|
Question:
Each year I get a note from my children’s school with a
list of supplies that I am supposed to purchase. This year on this
list are: five pencils, one big pink eraser, one set of Crayola
colored pencils (12 pack or larger), one Elmer’s Glue Stick, on
Fiscar’s brand “student scissors”, a pencil box for the pencils, one
spiral notebook (wide rule), two pocket folders, one box of Kleenex,
one backpack with no wheels, and finally, three boxes of flashcards;
one each for addition, subtraction, and multiplication. I don't
understand why I am required to buy all these items when I already pay
taxes?
Answer: Back in 1970 the Michigan
Supreme Court addressed this exact issue in a case arising out of Ann
Arbor titled
Bond v. Public
Schools of Ann Arbor School Dist...
If someone is interested in reading it, it is available on
www.findlaw.com with the citation number - 383
Mich. 693, 178 N.W.2d 484).
In that
case, the Court was confronted with what was the then common practice
of requiring students (really – their parents) to purchase all their
text books and supplies. When confronted with the Ann Arbor Public
Schools implementation of their version of this practice, the trial
court and then the Court of Appeals had held that there was nothing
unconstitutional about this their policy. However, when the Michigan
Supreme Court addressed the issue it applied two sections of the
Michigan Constitution in reached the conclusion that the policy was
unconstitutional. It did so by analyzing the citizen’s intent when
they included the word 'free' in
Article 8, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 which
states: The legislature shall maintain and support a system of
free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law.
The Court also analyzed Article 11, Section 9 which provided in
pertinent part: The legislature shall continue a system of primary
schools, whereby every school district in the state shall provide for
the education of its pupils without charge for tuition. . . .
In overturning
the lower courts, the Michigan Supreme Court held that these
Constitutional provisions requires a school district to furnish, free
of charge, those things which are either necessary elements of any
school's activity or an integral fundamental part of elementary and
secondary education.
While that decision appears to have
resolved the issue of textbooks, as there is rarely any argument that
textbooks are “essential” or “fundamental” to a child’s education, it
appears not to have resolved the issue as to school supplies. The
court’s failure to clearly address the “supplies issues” in its
Bond decision appears to be creating a new controversy with the
funding crisis schools are currently facing. From what clients tell
me it is more and more common that schools are requiring parent’s to
purchase a growing list of school supplies; supplies that can cost a
parent over $100 per child.
When confronted by parents who either
won’t or cannot afford to provide what has been required, it is my
understanding that some school district’s interpretation of the
Bond decision is to provide the student one pencil per semester
and some blank sheets of paper as that is all a student needs.
Frankly, as I have not had reason to research this issue, I do not
know if this interpretation comes about from a Michigan Department of
Education policy, from the interpretation of the law from one of the
major law firms that regularly advise schools or from an opinion of
the Michigan Attorney General.
In your situation from the facts you
provided, it appears that your child’s classroom teacher has
determined that the parents of all the students in his or her
classroom “must provide” this extensive list of supplies. It could be
argued that in creating that list and requiring the parent to provide
each items on the list (vs. making it a “suggested list”), that the
local school district (by allowing the teacher to act as she or he
has) has by definition already made the determination that these items
are all a “necessary element” or an “integral fundamental part” of the
child’s education? If so, then the argument would be that they should
be provided “free” as required by the Michigan Constitution, as
interpreted by our Supreme Court in Bond.
As a related issue, I also know from my
time as an elected school board member involved in rewriting our
school district’s policy manual, that any requirement for a parent to
pay any fee (“pay for play”, instruments, supplies, etc.) should also
have a way to address how to address the situation when a parent
claims they cannot afford the fee or just refuses to pay the fee.
If
this is an issue you want to pursue, I would suggest you first contact
the Central Office to see if your school district has a written policy
regarding required supply purchases. I would then review that policy
with the teacher who created the list and the building
administrator/principal. If you are still unsatisfied, I would
recommend bringing the issue to the attention of your Superintendent
and/or your elected school board during the “Call to the Public”
session which is part of every regular board meeting. If that fails,
you may want to consult with one of the public advocacy agencies like
the ACLU or with private legal counsel.
John Brower, JD
Education Law Center, PLLC · 810-227-9850
·
www.michedlawcenter.com
Copyrighted Material - All Rights
Reserved - May Not Be Reproduced Without Written Permission |
