Combs v. Homer Center School Dist.
| Decision Date | 25 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05CV0070 (ERIE).,No. 04CV1599.,No. 04CV1932.,No. 04CV1670.,No. 04CV1936.,No. 05CV203.,04CV1599.,04CV1936.,04CV1932.,05CV0070 (ERIE).,04CV1670.,05CV203. |
| Citation | 468 F.Supp.2d 738 |
| Parties | Mr. Darrell COMBS, and Mrs. Kathleen Combs,. Plaintiffs, v. HOMER CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, and Joseph F. Marcoline, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Homer-City School District, Defendants. Dr. Thomas Prevish and Timari Prevish, Plaintiff, v. Norwin School District, and Richard Watson, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Norwin School District, Defendants. Dr. Mark Newborn, and Mrs. Mary Alice Newborn, Plaintiffs, v. Franklin Regional School District, and Stephen Vak, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Franklin Regional School District, Defendants. Mr. Thomas Hankin, and Mrs. Babette Hankin, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol Township School District, and Regina Cesario, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Bristol Township School District, Defendants. Mr. Douglas Nelson and Mrs. Shari Nelson, Plaintiffs, v. Titusville Area School District, and John D. Reagle, in his official capacity as Acting Superintendent of Titusville Area School District, Defendant. Rev. Steven Weber and Mrs. Meg Weber, Plaintiffs, v. Dubois Area School District, and Sharon Kirk, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Dubois Area School District, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Darren A. Jones, James R. Mason, III, Michael P. Farris, Purcellville, VA, Richard Winkler, Butcher & Winkler, Titusville, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Carl P. Beard, Patrick J. Fanelli, Andrews & Beard, Altoona, PA, Gregory C. Melucci, Maiello, Brungo & Maiello, Pittsburgh, PA, Patricia K. Smith, Knox, McLaughlin, Gornall & Sennett, Erie, PA, Paul N. Lalley, Levin Legal Group, Huntingdon Valley, PA, Christina L. Lane, Andrews & Price, Pittsburgh, PA, Lawrence White, Virginia L. Montgomery, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's education system, enacted by its General Assembly (as opposed to the Pennsylvania Department of Education ("PDE") or local school boards or administrators), permits parents and guardians to satisfy Pennsylvania's compulsory education laws through "home education programs," subject to minimum days of attendance and hours of instruction in certain specific courses (e.g., language, geography, literature, history) and review by the respective school districts of logs and educational materials compiled by the supervisors of the home education programs for compliance with the required courses and minimum days, and hours of instruction, but not of educational content, textbooks, curriculum or instructional materials.
Parents who home school their children based on their sincerely held religious beliefs have sued their respective school districts and superintendents in several state and federal courts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaratory judgment and equitable relief from the enforcement of Pennsylvania's Compulsory Attendance Law through, truancy prosecutions on the grounds that Pennsylvania's statute permitting "home education pro grams" violates the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act, the Free Exercise, Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and several aspects of the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, both "on its face" and "as applied."
On December 8, 2005, this Court entered an opinion and order (Document No. 84) denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs (parents who home school their children for religious reasons) addressed to their "facial" constitutional and statutory challenges to Defendant school districts' various home schooling programs implementing Pennsylvania's Home Schooling Act, Act 169, but left open the possibility that Plaintiffs "may be able to demonstrate that, as applied in practice, one or more of the Defendant school districts or superintendents applies Act 169 in such a way as to restrict or infringe upon their religious practice or exercise." Combs v. Homer Center Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 3338885, at *29 (W.D.Pa.2005).
At the next status conference, on January 4, 2006, Plaintiffs could not identify any significant factual disputes regarding their "as applied" challenges to Act 169, but were not prepared, however, to concede that there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining regarding their "as applied" challenges. Accordingly, the Court directed a second round of summary judgment motions and briefs, with Defendant school districts as the movants, addressed to the parents' remaining "as applied" challenges to the various home schooling programs. Defendants have filed their consolidated motion for summary judgment and concise statement of material facts (Documents Nos. 100, 101), Plaintiffs filed their response and memorandum of law in opposition thereto (Documents Nos. 103, 104), and Defendants have filed their reply brief (Document No. 108). The matter is now ripe for disposition. This memorandum opinion will set forth the Court's reasoning and disposition of both the "facial" and the "as applied" challenges to Act 169.
Resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment requires careful consideration and balancing of often competing personal, societal and governmental interests—the rights of parents and guardians to direct the education and upbringing of their children and the constitutional and statutory obligation of the Commonwealth to provide for and ensure the adequate education of its children citizens—and constitutional principles that are basic to our Nation's concept of ordered liberty and democracy.
An educated citizenry has been recognized as critical to the success and wellbeing of the Nation and its people from the time of its creation. Founding fathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, William Penn, championed the view that the government has an overarching responsibility to create and to regulate a system of public education.
In his farewell address in 1796, America's first president, George Washington, addressed the issue of public education provided by the government. 1 John Adams agreed that the government was obligated to educate its citizens. In 1780, Adams engrafted that principle into the Massachusetts' Constitution, which stated: "[I]t shall be the duty of the legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of the Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of . . . public school and grammar schools in the towns."2
And, serving in Virginia's state legislature, Thomas Jefferson proposed legislation in the fall of 1778 to create a public school system in Virginia. Jefferson titled this measure A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge.3 "For Thomas Jefferson, public education was the key to preserving republican government."4 Jefferson believed every citizen should have access to public education because the "most effectual means of preventing [public corruption] would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large." 5
The Massachusetts Bay Colony was the first American colony to pass a compulsory education law. In 1642, Massachusetts required parents to see that their children received an education, and five years later, the legislature passed a law which established. public schools in some towns, and provided for the appointment of teachers and collection of taxes to pay for the education of children.6 Connecticut was the next colony to pass a public school law in 1650, requiring all "masters of families" to educate their children and servants.7
Before any of these notables had placed their imprimaturs on public education as a foundation of good government and a robust Nation, William Penn had advocated for a system of public schools in Pennsylvania,8 as did other prominent leaders of the Commonwealth.9 In 1681, Penn was granted the colony by the King of England. He drafted a Frame of Government for the new Commonwealth, which included a provision for public education, stating: 10
At Penn's urging, in 1682 the First General Assembly of Pennsylvania created the "Great Law" which included a provision for the creation of schools across Pennsylvania.11 Then, at the Second General Assembly in 1683, stronger public school legislation was passed under Penn's leadership. In Chapter CXII, this legislation stated:
And to the end that poor as well as rich man be instructed in good and commendable learning, which is to be preferred before wealth, Be it enacted, . . . [t]hat all persons in this Province and Territories thereof, having children, and all the guardians and trustees of orphans, shall cause such to be instructed in reading and writing . . ., and that then they be taught some useful trade or skill, that the poor may work to live, and the rich if they become poor may not want: of which every County court shall take care. And in case such parents, guardian, or overseers shall be found deficient in this respect, every such parent, guardian, or overseer shall pay for ever such child, five pounds, except there should appear an incapacity in body or understanding to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JONATHAN L v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County
...subd. (A)(4); Vt. Stat. Ann., tit. 16, § 166b, subd. (d); Va.Code Ann., § 22.1-254.1, subd. (C); Combs v. Homer Center School Dist. (W.D.Pa.2006) 468 F.Supp.2d 738, 745-746, 778 (upholding such a requirement against a constitutional challenge). 39 E.g., Ark.Code Ann., § 6-15-504; Colo.Rev.S......
-
Combs v. Homer-Center School Dist.
...that (1) Parents failed to prove a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion, as defined by RFPA, Combs v. Homer Ctr. Sch. Dist., 468 F.Supp.2d 738, 771 (W.D.Pa.2006), and (2) Act 169 is a neutral law of general applicability, satisfying rational basis review,5 id. at 777. As a ......
-
Brown v. City of Pittsburgh
...the Ordinance. See e.g., Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries Ltd. Pshp., 126 F.3d 178, 188 (3d Cir.1997); Combs v. Homer Ctr. Sch. Dist, 468 F.Supp.2d 738, 767-68 (W.D.Pa.2006); R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. United States. Fid. & Guar. Co., 319 F.Supp.2d 554, 561 (W.D.Pa.2004). The Pennsylvania "r......
-
Com. v. Parente
...action has some de minimis, tangential or incidental impact or is at odds with their religious beliefs. Combs v. Homer Center School District, 468 F.Supp.2d 738, 771 (W.D.Pa.2006) (emphasis in In the instant case, Parente testified at trial regarding the religious purpose underlying his act......