Compulsory Schooling and Socialization: Case Law

Compulsory school attendance laws vary by state, but essentially require children to attend public school or receive an acceptable educational alternative. Controversy over compulsory schooling stems largely from tension between parental rights and the interest of the state. State governments have used compulsory attendance laws to promote a variety of social welfare efforts, and generally the courts have upheld the rights of the state in mandating education over challenges based on religious or personal freedoms. Scholarship in the field of curriculum studies has focused not only on the historical evolution of compulsory schooling case law, but also on the impact of social agendas on the curriculum. As mandatory school attendance laws evolved over the 20th century, curriculum scholars point to fundamental shifts in what was taught and who was taught in public schools. Forced school attendance has played a critical role in accelerating broader social change. Child labor reform, public health programs, and the civil rights movement were dramatically affected by compulsory schooling legislation. Although mandatory attendance laws date back to the mid-19th century, it was not until the end of the 19th century that both child labor laws and compulsory school attendance laws started to gain significant momentum across the country. Child labor abuses, a changing economy, and massive immigration all served as the backdrop for more state regulation over the treatment and education of children.

Resistance against mandatory school laws was strongest in the South where the inevitable reduction in cheap labor that children provided was seen as a threat to the economy. Early child labor laws were in place throughout the country by 1912, but in many states, a work week of up to 60 hours was allowed for children as young as 12 years old. It was not until the end of the World War I that the last state (Mississippi) had enacted school attendance laws, and it was the two forms of legislation in concert with each other that dramatically changed the work life of children in the United States.

Mandatory schooling played a critical role in promoting the melting pot inculcation of U.S. culture, civics, and language. Explicit nationalism based elements of school curricula gained broad support after World War I. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925), a case that limited the power of the state's compulsory attendance laws, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the power of the state to require good moral character of teachers and a patriotic disposition. Civic virtues and English language education were deeply embedded in public school curriculum. For example, in 1919 the state of Nebraska passed a law that barred any teacher, in a private or public school, from teaching subjects in any language other than English. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), and later Court opinions limited the ability of the state to homogenize learning opportunities for children.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that certain personal liberties can be sublimated to promote the general welfare and common health of a community. State-mandated health education programs, regular school-based checkups for hearing [Page 137]and vision, lice checks, laws compelling teachers to serve as mandatory reporters of child abuse and maltreatment, and vaccine requirements are all examples of ways the state has worked through public schools to promote health initiatives. Vaccination requirements are of particular note in case law because they are a requirement for public school attendance. Courts have consistently supported state-mandated vaccination programs and the right of school districts to deny school admission to children who are not immunized. Even in the face of an established and documented religion's objections, courts have ruled that religious beliefs do not exempt children from legislation that reasonably protects public health. When students are not allowed to enroll in public school because of a refusal to be immunized, the responsibility then falls to the parent to provide an equivalent alternative education for their child.

...