Can You Teach Us? | Blue Cereal Education

Can You Teach Us? | Blue Cereal Education

Can You Teach Us?

Public education has been overlooking – or worse, neglecting – a golden opportunity to improve. It’s not only been right in front of us all along, it’s been kicking us and taking our lunch money! And yet, somehow, where we should have recognized an opportunity, all we’ve seen is a competitor. In some cases, maybe even a threat.  

It’s like we don’t actually WANT to teach gooder. I assume this is largely due to the various teachers’ unions and Hillary Clinton’s personal email server.  

We’ve been told for several decades now that “school choice,” vouchers, educational “savings” accounts, etc., are essential for students to have access to a truly quality education, and that a little healthy competition will make us all better. I, for one, have been guilty of pushing back against this rhetoric. I’ve even been so cynical as to suggest ulterior motives by many of those involved (for which I assure you I now have all sorts of lingering guilt). But as Indiana dramatically expands their various “choice” initiatives and other red states do the same, I believe it’s time to change our approach.  

It’s time to seek the guidance of the masters. It's time to admit our own shortcomings and failures and learn from those who’ve accomplished so much. It’s not selling out, CONTINUE READING: Can You Teach Us? | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Four: Oh No I've Said Too Much... | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Four: Oh No I've Said Too Much... | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Four: Oh No I've Said Too Much...

I’ve been posting some of my rough drafts for a book I hope will be out this summer, tentatively titled “Have To” History: It Followed Her To School One Day… and with a subtitle longer than several of the actual chapters in my effort to clarify what it’s about right there on the cover while still being saucy. What started off as a one-pager for the case of Flast v. Cohen (1968) became a rambling summary of “standing” issues in church-state cases related to public education, which I’ve been sharing here as it develops.

Flast was and is still important, as is the handling of “standing” over the past century in these “wall of education” cases. I will, however, definitely be breaking down this information differently than what you’re seeing here. This is driven by (a) my belief in clarity and easy reference, and (b) a burning desire to sell more than four copies.

In the meantime, here’s the rest of my initial mess and then it’s time to move on. You know what they say: nothing Flast forever.

Yeah, that’s not going in the book either…

In case you’re just now joining the party, you might as well start with Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.

“School Choice” and Taxpayer Standing

The numerous “school choice” cases best typified by Zelman v. Simmons-Harris CONTINUE READING: Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Four: Oh No I've Said Too Much... | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Three: Consider This The Hint Of The Century | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Three: Consider This The Hint Of The Century | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Three: Consider This The Hint Of The Century

Recap of Part One:

The Supreme Court explained in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) that simply being a taxpayer didn’t give one the right to protest government actions – even potentially unconstitutional ones – in the courts. There were simply too many “what ifs” between the individual taxpayer sending in their $20 and any one specific expenditure.

In the 1960s, the Court began framing the Establishment Clause as something fundamentally different than the other protections in the Bill of Rights. As a result, arguments that this particular clause was being violated were sometimes handled with a different set of rules than other types of claims.

Recap of Part Two:

In Flast v. Cohen (1968), a group of taxpayers objected to the use of public funds to provide secular textbooks for sectarian schools. With any other issue, being taxpayers wouldn’t be sufficient to establish standing. When it came to Establishment Clause issues, however… maybe it kinda was?

The Supreme Court determined that there was nothing in the Constitution barring federal taxpayers from challenging taxing and spending they believed to be unconstitutional when they could demonstrate their fundamental constitutional rights were being violated in the process. In practice, this turned out to apply only when the Establishment Clause was involved. Establishment violations can also occur for non-taxpayers based on “unwanted exposure” to government-promoted religious messages.

The “Lemon Test” informally established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) set up a three-part checklist for determining whether or not a government action was constitutional: it must have a valid, secular legislative purpose, it’s principal effect can neither inhibit nor advance religion, and it must not create an “excessive government entanglement” CONTINUE READING: Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part Three: Consider This The Hint Of The Century | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) – Part Two: That’s Me In The Courtroom | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) – Part Two: That’s Me In The Courtroom | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) – Part Two: That’s Me In The Courtroom

Recap of Part One:

The Supreme Court explained in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) that simply being a taxpayer didn’t give one the right to protest government actions – even potentially unconstitutional ones – in the courts. There were simply too many “what ifs” between the individual taxpayer sending in their $20 and any one specific expenditure.

Nevertheless, plaintiffs – at least in Establishment cases – tended to reference the fact that they were taxpayers in their complaints against government actions over the next several decades, even if they were also parents of students being impacted. It was rarely the focus on the Court’s decisions, but it kinda kept coming up.

In the 1960s, the Court began framing the Establishment Clause as something fundamentally different than the other protections in the Bill of Rights. As a result, arguments that this particular clause was being violated might have to operate according to a slightly different set of rules than the rest.

Finally, in 1968, the Court did its best to explain exactly what that might look like, at CONTINUE READING: Flast v. Cohen (1968) – Part Two: That’s Me In The Courtroom | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part One: Stand in the Place Where You Sue (Think About Jurisdiction Wonder If You're Injured Now) | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part One: Stand in the Place Where You Sue (Think About Jurisdiction Wonder If You're Injured Now) | Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part One: Stand in the Place Where You Sue (Think About Jurisdiction Wonder If You're Injured Now)

Three Big Things:

1. To bring a case before any court, one must first establish “standing.” Typically this means proving specific individual harm resulting from the actions of another and demonstrating that the offending party has the power to change whatever’s causing the harm.

2. Being a taxpayer is rarely sufficient to prove standing in the courts to complain about how one’s tax dollars are being used, even if that use is clearly unconstitutional.

3. When it comes to violations of the Establishment Clause, however, unwanted exposure to the offense is often sufficient to show standing in the eyes of the law because, well… Establishment isn’t like anything else.

Standing Before the Court

During the same session which determined in Board of Education v. Allen that states could provide textbooks to public and private schools alike without violating the Establishment Clause, even if many of those private school students were attending religious institutions, the Court announced in Flast v. Cohen that taxpayers had the right to oppose their tax dollars being used to do just that.  

This was sort of news. It was also sort of confusing.

The case began when Florence Flast and other New York taxpayers objected to federal legislation which provided funds for the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious private schools. They argued that CONTINUE READING: Flast v. Cohen (1968) - Part One: Stand in the Place Where You Sue (Think About Jurisdiction Wonder If You're Injured Now) | Blue Cereal Education

What's In A Blaine? | Blue Cereal Education

What's In A Blaine? | Blue Cereal Education

What's In A Blaine?

I've written about the Blaine Amendment before in the context of Oklahoma GOP shenanigans a few years back. This time around, I'm looking to go a bit 'bigger picture' and give it a brief chapter in "It Followed Her To School One Day," which might actually be finished before summer. Below is the first draft of that chapter.

The final product will be tighter (this one's too long) and less ranty-ravee about things.While I'm not going for detached and boring in the book, I will shoot for something a bit more balanced and accessible to the average reader. This is not an ethical decision so much as capitalistic lust. I mean, let's be honest - conservative dollars spend the same as liberal dollars, and they have WAY more of them, so no sense alientating them right out of the gate. Keep it subtle, so they can be offended and horrified after it's too late to return it.

Here with you, however, my Eleven Faithful Followers, I can share my unfiltered wisdom with spices and color intact. 

What's In A Blaine?

While it was not always mentioned by name, several major decisions of the Court in the early 21st century very much involved the history and potential future of the “Blaine Amendment.” Blaine is a general label applied to various provisions in 37 different state CONTINUE READING: What's In A Blaine? | Blue Cereal Education

One Nation Mumbles God (Is the Pledge Constitutional?) | Blue Cereal Education

One Nation Mumbles God (Is the Pledge Constitutional?) | Blue Cereal Education

One Nation Mumbles God (Is the Pledge Constitutional?)

You've probably heard that I'm working on a follow-up to "Have To" History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases because I mention it every chance I get and won't talk about anything else so why aren't more of you buying my book do you hate truth and America? Along the way, I'm posting rough drafts and ramblings that may or may not make it into the final version (working title: "It Followed Her To School One Day...")

The following is a case that started off as a one-page insert but keeps trying to grow beyond its word count. We'll see how that goes.

Worth A Look: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by a series of rules under which we have avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon us for decision... Always we must balance the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction...  against the deeply rooted commitment not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary...

Consistent with these principles... {a} plaintiff must show that the CONTINUE READING: One Nation Mumbles God (Is the Pledge Constitutional?) | Blue Cereal Education

To Sleep, Perchance To Sue... | Blue Cereal Education

To Sleep, Perchance To Sue... | Blue Cereal Education

To Sleep, Perchance To Sue...

I'm working on a follow-up to "Have To" History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases which focuses on cases related to church-state issues in education. Unlike this blog, the book is intended to be a relatively neutral resource, focused on breaking down cases into plain, simple English with a little historical context and references to related cases rather than a parade of snark and hyperbole designed to throw blue meat to the liberal masses.

I mean, I'm keeping a pithy comment here and there just to give it some color, but I'm hoping for something damn near professional by the time it's done. As I get to cases decided in this century, however, things get increasingly poignant and at times potentially pungent. Many of the justices writing these opinions are still on the bench, and it becomes increasingly difficult to frame the issues as foundational for current jurisprudence – because they ARE current jurisprudence.

This particular case involves the hiring and firing of private school teachers in religious schools. What I'm currently wrestling with is an apparent contradiction between how CONTINUE READING: To Sleep, Perchance To Sue... | Blue Cereal Education

Worth A Look: Locke v. Davey (2004) - from "It Followed Her To School One Day..." | Blue Cereal Education

Worth A Look: Locke v. Davey (2004) - from "It Followed Her To School One Day..." | Blue Cereal Education

Worth A Look: Locke v. Davey (2004) - from "It Followed Her To School One Day..."

The following is a first draft of one of the mini-chapters from an upcoming book covering the major "wall of separation" cases related to public education over the past century. The working title is "Have To" History: It Followed Her To School One Day...

We'll see how it actually turns out.

Worth A Look: Locke v. Davey (2004)

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two Clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, are frequently in tension… Yet we have long said that “there is room for play in the joints” between them (Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 1970). In other words, there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause.

This case involves that “play in the joints” described above… {T}here is no doubt that the State could, consistent with the Federal Constitution, permit Promise Scholars to pursue a degree in devotional theology… The question before us, however, is whether Washington, pursuant to its CONTINUE READING: Worth A Look: Locke v. Davey (2004) - from "It Followed Her To School One Day..." | Blue Cereal Education

Worth A Look: Arizona Christian STO v. Winn (2011) - from "It Followed Her To School One Day..." | Blue Cereal Education - http://bluecerealeducation.com/node/1079

I'm Not Sure I Want My Students To Succeed | Blue Cereal Education

I'm Not Sure I Want My Students To Succeed | Blue Cereal Education

I'm Not Sure I Want My Students To Succeed

I’m not sure I want my students to succeed.

How’s that for an attention-grabber? Now I'll skillfully jump back and lay the foundation for such an outrageous claim and hope it’s enough to keep you reading until we reach it again further on.

Four-Point Scale or Back Hoe?

The question of how to grade, what to grade, or even IF to grade isn’t exactly new in the world of public education. Sometimes it’s set by building or district policy (although enforcement is problematic at best). Other times it’s at least discussed within departments. By and large, however, it’s something no two teachers seem to do quite the same.

Many of the differences are cosmetic. Categories or total points? Are quizzes worth 10% or are they worth way more points than daily work and the math ends up with pretty much the same results? Other differences are philosophical. Completion or accuracy? Effort or quality? Improvement or achievement?

Things quickly get messy. If I grade entirely on objective standards, the kid who rarely shows up and never participates but has a great memory might pull a solid ‘B’ in my CONTINUE READING: I'm Not Sure I Want My Students To Succeed | Blue Cereal Education

Lessons From Pandemic Teaching | Blue Cereal Education

Lessons From Pandemic Teaching | Blue Cereal Education

Lessons From Pandemic Teaching

We’ll soon hit a full year of trying to figure out how public education works (or doesn’t) during a pandemic. Some of the experience gained may be specific to 2020 – the social and political dynamics of which have not been even remotely encouraging (see what I did there?). I’d respectfully suggest, however, that many of the “lessons” learned along the way apply to most forms of remote, virtual, or online “education,” whatever the surrounding climate.

I’ve numbered them in order to make my observations seem more carefully weighed and thoughtfully considered. Seriously, doesn’t even the illusion of someone having a coherent plan and consistent ideology seem insanely comforting these days?

#5: States and Some Districts Are REALLY Committed to Testing and Pointless Paperwork

One of the most crippling aspects of long-distance learning is what it does to our ability to “connect” with students, individually or en masse. The thing most of us signed on for – that idealistic, touch-lives-and-help-kids stuff – has been reduced to the point of near-extinction. What remains strong, however, is the bureaucracy and nonsense we’d mostly learned to tolerate. It’s always been annoying, but it’s traditionally been overshadowed by the meaningful bits.

Not this year.

Many districts are plowing ahead with “virtual PD” and hoping that if they simply CONTINUE READING: Lessons From Pandemic Teaching | Blue Cereal Education

"Have To" History Preview: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) | Blue Cereal Education

"Have To" History Preview: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) | Blue Cereal Education

"Have To" History Preview: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)

I've been posting rough drafts from what I hope will be an upcoming book focused on Supreme Court cases related to church-state separation in public education. Some aren't cases likely to get full treatment in the book but of interest to me personally, so I ramble about them here. Others – like this one – don't require extended analysis or my trademark pithy insights, but still deserve a mention. (The final version of this one will probably be shaved by about a third to keep things readable and leave a few trees in the forests.)

Good News Club v. Milford (2001) was one of a string of "equal access" cases in which the basic issue was the use of school faciltiies outside of normal hours. Arguably the two most important cases on this topic were Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) and Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993). In both, the lead attorney for those seeking equal access for religious groups on the same terms as others was none other than Jay Sekulow, the right-wing talk show host, big dog at the ACLJ, and favored defender of President Donald Trump. (He was not involved in THIS particular case as far as I know, but he certainly helped lay the groundwork for the arguments supporting the winning side.)

I'm not a big fan of Sekulow, generally speaking, but he was effective before the Supreme Court. It didn't hurt that he was on the right side in both of these particular CONTINUE READING: "Have To" History Preview: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Three | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Three | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Three

I’m discovering as I continue to draft a follow-up to “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases that it’s more and more difficult to keep things succinct as subject matter nears the 21st century. I’m sharing a few rough drafts along the way partly in hopes a few of you, my Eleven Faithful Followers, might find them interesting, and partly because nothing highlights the problems in a text like posting it live for all the world to see.

Some version of this Talmudic Tale will likely be in the upcoming book. Chances are good, however, that the final results will be considerably more succinct.

Recap of Parts One & Two:  Kiryas Joel was (and is) a community of particularly insular Hasidic Jews (the Satmars) in New York. Most of their children attended private religious schools, but they asked the state for assistance providing care and education for their special needs children. Initial efforts to serve these particular children rand into conflict with recent Supreme Court rulings which struck down several public school efforts to serve high needs kids in religious institutions. New York responded by allowing the Satmars to create their own neighborhood and later a publicly funded neighborhood school tailored to their precise boundaries. The Supreme Court struck CONTINUE READING: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Three | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Two | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Two | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Two

I’m discovering as I continue to draft a follow-up to “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases that it’s more and more difficult to keep things succinct as subject matter nears the 21st century. I’m sharing a few rough drafts along the way partly in hopes a few of you, my Eleven Faithful Followers, might find them interesting, and partly because nothing highlights the problems in a text like posting it live for all the world to see.

Some version of this Talmudic Tale will likely be in the upcoming book. Chances are good, however, that the final results will be considerably more succinct – which is both necessary and a tiny bit sad.

Recap of Part One:  Kiryas Joel was (and is) a community of particularly insular Hasidic Jews (the Satmars) in New York. Most of their children attended private religious schools, but they asked the state for assistance providing care and education for their special needs children. Initial efforts to serve these particular children ran into conflict with recent Supreme Court rulings which struck down several public school efforts to serve high needs kids in religious institutions. New York responded by allowing the Satmars to create their own neighborhood and later a publicly funded neighborhood school tailored to their precise boundaries.  

As a practical matter, it certainly solved the problem. Constitutionally, on the other hand...

Larkin v. Grendel’s Den (1982)

Just a decade before, the Supreme Court had ruled on a case having absolutely nothing to do with religious enclaves or public education, but which would nevertheless complicate the lives of the Satmars just as things were looking up for their special- CONTINUE READING: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part Two | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part One | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part One | Blue Cereal Education

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part One

I’m discovering as I continue to draft a follow-up to “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases that it’s more and more difficult to keep things succinct as subject matter nears the 21st century. There’s so much relevant context for each case and potential applications are far more immediate… it’s difficult at times to know what’s essential and what’s not. 

I’m sharing a few rough drafts along the way partly in hopes a few of you, my Eleven Faithful Followers, might find them interesting, and partly because nothing highlights the problems in a text like posting it live for all the world to see. Some version of this material will likely be in the upcoming book. Chances are good, however, that the final results will be considerably more succinct – which is both necessary and a tiny bit sad. 

Three Big Things:

1. In an effort to accommodate a particularly insular community of Hasidic Jews (the Satmars), the State of New York created a neighborhood and later a publicly funded neighborhood school tailored to their precise boundaries. Most children attended CONTINUE READING: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Part One | Blue Cereal Education

When Jesus Needs A Visitor's Badge: Church-State Issues In Public Education | Blue Cereal Education

When Jesus Needs A Visitor's Badge: Church-State Issues In Public Education | Blue Cereal Education

When Jesus Needs A Visitor's Badge: Church-State Issues In Public Education

A “Hall of Separation”

That’s a horrible title and I wish I could stop thinking it’s not.

As you probably know, given that it’s pretty much all I talk about these days, I’ve been researching Supreme Court cases involving issues of church-state separation in relation to public education. My hope is to have something ready before the entire system collapses and any benefit one may derive from it is no longer relevant.

Given the state of the 2020 elections as I post this, I’m probably way too late.

Nevertheless, I’ve been wrong before. Democracy may cough and bleed its way through another generation or so in some form, in which case I may sell as many as eleven copies of this lil’ liber sui generis. A few people may even find it helpful, enlightening – or at least mildly diverting.

Who am I kidding with all the humility? So far, it’s bloody brilliant and everyone will want seven copies just to show off.

In the meantime, I thought I’d share three of the books I’ve been reading as I continue researching my own. While the cases I’m including aren’t exactly obscure or difficult to document (most reached the Supreme Court, after all), the issues involved are often less universal than most “landmark” cases. Plus, as the subject suggests, most involve religion on some level. That means that while my trademark wit and brilliance will no CONTINUE READING: When Jesus Needs A Visitor's Badge: Church-State Issues In Public Education | Blue Cereal Education