Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary

Litigation: Challenging the Compulsory Education Act that was adopted by Oregon’s citizen initiative process at the general election of November 7, 1922. The Act mandated every parent to send their children ages 8 through 16 to a public school (with few exceptions); failure to comply was a misdemeanor. The Act was adopted by a vote of 115,506 to 103,685 (53% in favor, 47% opposed).

Outcomes: After the Pierce v. Society of Sisters ruling, parents could be compelled to educate their children at home or in a school, but they could not be compelled to send their children to public schools. Prior to this ruling, in the 19th century and early 20th century, there was a national common school and compulsory education movement. In 1852, Massachusetts was the first state to adopt a compulsory education law. This first law was adopted, in part, to protect children from child labor as the nation’s second phase of industrial revolution was emerging. However, as a strong surge of Catholic immigrants educated their children in parochial schools, nativist fervor arose to confront those schools. In the 1920s, this nativism was fueled by the Ku Klux Klan, which actively opposed Catholics and Jews, including their schools. Founded in 1865, by the 1920s, the KKK had more than 4 million members nationwide and in many places, wielded powerful political influence. Oregon boasted the largest KKK chapter west of the Mississippi, where the Klan is credited with the election of Walter Pierce as governor in 1923. There was an interest by the Klan, nativists and others in the common school and compulsory education movements to establish a uniform system of public education, compulsory for all children, for the purpose of instilling a government-led standard American belief system, imbued with Protestant teachings and values. Immigrants with different values and religious beliefs presented a challenge to public schools that considered the teaching of Protestant beliefs to be non-sectarian.

Why it Matters: This was perhaps the first, and most definitive, challenge to so-called uniformity of education. This case also brings attention to the foundational principles supporting uniformity in education – a desire by some to standardize children in a manner preferred by the government leaders and culture of the day. Prioritizing a system of education over the educational needs of children creates dissension and is a grave disservice to children who ask little more than a chance to learn.

Effects: Opponents of school choice routinely include uniformity arguments in litigation challenging the constitutionality of school choice programs. These arguments are routinely dismissed by courts, with the notable exception of the Florida Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Holmes, a ruling widely criticized. Although it eliminated Florida’s first voucher, it has had no effect on Florida’s current voucher, education savings accounts, and tax credit scholarship programs.