U.S. Supreme Court Asks Biden Administration for Input on Charter School Dress Code Case

January 9, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Biden administration to provide their view on whether a charter school in North Carolina violated the rights of female students by requiring girls to wear skirts. The charter school, Charter Day School, is located in Leland, North Carolina and is operated by a private educational management company. The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal by the school of a lower court's ruling that found the dress code to be in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Details of the Case

Charter Day School, which serves students from kindergarten to eighth grade, has implemented a dress code that emphasizes "traditional values" and is meant to "preserve chivalry" and ensure that girls are treated "courteously and more gently than boys." The founder of the school, businessman Baker Mitchell, views chivalry as "a code of conduct" in which women are "regarded as a fragile vessel that men are supposed to take care of and honor." The plaintiffs in the case argue that the dress code not only violated the 14th Amendment, but also subjected them to discrimination and the denial of the full benefits of their education in violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Reactions to the Case

The Supreme Court's decision to seek the solicitor general's input on the case rather than rejecting the appeal has been viewed as a "positive sign" by the school's lawyers, who argue that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Charter Day School because it is a private entity and not a "state actor" like a public school. However, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school was a "state actor" because North Carolina delegated its duty to provide free, universal education to the school. The ACLU's Women's Rights Project has stated that "girls at Charter Day School have the same constitutional rights as their peers at other public schools - including the freedom to wear pants."

Implications of the Case

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the charter school movement, as the school's lawyers argue that the lower court's ruling poses an "existential threat" to the expansion of alternatives for parents who want their children to receive public education through charter schools. The case also raises questions about the balance between the rights of students and the autonomy of charter schools, which are publicly funded but operated separately from school boards run by local governments.

impact on the delivery of special education services

If charter schools were determined to be not state actors, it could potentially impact the delivery of special education services in a few ways:

1. Funding: Traditional public schools receive funding from the state and federal government for the education of students with special needs. If charter schools are not considered state actors, they may not be eligible for this funding, which could impact their ability to provide special education services.

2. Regulation: Traditional public schools are subject to state and federal regulations regarding the education of students with special needs, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). If charter schools are not considered state actors, they may not be required to follow these regulations, which could impact the quality and consistency of special education services provided.

3. Parental rights: Parents of students with special needs who attend traditional public schools have certain rights under IDEA, including the right to participate in the development of their child's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and to appeal decisions related to their child's education. If charter schools are not considered state actors, it is unclear whether these rights would apply to parents of students with special needs who attend charter schools.

It's worth noting that these potential impacts are purely speculative at this point, as the determination of whether charter schools are state actors has not yet been made in this case.

Key Takeaways:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Biden administration for their views on whether a charter school in North Carolina violated the rights of female students by requiring girls to wear skirts.

2. The charter school, Charter Day School, emphasizes "traditional values" and has implemented a dress code that is meant to "preserve chivalry" and ensure that girls are treated "courteously and more gently than boys."

3. The Supreme Court's decision to seek the solicitor general's input on the case rather than rejecting the appeal has been viewed as a "positive sign" that the court views the case as important and worthy of further review.

4. The case raises questions about the balance between the rights of students and the autonomy of charter schools, which are publicly funded but operated separately from school boards run by local governments.

5. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the charter school movement and the legal rights of students attending charter schools, including the rights of students with special needs.

EducationLawyers.com
888-959-5529

Are you looking to take legal action against a school? EducationLawyers.com can provide the representation you need. Our experienced team, led by attorney Joseph Montgomery, has a strong background in education law and a dedication to protecting the rights of students and their families. With decades of combined experience in the field of education law, we are skilled in handling education-related cases and have a track record of achieving positive results for clients. From negotiations to litigation, we have the knowledge and resources to support you and fight for the best possible outcome. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help you take on your school.