Emily Stone
Danielle Gouch

United States Supreme Court
Argued March 30, 1988 Decided June 24, 1988

Summary: Sarita Kadrmas, with her mother brought suit against the Dickinson Public Schools, due to an attempt on the school’s behalf, to collect fees. The fees were a new policy for bus services for students attending non-reorganized schools. The argument was based in the Equal Protection Clause. If this type of action is allowed, we most certainly are creating a division between the classes by not affording the same opportunities to all who need it.
Decision/ Rationale: The court found that the Kadrmas’ failed to prove that the distinction made by the 1979 statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that this was a “purely economical legislation” which "must be upheld unless it is patently arbitrary and fails to bear a rational relationship to any legitimate government purpose."
Impact on Education: Mrs. Kadrmas had to find an alternate means of transportation for her daughter when she could not afford the ninety-seven dollars a year that the school district had begun charging. In this case, the child was ultimately able to attend school after her parents jumped through a few extra hoops. However, with situations like this, that may not always be the outcome. First and foremost, how can a teacher teach a student who is not in the classroom, sitting at her desk, and ready to learn? The teacher has the burden of reaching the students in the most profound way possible and to help them reach their full capability. Administrators must be aware of issues such as these because short of driving around and picking up our students every morning before school, this type of situation is completely out of the teachers’ hands.

Quiz question: T/F Did the Kadrmas family save money by transporting their child instead of using the bus service?