allowed to impose more restrictive rules. While there are legitimate reasons why the school would have to be (or wants to be) involved, it is ultimately not possible for a headmaster to restrict the student's freedoms. There is no legal basis for installing a censor. But a newspaper by students is not necessarily a “student newspaper”. Of course, any newspaper will have to comply with applicable press laws. Ultimately, the exact rules depend on press law and education law in that particular state. Bavaria provides a good online summary of the rules in that state, and Wikipedia summarizes the situation across a few states. Note that some press laws might require the senior editor to have a certain age if there isn't a special privilege for student newspapers.
Clause (c) says that while schools cannot generally restrict otherwise legal expressions by students, a school run by a religious organization can restrict such speech in terms of its tenets. It then becomes a matter of fact to be proven in court that the church has a particular tenet. So if you are asking whether it is correct that the religion exception is narrowly limited to contradictions of the religion's tenets, that is correct.
Yes. It is legal. Curriculum requirements are policy decisions of an institution, not binding contracts with students. It might be ill advised policy, but it is not prohibited.
A school district has been sued for something like that. In Church of God, Etc. v. Amarillo Indep. Sch., 511 F. Supp. 613, plaintiffs successfully sued the school district "to enjoin the enforcement of the Amarillo School District's absence policy which limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays to two days each school year", where "A fundamental tenet of the Church of God is that members must abstain from secular activity on seven annual holy days". The school district imposed an absence polity where "School work missed may be made up whether an absence is excused or unexcused", and "Excused absences shall be granted to students for a maximum of 2 days for religious holidays in each school year". The court concluded that "This policy poses an unquestionable burden on the Plaintiffs' religious belief", and "This burden is not ameliorated by the make-up work provision. The provision does not require a teacher to evaluate the work made up. It in fact directs the teacher to enter a zero for that work". In this case "Summary judgment is granted and judgment rendered enjoining the enforcement of the Amarillo Independent School District's excused absence policy insofar as it limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays". This is not a matter of religious discrimination, this is a First Amendment issue. The policy is in violation of the Free Exercise clause. Eliminating spring break per se is not a problem: doing so and providing no excused absences is the problem. In the above case, there was clear a religious principle of the church to the effect that one must be off the clock on the holiday. As far as I know, there is no requirement to abstain from work or school on Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday or Good Friday. Nevertheless, in recognition of New Jersey state law which allows any student to take off a religious holiday – including Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday, and dozens more – the Board of Education has prepared a list of such holidays, which includes Wiccan, Hindu, Baha'i, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Church of Scientology (and so on) religious holidays.